Early Christian Scripture and the Samaritan Pentateuch: A Study in Hexaplaric Manuscript Activity 311076069X, 9783110760699

Table of contents :
Contents
Acknowledgements
List of Abbreviations and Glossary
List of Plates
1 Prolegomena
2 The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus: Passages with Attribution and Collation Notations
3 The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers: Passages with Attribution and Collation Notations
4 The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy: Passages with Attribution and Collation Notations
5 Later Hexaplaric Transmission: The Witness to and Implications of μόνον-Integration
6 The Origin of the μόνον-Collation: An Historical Reconstruction and its Implications for Early Christian Studies
7 The μόνον-Collation’s Implications for Samaritan Studies
Appendix, Addendum, and Manuscript Plates
Bibliography
Index of Biblical References
Index of Modern Authors
Index of Ancient MSS and other Sources
Index of Subjects
Index of Significant Terms

Citation preview

Bradley J. Marsh, Jr. Early Christian Scripture and the Samaritan Pentateuch

Studia Judaica Forschungen zur Wissenschaft des Judentums Begründet von Ernst Ludwig Ehrlich Herausgegeben von Günter Stemberger, Charlotte Fonrobert, Elisabeth Hollender, Alexander Samely und Irene Zwiep

Band 119

Studia Samaritana Edited by Daniel Boušek, Magnar Kartveit, and Stefan Schorch

Volume 12

Bradley J. Marsh, Jr.

Early Christian Scripture and the Samaritan Pentateuch A Study in Hexaplaric Manuscript Activity

ISBN 978-3-11-076069-9 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-076079-8 Library of Congress Control Number: 2023948748 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Druck und Bindung: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com

Contents Acknowledgements | XI  List of Abbreviations and Glossary | XV  List of Plates | XXI  1  1.1 

Prolegomena | 1  The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)Hexaplaric Tradition: A Short Introduction | 1  1.1.1  The Syrohexapla: Paul of Tella’s Translation Project | 5  1.1.2  The Samaritan Pentateuch’s “Expansions”: A History in Outline | 15  1.1.2.1  The Period before Gesenius | 16  1.1.2.2  H.F.W. Gesenius’ De Pentateuchi Samaritani Origine (1815) | 25  1.1.2.3  Scholarship from Qumran to the Present | 28  1.2  The Samaritan Pentateuch in Greek | 37  1.2.1  The Period before Frederick Field | 37  1.2.1.1  Research before Bernard de Montfaucon | 38  1.2.1.2  Bernard de Montfaucon’s Hexaplorum Origenis … (1713) | 48  1.2.2  Frederick Field’s Origenis Hexaplorum … (1871) | 51  1.2.3  Scholarship after Field | 55  1.2.3.1  Samuel Kohn’s “Samareitikon und Septuaginta” (1894) | 55  1.2.3.2  The Publication of the Gießen Fragments (1911) | 58  1.2.3.3  Paul Kahle’s “Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Pentateuchtextes” (1915) and The Cairo Geniza, 1st ed. (1947) | 60  1.2.3.4  Robert Devreesse’s Remarks in his Introduction à L’Étude des Manuscrits Grecs (1954) | 63  1.2.3.5  Emanuel Tov’s Studies | 64  1.2.3.6  Detlef Fraenkel’s Contribution to John W. Wevers’ Leviticus (1986) | 67  1.2.3.7  Reinhard Pummer’s Studies | 69  1.2.3.8  Adrian Schenker’s “Textgeschichtliches zum Samaritanischen Pentateuch und Samareitikon” (2010) | 72  1.2.3.9  Jan Joosten’s Studies | 74  1.2.3.10  Bradley Marsh (1983–): Carl 49 is the Samareitikon (2020) | 79  1.3  The σαμ΄ and μόνον-Group Readings: A Typological Comparison | 88 

VI | Contents

1.3.1  1.3.1.1  1.3.1.2  1.3.1.3  1.3.1.4  1.3.2  1.3.2.1  1.3.2.2  1.3.2.3  1.3.2.4 

The σαμ΄-Type | 89  Codicological Provenance | 89  Textual Nature | 91  Relationship to Samaritan Exegesis | 92  Discernable Historical Background | 92  The μόνον-Type | 93  Codicological Provenance | 93  Textual Nature | 94  Relationship to Samaritan Exegesis | 96  Discernable Historical Background: Eusebius of Caesarea, the Principal Investigator of the μόνον-Collation | 97  1.4  The Impetus, Character, and Utility of the Present Study | 98  1.4.1  The (Syro)Hexaplaric Witness to the Samaritan Pentateuch | 98  1.4.2  Remarks on the Format and Character of the Present Study | 100  EXCURSUS A: The Samaritan Script Known to Eusebius | 103  2  2.1  2.1.1  2.1.2  2.1.3  2.1.4  2.2  2.3  2.3.1  2.3.3  2.4  2.4.1  2.4.2  2.5  2.5.1  2.5.2  2.6  2.6.1 

The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus: Passages with Attribution and Collation Notations | 107  Introduction to Previous Scholarship | 107  Antonio Maria Ceriani’s Editio Princeps of SH Exod (1863) | 107  Frederick Field’s Origenis Hexaplorum (1871) | 108  The Editions of Paul A. de Lagarde (1892) and Brooke-McLean (1909) | 110  The MIDYAT CODEX (1975) and John W. Wevers’ Göttingen Edition (1991) | 111  The Colophon to Syrohexapla Exodus | 113  Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 133  The Plague Narrative | 134  The “Samaritan” Decalogue | 199  (Syro)Hexaplaric Collation Notations with Commentary | 224  The Samaritan Text Transposes | 224  The Samaritan Pentateuch “Omits” | 228  Greek-only μόνον-Type Evidence | 235  Samaritan Pentateuch Snippets in Other Hexaplaric Witnesses | 237  Wider Attestation | 247  Conclusions | 253  The μόνον-Translation: A Profile | 254 

Contents | VII

2.6.2  The Hexaplaric μόνον-Collation: Selection and Inclusion | 255  2.6.3  Hexaplaric Retention: By Chance or Design? | 257  EXCURSUS B: SHV Peculiarities and the Later Syriac Textual Tradition | 260  3 

The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers: Passages with Attribution and Collation Notations | 263  3.1  Introduction to Previous Scholarship | 263  3.1.1  Joseph White’s Open Letter | 263  3.1.2  Frederick Field | 264  3.1.3  The Editions of Paul A. de Lagarde and Brooke-McLean | 264  3.1.4  Arthur Vööbus’ Discovery and John W. Wevers’ Numeri | 265  3.1.5  Dissertations by Kevin Burris (2009) and Andrew McClurg (2011) | 266  3.2  The Colophon to Syrohexapla Numbers | 267  3.3  Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 277  3.3.1  Readings Extant only in the Syrohexapla of Numbers | 279  3.3.2  Readings Found in (Scattered) Greek Hexaplaric Manuscripts | 320  3.3.3  Readings Found in the S-Group | 342  3.4  The μόνον-Type Passages and the S-Group | 389  3.5  Conclusions | 394  3.5.1  The μόνον-Translator(s): A Profile | 395  3.5.2  The Data in Num: Retention and Transmission | 396  Excursus C: The Hexaplaric ΠΙΠΙ | 398  4  4.1  4.1.1  4.1.2  4.1.3  4.1.4  4.2  4.3  4.3.1 

The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy: Passages with Attribution and Collation Notations | 421  Introduction to Previous Scholarship | 421  Andreas Masius’ Lost Syrohexaplaric Manuscript | 421  Frederick Field | 422  The Editions of Paul A. de Lagarde/A. Rahlfs and BrookeMcLean | 424  The Midyat Codex, Larry Perkins’ Doctoral Dissertation, and John W. Wevers’ Deuteronomium | 425  The Colophon to the Syrohexapla of Deuteronomy: What is Known? | 427  Greek and Syriac Readings with Commentary | 429  A Note on Using JDeut for Reconstructing the μόνον-collation in SH Deut | 430 

VIII | Contents

4.3.2  4.3.3  4.3.4  4.4  4.4.1 

Readings Derived from Parallel Passages | 432  “Gerizim-Centric” Readings | 454  The “χολ scholion” | 493  Conclusions | 497  The μόνον-Type Collator-Translator’(s) Procedure: An Hypothesis | 497  4.4.2  The Use of Hexaplaric Sigla in the Caesarean Collation of SP | 504  Excursus D: Was the μόνον-Collation Ever Supplied for Hexaplaric Genesis? | 509  5  5.1  5.2  5.2.1  5.2.2  5.2.3  5.2.4  5.3  5.3.1  5.3.2  5.3.3  5.3.4  5.3.5  5.4 

6  6.1  6.2  6.2.1  6.2.2  6.2.3  6.3  6.4 

Later Hexaplaric Transmission: The Witness to and Implications of μόνον-Integration | 521  Later Hexaplaric Integration: A Survey of Sources | 521  Jacob of Edessa’s Recension | 524  Previous Scholarship on JPent | 525  Jacob’s Editorial Method and View of the μόνον-Readings | 542  The μόνον-data in JPent: A Selection of Materials | 546  Conclusions | 561  Greek Manuscripts Bearing Integrated μόνον-Passages | 562  MS 767: A Brief Profile | 563  MS 58: A Brief Profile | 564  MS 15: A Brief Profile | 566  MS 56: A Brief Profile | 567  MS 343: A Brief Profile | 569  Conclusions: Potential Motives Underlying Scribal Integration | 570  The Origin of the μόνον-Collation: An Historical Reconstruction and its Implications for Early Christian Studies | 575  Was There Ever a Samaritan Column in the Hexapla Maior? | 575  The μόνον-Collation: An Historical Reconstruction | 579  Origen, Pamphilus, or Eusebius: Whose Profile Fits Best? | 581  Was Eusebius’ Collation Based on Origen’s Work? | 600  Why did Eusebius Choose LXX/G in Rendering the Samaritan Texts? | 601  Implications for Early Christian Biblical Scholarship and Manuscript Culture | 606  Conclusions | 612 

Contents | IX

7  7.1  7.1.1  7.1.2  7.1.3  7.2  7.3  7.3.1  7.3.2  7.4 

The μόνον-Collation’s Implications for Samaritan Studies | 615  The Samaritan Pentateuch in the Age of Eusebius | 615  Textual and Material Considerations: Scope, Shape, and Form | 615  Para-textual Aspects: The “Samaritan Tenth Commandment” | 622  Does the Eusebian Exemplar Date to the Reforms of “Baba Rabba”? | 642  Where was the (a?) Samareitikon? | 647  Implications for Samaritan–Christian (Non-)Relations | 657  A Strict Samaritan–Christian Separation | 657  Eusebius’ Motive | 661  Conclusion | 663 

Appendix, Addendum, and Manuscript Plates | 665  Extant Syriac and Greek Hexaplaric Subscriptions | 665  Addendum: ‘ΤΟ ΣΑΜΑΡΕΙΤΙΚΟΝ’ Readings in LXX Editions | 680  Manuscript Plates | 684  Bibliography | 699  Index of Biblical References | 741 Index of Modern Authors | 751  Index of Ancient MSS and other Sources | 763  Index of Subjects | 775  Index of Significant Terms | 789 

Acknowledgements The present work is a much expanded version of my DPhil thesis submitted in 2016 to the Faculty of Theology at the University of Oxford. Begun in the Fall of 2011, my research greatly benefitted from the input of a great many people, be they my teachers, colleagues, or peers. To list each and every one would take many pages and a memory much better than the one I have. As such, I implore those reading this to forgive any oversight should their names fail to appear below. My gratitude extends to many more than those whose names follow. First, I would like to thank the Oxford University Press who financially supported my doctoral research through the Clarendon Fund. The Fund’s generosity enabled my doctoral work to proceed without constraints enabling me to make the most of Oxford’s resources under the direction of my supervisor Prof. Alison Salvesen. Similarly, the expansion and eventual publication of the work was undertaken during my time as an Alexander von Humboldt postdoctoral researcher at Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg. Despite the fact that my time there was interrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, my hosts Prof. Dr. Stefan Schorch and Prof. Dr. Cornelia Horn made every effort to facilitate my work in circumstances not seen for generations. To both foundations and to each of my academic supervisors, I express my most heartfelt gratitude. Second, there are a number of individuals whose contributions I wish to acknowledge specifically. First and foremost, I wish to thank ‫ܐ ܕ‬ Alison Salvesen who guided the original thesis version of this research and also read substantial portions of the expanded version, in both cases offering corrections and many other insights which greatly enhanced the final product. As an hexaplarist and Syriacist, she leads her field and was perfectly positioned to guide this research. Most importantly however, if I may be so indulged, I benefited greatly from the kindness and grace with which she conducts herself. While her character is well-known to those who have met her, I believe it only just to proclaim it here even if only as a testament for those who have not had the pleasure of making her acquaintance. Next, I wish to specially thank Prof. Stefan Schorch. In the sense that this work is dual-natured, viz., it forms an intersection between hexaplaric and Samaritan studies, aid and guidance from the leading figure on the text of the Samaritan Pentateuch was crucial. Prof. Schorch readily supported my work, both academically and practically, and hosted me at MLU in Halle twice during the course of this research. He was always eager to bring me up to speed on Samaritan matters and happily shared the abundant resources and knowledge of his Samaritanus team, including his pre-published data and analysis. He too read substantial portions of the pub-

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110760798-204

XII | Acknowledgements

lished version of this work offering advice and critiques which I know made the work better than it otherwise would have been. Next I would like to specially thank Prof. Peter Gentry (Phoenix Seminary/SBTS). After completing the thesis version of this work, he reached out to me and informed me that there was a better photo of the colophon to Syrohexapla Numbers in which one could read some of the text not visible in Vööbus’ facsimile edition (see ch. 3). At his behest, I reached out to the then librarian for Princeton University’s Scheide collection, Dr. Paul Needham (since retired), who kindly sent me the image. Therein, clear as day, the Syriac reads that Eusebius of Caesarea was the one who “set” the Samaritan readings in the hexaplaric margins. This fact was something I argued for at length by inference in the thesis version. I admit a certain satisfaction in having a theory subsequently confirmed by actual evidence. Nevertheless, the work had to be redrafted to account for this critical datum. While this entailed much more work, I wish to warmly express my sincerest gratitude to Prof. Gentry for his willingness to share this with me in an act of collegiality indicative of his character. Third I wish to thank those who supported my work, some in less direct, although no less important, ways. Prof. David G.K. Taylor (Oxford), during the doctoral stage of this research, goaded me to investigate the fact that no Samareitikon readings are found in the Syrohexaplaric traditions, which as it turns out, is a critical aspect of this research. Dr. Andrew Drenas (UMass-Lowell), one of my most cherished friends from our days at seminary, proofread all of my Latin transcriptions and corrected mistakes in my translations. Dr. Jeremiah Coogan (Santa Clara) did the same for my Patristic Greek transcriptions and translations. I would like to specially thank Dr. Coogan for our numerous discussions regarding Eusebius as a textual scholar in Christian antiquity and the effects of his scholarship on later manuscript traditions (see esp. CH 3.2). Mr. Martin Tscheu, a student of Schorch’s and one of my favorite Germans, kindly read vast sections of the final work, catching mistakes and offering improvements. He also proofed my German transcriptions for which I am grateful. Dr. Timo Tekoniemi (Helsinki) read my treatment of the Old Latin for Deut 27 (CH 4.3.3) and brought his expertise to bear. Prof. Lucas Van Rompay (Duke) and Jan Joosten were the examiners for the original thesis version of the work. While the research developed and expanded far beyond that point, it would be unjust if I were to leave their contributions unacknowledged. Moreover, I should express my thanks to Prof. Dr. Ronny Vollandt (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, München) for his guidance on matters related to al-Ḥārith’s Arabic translation of the Syrohexapla Pentateuch (CH 4). Ms. Evelyn Burkhardt (MLU, HalleWittenberg) very generously shared with me her research on the enumeration of

Acknowledgements | XIII

the Decalogue in extant SP codices. Her contribution was most welcome, and I am very grateful for it (see CH 7). To Dr. Felix Albrecht (Göttingen Academy of Sciences and Humanities) I wish to express my thanks for permitting me access to various manuscripts in the collections at the Septuaginta-Unternehmen in Göttingen, especially those in the s-group (see CH 3). Fourth there are a number of institutions to which I owe thanks. The latter half of my doctoral work, and the majority of the thesis writing, was completed at my family home in the Great and Glorious Republic of Texas after three years residency in Oxford. (John Quincy Adams’ objection to the moniker has long since lost any validity.) Residing in the DFW area enabled me to take advantage of the generous visitor polices of a number of libraries where I was able to work. I would like specifically to thank the libraries of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Texas Christian University, and Dallas Theological Seminary. Access to their collections permitted my research, at both the thesis and postthesis stages, to continue and be brought to a successful and satisfactory end. Fifth, I wish to express my thanks to De Gruyter and my author contacts Charlotte Webster, Gabriela Rus, Alice Meroz, and Katrin Hudey. Their muchappreciated and very patient assistance aided the process of preparing CRC (for which I was solely responsible) and facilitated the final publication of this work. Further thanks goes to Profs. Daniel Boušek, Magnar Kartveit, and Stefan Schorch, for their willingness to include this book in the Studia Samaritana series for which they serve as senior editors. It is hoped that this volume is a worthy addition to the series. Finally, I wish to thank my family and friends without whom I could not have carried out this research. Most especially, I want to thank my parents, Brad (Sr.) and Ellenore Marsh. Without their love, support, and prayers, I could not have completed this work. They were my first teachers, from whom I still continue to learn. It was from them that I learned my deep love for the Scriptures. And it is to them that I dedicate this work with loving affection. Bradley John Marsh, Jr. Friday of the Second Sunday of Advent (“Bible Sunday”) 2022 Helsinki, Finland .‫ܐܪܫ ܒ‬ ‫ܒ ܐܕ‬ ܰ ‫ܘܒ ܐ ܕܒ ܪ ܒ ܒܐ ܬܪ ܕ ܒ ܐ )ܕ ܬ ܬܐ‬ (‫ܕܐ ܓ ܺ ܰܐܪ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܘܐܪܒ ܐ ܕ ̈ ܐ ܒ ܡ ܬ ܐ ܒܐ ܚ‬ ‫ܐܐ ܘܬ‬ ‫ܬܪ ܐ ̈ ܐ ܘܬ‬ ܺ ܳ ‫ܶܗ ܺ ܺ ܒܐܪ ܐ ܕ ܴ ܐ ܀܀܀‬ ‫ܒ ܝ ̣ ܐ ܘ̈ܪ ܐ ܒ ܡ ܕ ̣ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܕ ̇ܓ ܒ ܒܐ ܗ ܐ܆ ܐ‬ ‫ܐܐ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫܀‬ ‫܀܀܀‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܗ ܐ ܘܒ ܒ ܘ‬.‫܀܀܀ ܒ ܐ ܐܒܐ ܘ ܒ ܐ ܘ ܘ ܐ ܕ ܕ ܐ‬

List of Abbreviations and Glossary The following is a list of abbreviations and glossary of terms used in this study. Note that commonly used grammatical abbreviations, those for biblical books, as well as commonly used Latin phrases (e.g., i.e., et al, viz.) are observed. Bibliographic abbreviations (including primary sources) may be found in the BIBLIOGRAPHY. Lastly, a list of modern English translations of the Bible occasionally referenced in this book is supplied.

::

“As opposed to”

→§

“For/On which see section …”

∩

indicates a parablepsis/haplography of some kind occurred (e.g., homoioarchton, homoioteleuton, etc.)

=/≈/≠

“equals” / “roughly equal to” / “not equal to”

(s)

Appended to subjects, often translator(s), translation(s), collator(s), scribe(s), etc. as a means of denoting uncertainty in the discussion as to the number of agents or items in question. The comments which follow are verbally construed as singular.

a/b

traditionally “recto” (r) / “verso” (v), the two sides of a MS page; for the citation of columns, see the note prefacing the BIBLIOGRAPHY.

App (or ap)

“Apparatus.” Often specified as AppI or AppII, meant to identify which register of a given critical edition’s apparatus is being referenced; for the editions, see BIBLIOGRAPHY.

AG

“according to the Greeks,” viz., the ancient Greek chronological scheme based on the reign of Seleucus I Nicator (corresponds to 312–311 BCE)

ANE

ancient Near East

b.

Babylonian Talmud (followed by tractate and folio reference)

BCE / CE

before / the Common Era

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110760798-205

XVI | List of Abbreviations and Glossary

BCP

The Book of Common Prayer (various editions)

BL ADD.

The shelf mark used for the cataloguing of British Library (olim Museum) MSS

BnF

Bibliothèque nationale de France

cent(s).

century (-ies)

CatNic

The so-called Catena Nicephori; see BIBLIOGRAPHY under “Patristic Works, Catenae” and §1.2.2

CatSev

The so-called Catena Severi (Vat. Syr. 103 → §4.3.3)

CG

A Hebrew or Aramaic document from the Cairo Genizah

col(s).

either “colophon(s)” or “column(s),” as contextually indicated

Comm.

Commentary

DSS

The Dead Sea Scrolls; see DJD volumes as listed in the BIBLIOGRAPHY

editio princeps

(Latin) the first (critical) edition of a given text

ἔκδοσις

(Greek) an “edition,” or the issued form, of a text

ET

English translation

EVV

English versions of the Bible

ex

(Latin) derived from; ex par = “from the parallel”

fol.(s)

folio(s), the pages of an ancient MS

FT

French translation

G / LXX

The Septuagint, or “the Seventy,” the ancient Greek translation(s) of the Hebrew Bible (though “the Seventy” originally only applied to the Pent).

List of Abbreviations and Glossary | XVII

Note the following: GGen = The LXX of Genesis, GExod = the same of ExoExodus, GPent = the LXX Pentateuch, etc. N.B.: All G MSS are referred to by the designation assigned to each as found in the editions issued by the Göttingen Septuaginta Unternehmen (→ §1.4.2, special note) GT

German translation / Greek text (as contextually indicated)

Hark(lean)

Thomas of Harkel’s Syriac revision of the Philoxenian revision of the Peshitta NT.

hexapla(ric)

Also Hexapla Maior. For a description of this ancient work, and its derivatives (e.g., tetrapla, Syrohexapla), see the provided description (→ §1.1.1) in conjunction with discussions about the extant colophons (→ §§2.2; 3.2). The adjective “hexaplaric” is to be understood as anything deriving from, or closely associated with, the work therein described (e.g., hexaplaric recension, hexaplaric MS tradition, etc.).

ind

“indexed at/to”; also used for the indexing symbol a given scribe used to anchor a marginal reading to the running text

j.

Jerusalem Talmud (followed by tractate and folio reference)

JPent

Jacob of Edessa’s (d. 708 CE) recension of the Pent (ca. 705 CE) based on the Peshitta. Note the following: JGen = The same of Genesis, JExod = the same of Exodus, etc. The transcriptions are taken from the only known MS BnF Syr 26.

JRec

Jacob of Edessa’s recension as a whole.

lac(una(e)

(Latin) “gap(s),” a missing portion of text; often due to leaf loss or other such damage

LH

left-hand side (of a MS, column, margin, etc.)

LT

Latin translation

m.

Mishna (followed by tractate and reference)

XVIII | List of Abbreviations and Glossary

mend

(Latin “mendose”) incorrect, faulty

mg

margin(al); meant to indicate the margin of a given MS

μόνον-type

Also μόνον-translation, μόνον-collation, μόνον-passages, etc. A group of SP readings in Greek (in contradistinction to those of the σαμ΄-type) resulting from the efforts of Caesarea-based, hexaplaric work executed by Eusebius of Caesarea (→ §1.3.2).

MS(S)

MT / M

manuscript(s) The Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible preserved by the Jewish community. Note the following: MTL / ML = Specifically the Leningrad Codex B19A, the base text of BHS and BHQ (see BIBLIOGRAPHY), as opposed to other Hebrew MSS, whether from Qumran or elsewhere.

NT

New Testament

OL

Old Latin; the Latin translation of G/LXX

OT

Old Testament

P

The Syriac Peshitta translation of the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament or New Testament. Also called the Syriac “Vulgate” (esp. in older literature) as it was (and is) the common version used in Syriac churches. Note the following: PGen = the same of Genesis, PExod = that of Exodus, etc.

Pent

The Pentateuch, the first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. See Torah.

recension

a deliberate revision, often critical, of a preexisting text irrespective of the methodology used or the extent to which it was applied

recentiores

The term commonly applied to the later Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible, or rather Jewish revisions of LXX itself. Most well-known are those attributed to Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. These are principally preserved in extant hexaplaric MSS and other Christian works.

RH

right-hand side (of a MS, column, margin, etc.)

List of Abbreviations and Glossary | XIX

SA τὸ σαμ΄(-type)

The Samaritan Arabic translation of SP The Samareitikon, τὸ Σαμαρειτικόν, the Greek translation(s?) of SP undertaken by the Samaritan community. In the present work, this is discussed primarily as a type or group of readings preserved in later Christian MS source, hence the σαμ΄-type, etc (→ §1.3.1; also §§1.2.3, 7.2).

scholi-on(-a)

(Latin) a note of varying content(s) found in the margins of an ancient MS

SH

Syrohexapla, the Syriac translation of the hexaplaric recension undertaken by Paul of Tella and his team (as described → §1.1.1). Note the following: SH Gen = SH’s translation of Genesis, SH Exod = SH’s translation of Exodus, etc. For further designations, see the BIBLIOGRAPHY.

SP

The Samaritan Pentateuch

ST

The Samaritan Targum, the Aramaic translation of SP

STC

The (so-called) Samaritan Tenth Commandment (→ §7.1.2)

Tendenz

(German) “bias,” usually theological and/or religious bias

Textgeschichte

(German) “text story” or “text history”

Tg

The Jewish Aramaic Targums. Note the following: TgO = Targum Onkelos, TgPJ = Targum Pseudo-Jonathon, etc. For further designations, see the BIBLIOGRAPHY.

(The) Three

The moniker commonly used meaning to describe Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion as a group. See recentiores.

TLG

The Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (https://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/)

TM

Tibåt Mårqe (a Samaritan midrashic collection; see BIBLIOGRAPHY)

Torah

The Pentateuch, the first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. See Pent.

XX | List of Abbreviations and Glossary

txt

in-text; in distinction to being marginal

V

Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (unless otherwise designating a specific MS)

Vorlage(n)

(German) = ἀντίγραφ-ον(-α) = exemplar(s), or master copy

v / vv

Verse / verses of an ancient work (contextually indicated)

Vat.

Shelf marks for MSS in the Vatican’s Library in Rome.

Modern English Translations of the Bible Modern ETs of the Bible referenced (or directly cited) in this study are as follows: AV

The Authorized Version (1611); see KJV

ESV

The English Standard Version (2001)

GENEVA

The Geneva Bible (1560)

KJV

The King James Version; see AV.

KOREN

The Koren Tanakh (2nd ed. 2010)

LEESER

Leeser, Isaac (transl.) The Twenty-Four Books of the Holy Scriptures: Carefully Translated according to the Massoretic Text, on the Basis of the English Version, after the Best Jewish Authorities; and Supplied with Short Explanatory Notes. Fourth Edition. Chicago: The Bloch Publishing and Printing Company, 1891.

NAB-RE

New American Bible: Revised Ed. (2011)

NASB

New American Standard Bible (1986)

NET

New English Translation (2005)

NETS

New English Translation of the Septuagint (2007)

NIV

New International Version (1978, 1984, 2011)

NJPS

Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures. Jewish Publication Society (1985).

NRSV

New Revised Standard Version (1989)

RSV

Revised Standard Version (1952; Catholic ed. 1957)

Tsedaka

2013 ET of SP; see BIBLIOGRAPHY (under “Samaritan Pentateuch”)

Young’s

Young’s Literal Translation (1862)

List of Plates PLATE I: SHL Exod 20.17‫ ו–א‬and Exod 20.19‫ & ד–א‬the latter part of the Decalogue (BL ADD. 12134, fols. 65b–66a) PLATE II: The SHL Exod Colophon (BL ADD. 12134, fols. 132b–133a) PLATE III: The SHV Num Colophon (Princeton University Library, Scheide M150, fol. 151b) Plate IV: SHL Num 13.33‫( ו–א‬BL ADD. 14437, fol. 16b) Plate V.1–4: Select μόνον-Passages in s-group 24, fols. 208b, 212bα, 223b, 234b)

MS

344 (Athos, Παντοκρατορος

Plate VI: Gerizim scholion in the Catena at Deut 27.4 (MS 529C, BnF, Coisl. 6, fols. 174aβ–bα) Plate VII: The χολ scholion in MS 529C (see PLATE VI, fols. 175aβ–bα) Plate VIII: JExod 11.3–7 (BnF Syr. 26, fol. 132‫)ܒ–ܐ‬ Plate IX: JNum 21.20‫ ב–א‬and JNum 21.22+, 22‫( ב–א‬BnF Syr. 26, fol. 304‫)ܒ–ܐ‬ PLATE X: An Enumerated Samaritan Decalogue (Jerusalem National Library Sam. 2° 6, fol. 107) PLATE XI: The “Samaritan Tenth Commandment” IN MS Q (BL ADD. 22369, fol. 54b)

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110760798-206

1 Prolegomena No event in the history of literature has excited more sensation, than the discovery of this Samaritan Pentateuch. – Prof. Herbert Marsh (1757–1839)1

1.1 The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)Hexaplaric Tradition: A Short Introduction Andreas Masius (1514–73) was the first to publish Syrohexapla (hereafter SH) materials in Europe.2 After his education at Louvain, he studied Syriac in Rome with the Syriac Orthodox scholar Moses of Mardin (d. ca. 1592) and John Sullaqa (d. 1555) of the Church of the East (Uniat).3 Among his many Syriac-themed endeavors, Masius claimed in the dedicatory epistle prefixed to his Iosuae imperatoris historia (1574, published posthumously) that he possessed a certain MS containing the Syriac translation of the Greek hexaplaric ἔκδοσις edited and disseminated by Pamphilus (ca. 240–310 CE) and Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260– ca. 340 CE), which was in turn based on the text-critical work on the Greek Old

|| 1 1810/2.86. Then the Margaret Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, Marsh offered a series of lectures published in 1810 on varying topics of divinity. The above-cited quotation, presented here somewhat out of context, is from his Lecture X “Criticism of the Hebrew Bible” in which he described the controversies following the “discovery” of SP in Europe (→ §1.1.2.1). Marsh, earlier schooled at Cambridge, studied in Germany with J.D. Michaelis (1717–91) whose Introduction to the New Testament he translated into English with annotations (1793–1801). He was eventually appointed (Anglican) bishop in 1816, first at Llandaff later translated to Peterborough. Throughout his life a man of the establishment, he was born in Kent, England, the same locale from where the present writer’s paternal line descends. For more on Bishop Marsh, see R. Forrest’s entry in ODNB, ‘Marsh, Herbert [1757–1839]’ (https://doi.org/10.1093/ ref:odnb/18111). 2 For Masius’s life and works generally, see W. François 2009, with substantial bibliography. Regarding Masius’ effect on Syriac studies, see L. Van Rompay “Masius, Andreas,” GEDSH, as well as A. van Roey 1978. 3 The lifespans provided for most historical persons, unless otherwise noted, come from GEDSH, CSS, or ODCC. In this work, more proper terminology are used in reference to both the western, i.e., “Syriac Orthodox,” and eastern, i.e., “the Church of the East,” branches of Syriac Christianity in preference to (often derogatory) monikers found in older scholarship, namely “Jacobite” and “Nestorian,” respectively. Furthermore, the term “miaphysite” is used instead of “monophysite.” In addition to other factors, the preferred terminology is considered to be more precise by both scholars and members of these churches. On these and similar matters, see both G. Kiraz, “Syriac Orthodox Church,” GEDSH, and T. Hainthaler 2019: 377–78. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110760798-001

2 | Prolegomena

Testament undertaken by Origen (ca. 185–ca. 254 CE).4 In his description thereof, Masius mentioned that this MS contained, among other biblical books, “the better part of Deut.”5 For reasons unknown Masius never published the complete volume. Furthermore, in what is perhaps one of the greater losses in the history of Syriac biblical MSS, the codex mysteriously vanished after his death (→ §4.1.1). He did, however, publish substantial excerpts from the MS (hereafter SHM), not only in his Iosuae imperatoris historia (containing the text of Josh in Greek retroverretroversion), but also in the lexicon he prepared for the Antwerp Polyglot (Syrorum peculium, 1571) as well as in the collaborative Critici sacri.6 It was in this latter publication where Masius recorded a couple of peculiar readings transmitted in his copy of SH Deut—marginalia supplying large-scale variants from the Samaritan Pentateuch (hereafter SP). Although SHM was defective in Deut, containing many lacunae, his exemplar at the very least contained two such readings, namely SP Deut 34.1b–1‫–א‬2 (→ §4.3.2) and Deut 5.21‫→( ח–א‬ §2.3.3 at Exod 20.17[13]‫§§ ;ו–א‬4.2; 4.3.2).7 The latter reading, which was likely recorded in the colophon to SH Deut,8 is as follows:

|| 4 “… tum interpretem Syrum ubique autorem [sic] certissimum habui; qui ea Graeca ad verbum expressit ante annos nongentos, quae in Adamantij Hexaplis ab Eusebio in nobili illa Caesariensi bibliotheca fuere collacata” (1574: 6). He earlier described this MS in a letter dated June 1554 to a certain Latinius (then secretary to Cardinal Putei): … eamque ad rem praeter hebraea et chaldaea exemplaria manuscripta etiam syra lingua vetustissimum codicem, in quo sunt Regum libri et alia nonnulla fragmenta mihi comparavi, in quo rubris elementis adscriptum repperi: eam syram translationem ex graeco codice, qui in bibliotheca Caesariana erat per Eusebium et Pamphilum emendatus, factam esse.” (Lossen 1886: 173, #140). Again, see further in van Roey 1978: 149–50. 5 There is some uncertainty as to which biblical books Masius’ MS contained (see W. Baars 1968: 2–4, with literature). 6 Published in Amsterdam in 1698 long after Masius’ death. A collection of these citations was published by Alfred Rahlfs (1892: 21–32f) in Paul Anton de Lagarde’s revised edition of SH MSS (hereafter SHL; see Baars 1968: 3–4, n. 3; → §4.1.3). 7 Throughout this study, the text and versification of SP adheres (mostly) to that of the 2010 edition of SP based on MS “Shechem 6” (Nablus, Synagogue 6, dated 1204 CE; siglum G6 in S. Schorch’s editions) by Abraham Tal and Moshe Florentin (hereafter T-F). Variants are taken from August F. von Gall’s and/or Schorch’s editions (the latter as available). T-F’s versification has been adjusted for the present purposes as necessary where indicated. The T-F system has been used previously, e.g., G. Knoppers (2017: 167, n. 12) and is of better utility than von Gall’s old system or those others utilizing Latin letters to demarcate separate parts of a given SP

The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)Hexaplaric Tradition: A Short Introduction | 3

SH Deut 5.21(17)‫§ →( ח–א‬2.3.3) SHM Deut (within the colophon and indexed back to Deut 59)

‫ܐ ܐ ܟ ܐܪ ܐ ܕ ̈ ܐ ܝ ܕܐ‬ ‫ ܘ ܘܐ ܕܐܢ ܗܘ ܕ‬21‫א‬ ̈‫ܐ‬ ‫̈ܐ ܐ ̈ܪܘܪܒ ܐ ܘܬ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܬ‬21‫ ב‬.‫ܐܪܬ ̇ܗ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ̈ ‫ ܘ ܘܐ‬21‫ ד‬.‫ܐ ܗ ܐ‬ ‫̈ ܐܕ‬ ‫̈ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܬ ܘܒ‬21‫ ג‬.‫ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܐܐ‬ ‫ܕܐ ܐ‬ ‫̈ܐ ܐ ܗ ܐ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܕ ܐ ܕ ܒ ܐ ܘܢ ܪܕ ܬ‬ ‫ܐܐ ܟ‬ ‫ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܬܒ ܐ ܬ‬21‫ ה‬. ‫ ܒ ܪܐ ܕܓ ܙ‬.‫ܐ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܐ ܬܒ ܐ‬ ‫ ̈ܐ ܐ‬21‫ ו‬.‫ܙ ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ ܬܪ ܐ‬.‫̈ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܬܕܒ‬.‫ܐ ܐ ܟ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܗܝ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܬ‬21‫ ז‬.‫ܐ ܐ ܟ‬ ‫ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܪܐ ܗܘ‬ 21‫ ח‬.‫ܐ ܐ ܟ‬ ‫ܡ‬ ‫ ܘܬܐ ܠ ܬ ܘܬܬܒ‬.‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܗܘ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ ܒܐܪ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ ܒ ܪ ܐܘܪ ܐ ܕ‬. ‫ܒ ܒ ܐ ܕ ܪܕ‬ . ‫ܒܐ ܒ ܪܒܐ ܕܓ ܓ ܒ ܪܒܐ ܕܒ ܐ ܪ ܐ ܕ‬ 21‫ א‬And it will be when the Lord your God brings you to the land of the Canaanites, to that which you are entering there to inherit it, 21‫ ב‬then you ‫ܐܠ‬

shall erect for yourself great stones, and you shall plaster them with plaster. 21‫ ג‬And you shall write upon the stones all the words of this law. 21‫ ד‬And it shall be when you cross the Jordan, you shall erect the stones, those (about) which I am commanding you this day, in Mt. Gerizim. 21‫ ה‬And you shall build there an altar to the Lord your God, an altar from stones. You shall not raise up upon them (any) iron (tool). 21‫( ו‬With) whole stones you shall build the altar to the Lord your God. 21‫ ז‬And you will offer up upon it whole burnt offerings to the Lord your God. And you shall sacrifice a peace offering. And your will eat there and be joyous before the Lord your God. 21‫ ח‬This mountain (is) in the crossing of the Jordan; beyond the way of the setting of the sun, in the land of Canaan, that dwelling towards the west, near Galgal, near the High Oak, which (is) close to Shechem. Masius’ transcription10 of this lengthy variant reading, in which SP exhibits a large textual “plus” derived from another, often parallel Pentateuchal passage || passage due to the common practice in English-speaking scholarship of breaking up biblical verses using “1a,” “1b,” etc. T-F’s edition has naturally prompted criticism, e.g., I. Hjelm, 2015: 194, n. 38, and E. Tov’s earlier 2011 review. These criticisms are, to my knowledge, of little effect for the preset study. 8 For complete discussion on this point, see below (→ §4.2). Note that the versification in T-F for this specific passage strangely differs from that in the parallel found in Exod 20 despite the fact that the passage is the same. All unattributed ETs are mine. 9 Masius: “Significatque scriba eos versus in Samaritano exemplari haberi veluti supplementum decem verborum, hos est, Decalogi Deuteronomii, sunt autem hi …” (CS col. 286). 10 The transcription as published in CS bears many errors. In the present study, Rahlfs’ emendations (1892: 27; see earlier A.M. Ceriani 1863: 259–60) have been adopted here as follows: ‫]ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ‬Masius | ‫̈ | ܕ ̈ ܐ ]ܕ ̈ ܐ‬ ]‫̈ܢ‬ | ‫ܕܓ ܨ ]ܕܓ ܙ | ܕ ܒ ܢ ]ܕ ܒ‬

4 | Prolegomena

(traditionally called an “expansion” in biblical textual criticism), represents at the time of his death only the second such interaction by any western scholar with the otherwise foreign, unknown Samaritan text.11 Given that European scholars had yet to learn about this Samaritan Pentateuch, and perhaps also because his contact with SP was very brief, Masius provided no analysis for these readings, their origins or meaning, or what their place was within the hexaplaric tradition.12 Nevertheless, Masius’ excerpts naturally prompt such questions: From where did these texts derive? For what purpose were they included in the Caesarean ἔκδοσις? How did they fit into the Textgeschichte of the hexaplaric tradition? As ensuing MS discoveries would confirm, Masius’ Samaritan readings were but two of many such passages—originally there were over 40—set within the hexaplaric recension’s busy, marginal textual apparatus. Before addressing the issues prompted by these readings, a short introduction to the SH itself will first be sketched, providing for a proper historical framework through which to view the chief source of these marginalia. After which, further textual-historical context will be provided by means of a brief history of scholarship concerning SP in

|| ̈ 4°] ‫ܐ | ̈ ܐ‬ ]‫ܐ‬ . Whether the fault of Masius or the printer(s), the latter being |‫ܐ ܐ‬ much more probable, the transcription in CS was of a poor quality. After his transcription and LT, he commented: “Hactenus Syrum exemplar. Porro hoc praeceptum ex parte repetitur Josuae 8 v. 29.” 11 The first modern European to see SP first-hand, and thus have the opportunity to familiarize himself with its readings, was Guillaume Postel (1510–82). While travelling in the Middle East in 1549–50, the Samaritan community in Shechem granted him access to a copy of SP in Hebrew; he was also allowed to purchase a copy of an Arabic translation while in Damascus (see J-P Rothschild 1989a: 771–72, with n. 3; see also P. de Robert, “Postel, Guillaume,” CSS, 189; T. Harviainen and H. Shehadeh 1994: 168). Postel’s Arabic SP has been lost (see R. Pummer 2016: 211, n. 61). C. McCarthy suggests that Postel could have learned of the existence of SP from the Samaritans first when serving at the French embassy in Istanbul during the years 1536–37 (2004: 118). Reportedly, he visited the Samaritans in Shechem first in 1535 (see N. Schur 1986: 10, with references). Perhaps he encountered SP for the first time then, though Postel only noted in his De Universitate (1535: 124) that the Samaritans hold the Pent alone as scripture (“… solo Mosis Pentateucho in sua lingua Adamina utentibus ...”). Naturally observing the text’s existence is not the same as being familiar with its readings. Nevertheless, determining who first laid eyes on a Samaritan “expansion” (irrespective of the language of the text) depends on when Masius first read SH Deut which cannot be established. 12 Masius’ knowledge of SP, outside of those passages recorded in CS, is very difficult to ascertain. The first publication of any meaningful collection of “Samaritan” readings are those found in the SIXTINE edition of the Septuagint (→ §§1.1.2.1; 1.2.1). However, the SIXTINE was published 14 years after Masius died.

The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)Hexaplaric Tradition: A Short Introduction | 5

Hebrew (→ §1.1.2) and in Greek (→ §§1.2–1.3), with a special focus on these socalled “expansions.”

1.1.1 The Syrohexapla: Paul of Tella’s Translation Project Personnel, Historical Context, and Impetus Following Masius’ death additional Syriac historical sources, including many SH MSS, would come to light providing details about this particular Syriac biblical version. The Syriac Orthodox bishop-in-exile Paul of Tella (fl. first half of the 7th cent. CE)13 is the one named responsible for the work.14 Having fled the westward advances of the Sasanian armies under the command of Khosrau II (d. 628 CE),15 he and a handful of his co-religionists sojourned in the famous monastic region known as the “Enaton” (from Greek, ἔνᾰτος, i.e., the 9th mile marker SW from Alexandria).16 It was there, under the auspices of the newly reconciled Syriac and Coptic Miaphysite patriarchs17 that a project commenced resulting in

|| 13 On Paul and SH in general, see Van Rompay, “Pawlos of Tella,” GEDSH; M. Law 2011: 18– 24; R. Hiebert 2001: 178–86; A. Vööbus 1971: 33–65; and J. Gwynn, “Paulus (48) Tellensis,” DCB 4.266–71. For a brief summary of previous scholarship on SH (including editions), see H. Swete 1914: 112–14, Baars 1968: 1–25, and Law 2008: 101–20. Septuagint handbooks are, unfortunately, often too cursory in their treatment of SH (e.g., N. Fernández Marcos 2000: 353–54), with the exception of the recent Oxford Handbook of the Septuagint which includes an article by M. Liljeström (2021: 655–69). 14 See esp. Vööbus 1971: 34–35. Ancient authorities naming Paul of Tella include Barhebraeus (d. 1286 CE) and Moses bar Kepha (d. 903 CE); compare also the 7th cent. CE patristic catena found in BL ADD. 12168. This latter source, which Vööbus described as “almost a contemporary of Paul’s work” (1971: 35; see W. Wright, CSMBM 2.905–06, for the evidence), often quotes SH and specifically designates its translator as “Paul Bishop of the Faithful” ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐܐ‬ ‫ܝ‬ ̈ ‫( ܕ‬fol. 161b‫ ;ܐ‬CSMBM 2.907); this same cognomen is found in the colophon to SH 4 ‫ܐ‬ Kgdms (BnF. Syr. 27, fol. 87a → APPENDIX). 15 See Law 2011: 19, n. 21; Vööbus 1971: 35 and 39–40. For a recent overview of this period in the Sasanian Empire and its effect on the Syriac world, see T. Daryaee 2019: 33–43, esp. 39–40. 16 For the most recent discussion of the Enaton, see A. Juckel, “The Enaton (Ennaton),” GEDSH. Juckel believes the reference to the 600 monasteries in the (Coptic-)Arabic History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria applies to all the monastic regions in the greater Alexandrian area as opposed to the Enaton alone. 17 The leaders involved were Athanasius I Gamala (d. 631 CE) Patriarch of Antioch and Anastasius Apozygatius (Miaphysite) Patriarch of Alexandria (d. 616 CE). On the former, and the ecclesiastical issues preceding the translation, see J. Tannous, “Athanasios I Gamolo,” GEDSH; Vööbus 1971: 42–44; and Juckel, “Tumo of Ḥarqel,” GEDSH. Athanasius is mentioned by name in the SH 4 Kgdms colophon (→ APPENDIX).

6 | Prolegomena

the first complete Syriac translation of the whole Greek Bible.18 Paul was responsible for the OT portion of the work, while Thomas of Harkel (ca. 570–640 CE) oversaw the NT.19 Paul, of course, did not labor alone; and the physical execution of the translation for each individual biblical book should not reasonably be attributed to a single person. However, as J. Gwynn stated long ago, the translation’s “unity of style ... marks it as the work of one mind.”20 The 4 Kgdms colophon mentions two further individuals, the Patriarch Athanasius and a certain “Thomas,” among “the rest of those who toiled and labored with him” on the work (... ‫ܐ ܕܗ ܕ ܐ ܘ‬ ‫ ܘ‬...).21 It has been widely conjectured that this “Thomas” was Thomas of Harkel himself, who completed the NT by 615–16 CE.22 Whether or not the colophon meant to indicate this particular Thomas, the common approach of the two works has persuaded most scholars to the opinion that the two projects shared workers.23 Some SH colophons (3 and 4 Kgdms, Daniel, the Twelve) explicitly mention the dates 927–28 AG (= 616–17 CE),24 though as early as 613 has been suggested as a possible start-

|| 18 With Van Rompay, “Pawlos of Tella,” GEDSH. For an overview of previous (incomplete) translations, see S. P. Brock, “Syriac Versions” ABD 6.794–99; also B. ter Haar Romeny 1999: 21–31. For the correct notion that the SH and Harklean were two halves of the same project, see Vööbus 1971: 41, and Gwynn, DCB 4.267. G. Zuntz designated the SH-Harklean effort as the “Enaton Bible” (1945: 31), a most appropriate moniker recently endorsed by Hiebert (2001: 181– 82) and affirmed here. 19 See Juckel, “Ḥarqlean Version,” GEDSH, for the latest research on his work, including its textual procedure. 20 So Gwynn, DCB 4.270. Cp. Vööbus: “… one must consider the important fact of the unity of style which runs through the entire translation work” (1971: 43, emphasis mine). 21 ‫ܝ‬ ‫ܕ ܐܘ ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܣܕ‬ ‫ܐܘ‬ ‫ܪ ܐ ܐ ܝ ܬܐܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܕ̇ ܐ ܐ‬ ...

‫ܘܥ ܐ ܢ‬ ‫ܕܐ ܐ‬ ... ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܐܨ ܬܗܘܢ ܘ‬

‫ܘ‬

‫ܕܐ‬

‫ܐ ܕܗ‬

‫ܘܐ ܦ ܘ‬

‫ܐ ܕ‬

‫ܣ‬

‫ܐܬ‬

(BnF Syr. 27, fol. 87a). 22 The Harklean colophons for the Gospels, the Pauline corpus (including Heb), and Rev all specify the date 927 AG. 23 This is a connection also apparent in their common renderings for words infrequently occurring in biblical Greek. On Thomas, see Law, who seems open to the idea the Thomas mentioned was Harkel (2011: 20–21, with a review of previous positions). Vööbus doubted the named Thomas was Harkel, though he argued Patriarch Athanasius himself actively helped translate (1971: 40–44); also Gwynn, DCB 4.267, esp. n. “e.” 24 E.g., SH 3 Kgdms col.: ‫ ܐܬܦܣܩ )ܐܬܦܫܩ‬...sic rd ‫ܪ ܐ ܒ ܐ ܒ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫(ܕ‬

‫ܢ‬ ‫܀‬

‫ܒܐ‬

‫ܐ ܕܐܪܒ‬ ‫ܐ ܕܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬

‫ܪܘܣ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘ ܒ‬ ‫ܐܐ ܘ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܪܐ ܒ‬ ‫( ܕܐ‬BL ADD. 14437, fol. 122a) “Now, [this book] was trans-

lated from the Greek language into Syriac in the month of Sebaṭ [= Feb–March], in the year 927 indiction, in the Enaton of Alexandria, in the holy monastery of the Antonian[s].”

AG, the 4th

The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)Hexaplaric Tradition: A Short Introduction | 7

ing point.25 The Persian conquest continued into Egypt, and the Alexandrian environs specifically, ca. 619/20, suggesting the translation had to have been finished by then.26 Character of the Translation The nature of the Syriac translation represented in SH (and the Harklean NT, hereafter Hark) has been well documented and need not be explained anew.27 In short, the translators sought to represent their Greek Vorlage(n) as closely as possible, often at the expense of the traditional (or classical) idiom of the target language. The techniques used by the SH’s translators stood at the end of a gradually evolving approach in translation which strove for greater formal equivalency from the 5th cent. CE onwards.28 Thus, the Syriac of SH resulted in the frequent use of calques and strict adherence to Greek word order (where possible), amongst other grammatical irregularities, all in an effort to “mirror” the source language.29 The most immediately recognizable technique of this approach was the ever-present use of the separated Syriac possessive particle - ‫( ܕ‬normally meant to reflect added prominence,30 e.g., ‫“ ܕ‬my own”) to render the similarly separated Greek possessive pronoun (μου, etc.).31 The net result of this more servile attitude towards the source language is that SH can be greatly relied upon to reconstruct the Greek it was translating.32 Text-Critical Nature and Sources The MSS serving as Paul of Tella’s Vorlagen have been consistently described in Septuagintal literature as copies “of the fifth column of Origen’s Hexapla.”33 || 25 So Gwynn, DCB 4.267–68; a view favored by both Baars (1968: 1) and Vööbus (1971: 39). 26 Vööbus 1971: 39–40. Gwynn: “Thus the years 613 and 617 (or possibly 620) define the limits of the time within which the version must have been executed, a space of four, or at the utmost seven years:—at most, not more than sufficient for so great a work” (DCB 4.267–68). 27 On this, see most recently Liljeström 2021: 663–65. 28 See Brock’s classic diachronic study (1983: 1–14). He notes this policy applied to all Syriac translations, whether of biblical, patristic, or philosophical literature. 29 “Mirror translation” is Brock’s jargon (“Syriac Versions” ABD 6.798 [re: Hark]; 1983: 12–14). 30 Nöldeke: “With substantives, [- ‫ ܕ‬gives] more prominence to the possessor” (Gram. §225a). 31 Law 2011: 22–23. The lack of - ‫ ܕ‬in the above-quoted is discussed below (→ §2.3.3.). 32 L. Perkins: “… the extreme care and consistency of Paul in his translation process allow the text-critic of the Septuagint to discern and recreate with relative certainty the Greek text which Paul had before him” (1980: 7). Completely perfect consistency was of course not attained as F. Field noted long ago ([1875]2005: 130–31; 1.lxix). See the important study by M. Weitzman 1998: 317–59, esp. 321–23. 33 Fernández Marcos 2000: 353; J. Dines 2004: 99; S. Jellicoe 1968: 125; cp. Swete 1914: 112.

8 | Prolegomena

Origen’s work, known as the “hexapla,” was a massive,34 multi-columned synopsis of the Greek Old Testament which included: 1) a Hebrew column, 2) a Greek transcription35 of the Hebrew column (Secunda), 3) Aquila’s wooden Greek translation (α΄), 4) Symmachus’ more target-language oriented rendition (σ΄), 5) the old Septuagint translation (i.e., the Seventy, the Old Greek, or G/LXX), and 6) Theodotion’s version (θ΄), which while revised towards the (proto-)Masoretic Text (MT) still remained close to LXX.36 These were aligned on a grid, more or less word-for-word (→ §§4.4.1–2; 6.1), permitting a reader to find the various Greek renditions of a given Hebrew word or phrase. It was through the use of these Greek translations, on the basis of the Hebrew column, that Origen sought (at least in part) to “heal” (ἰάσασθαί) the translation of the Seventy (LXX), which he emended to correct, or perhaps at least display, the differences between it and the “(original) Hebrew.”37 At some point during this process, Origen adopted a few of the traditional sigla developed by Alexandrian text-critics (e.g., Aristarchus)38 in order to mark the discrepancies between the Hebrew and LXX. Those parts which LXX had but were lacking in Origen’s Hebrew were marked with the obelus ÷/⨪/–, though when

|| 34 A. Grafton and M. Williams estimate that the entire work spanned approximately 40 codices (2006: 106, n. 36). 35 That Secunda represents a transcription as opposed to a transliteration of the Hebrew column, see B. Kantor 2017: 5 and passim. 36 On these, see Fernández Marcos 2000. Ancient sources describing the “hexapla,” its columns, and their contents include Eusebius’ H.E. 6.16 and Epiphanius of Salamis’ (ca. 315–403 CE) De Mens. et Pond. §§9–18; see also Jerome’s (ca. 345–420 CE) Vulgate Prologues: in Libro Paralip. (= Adv. Ruf. 2.27), in Libro Ezrae, in Pent, and in Libro Iosue (among others). For other sources, see the respective chapters on each reviser in Fernández Marcos and the Oxford Handbook. For recent analysis of the Patristic testimony, with Greek excerpts and ETs, see P. Gentry’s article in the latter (2021: 562–65). 37 See Swete 1914: 69–73, Fernández Marcos 2000: 208–210, and Dines 2004: 99–102. On the Hebrew column (and its relationship with the Septuagint column), see the studies by J. Schaper (1998), G. Norton (1991 and 1998), and R. Jenkins (1998). Gentry, helpfully supplies excerpts with ETs from Origen’s writings describing his process. He concludes: “The Hexapla was only a tool to heal the differences between the LXX versus the Hebrew and the Three” (2021: 563–64, quotation at p. 564). For a discussion on whether or not Origen acknowledged more than one type of Hebrew text, see below (→ §§6.1; 6.2.1–2). 38 See esp. F. Schironi 2012 and 2015; see also Gentry 2021: 562–65.

The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)Hexaplaric Tradition: A Short Introduction | 9

the reverse obtained, he interpolated LXX with the corresponding reading taken from one of the other columns, often Theodotion or the unified witness of the Three, marked with the asterisk ※.39 This entire process is reflected in SH, whose running text displays both the in-text sigla (÷/⨪ and ※, among others) and marginal readings from the other columns, i.e., the Three (Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion), as well as less common versions (the “Hebrew,” Quinta, Sexta).40 At times, the physiognomy of SH has led some to even suggest that Origen’s columned “Hexapla”—what we here call the Hexapla Maior41—was thus at the disposal of the Syriac translators (→ §6.1).42 More judiciously, however, recent scholarship has, through detailed study of both the SH’s text and marginalia,43 in combination with careful analysis of the SH colophons,44 come to a more precise understanding of SH’s witness to the hexaplaric tradition.45 Instead of a product which would reflect only the shape and form of the “fifth column” precisely as it existed in the Hexapla Maior, the SH’s Vorlagen are better collectively described as a “witness to what is

|| 39 See his Comm. on Matt 15.14 and Ep. ad Africanum (SC 302: §7; PG 11.55–58). (On the ostensible contradiction of purpose between Origen’s statements in these two works, see Gentry 2021: 564.) Scattered scholia in Greek MSS attesting to these were collected by R. Devreesse (1954: 133–34). Note there has historically been debate amongst experts as to whether these sigla were placed in the LXX column itself or a separately issued text (see Fernández Marcos 2000: 213–15, with much literature). Recently, Schironi (2015: 194–96, with nn. 31–32 and p. 219, n. 85, with much literature) and Gentry are of the opinion that the columned Hexapla did not contain these sigla (2021: 564–65, 567, citing Epiphanius as support). 40 On these, consult Field ([1875] 2005), Swete (1914), Jellicoe (1968), Fernández Marcos (2000), S. Kreuzer (2021), G. Veltri and A. Salvesen (2021), M. van der Meer (2021), and B. Marsh (2021) with their cumulative bibliographies. Given the incremental gain in MS data, each work updated the one previous to it, and thus they are best consulted in reverse chronological order. 41 In order to underscore this very important distinction, when the columned “hexapla” synopsis is specifically referred to in this study, “Hexapla Maior” is ubiquitously used. With Jenkins (1991: 265), the words “hexapla” or “tetrapla” are not capitalized (save the Hexapla Maior) to reflect the some uncertainty as to what these terms precisely meant in ancient the sources (→ §2.2 and notes 46–47 below). 42 E.g., Jellicoe 1968: 125–26 (his opposition to E. Nestle in this case is not convincing). While probably circumstantial, the fact the Syrians did not use the Hexapla Maior for the Pss— something which survived in Egypt (e.g., MSS 1098 and 2005)—suggests otherwise. 43 See Law 2008b: 101–20 (esp. 113–15); 2011: 19, 316, and 364. Also Gentry 2003: 23–28. 44 G. Mercati 1941; Jenkins 1991; also Devreesse 1954: 122–24. For a complete analysis of all known hexaplaric colophons, see the forthcoming monograph by Gentry, J. Meade, et al. 45 Liljeström’s description of the SH’s Vorlagen is exceptional in this regard (2021: 661–63), as she properly highlights the complexity of this issue reflecting the most recent scholarship.

10 | Prolegomena

preserved from the Hexapla [Maior].”46 This distinction is important, for it emphasizes both the complicated history of the MSS translated as well as the respective roles of Eusebius and Pamphilus as both editors and promotors of the hexaplaric ἔκδοσις derived from Origen’s laborious synopsis (→ §6.2.1). For example, when the SH’s colophons are viewed as a whole, the claims that their base was a copy of the “(fifth col. of the) Hexapla” or the work of Origen’s only are both misleading. As such, Origen is not often specifically mentioned by name nor is the “hexapla/Hexapla [Maior? → §2.2]” the sole source mentioned in the (syro)hexaplaric colophons (→ APPENDIX for ETs): Table 1.1.1.1: “hexapla” or “tetrapla” in the SH Colophons47

‫ܢ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫̈ ܐ‬

‫̈ܪܒ‬

tetraplon = “four columns” Gen

(‫ ܢ‬-)‫)ܐ( ܐ‬

̈ ‫) ܝ( ̈ ܐ ܐ‬

hexapla, -plon = “six cols”

‫̈ ܐ‬

‫ ܒ‬/‫ܐ ܐ‬

‫ܐ‬

heptapla = “seven cols”

Gen Exod

Exod

|| 46 Law 2011: 1 (emphasis his). See also his footnote: “While it cannot be proven that they did not have the Hexapla [Maior] at hand, it is credulous to suggest they did …” (2011: 1, n. 1). 47 Previously, Jenkins claimed that SH ought not to be viewed as the Syrohexapla but really the Syrotetrapla: “The tetraplaric origin of Syh is dominant in the colophons, … That is not to say that hexaplaric materials are not mentioned, but such references are in the minority, sometimes explicitly contrasted with tetraplaric materials …” (1991: 267). See his later designations “Syrotetrapla” (p. 268, underline his), and “Sht” (p. 270, a potentially unfortunate abbreviation, in opposition to the common “Syh”). While his point is well taken for the SH books to which it applies, the extant colophons, as a whole, do not expressly support his assertion. (Nor would it strictly apply to those books whose MS sources involved both, i.e., Gen and Josh.) The historical debate amongst hexaplarists as to what precisely the term “tetrapla” refers is not dealt with here since the books relevant to the present study, i.e., Exod, Num, and Deut, are not “tetraplaric” in origin—at least according to the extant subscriptions. In short, some scholars believe the tetrapla is an abbreviated form of the hexapla (whether columned or not), whereas others hold that it is something else entirely, possibly created without consideration of the “(original) Hebrew” before Origen’s move to Caesarea (see, e.g., R. Clements 2000). Gentry’s position on the “tetrapla” is that this item “had an identical layout on the page as the [SH], with the main text a derivative of the Fifth Column of the Hexapla [Maior] and marginal notes added providing readings of the Three … . Thus the Tetrapla was ‘fourfold’, i.e. supplied four editions of the text” (2021: 565). If Gentry is correct—and I wish to stress that I concur—the fact that the term “tetrapla” is not found in the colophons for Exod and Num requires explanation. For an overview of the hexapla / tetrapla question and literature, see Hiebert, 2001: 183– 85, with n. 21, and esp. Gentry 2021: 562–68 (with much literature) and his 2022: 47–49.

The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)Hexaplaric Tradition: A Short Introduction | 11

‫ܢ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫̈ ܐ‬

‫̈ܪܒ‬

̈ ‫) ܝ( ̈ ܐ ܐ‬

(‫ ܢ‬-)‫)ܐ( ܐ‬

tetraplon = “four columns”

‫̈ ܐ‬

hexapla, -plon = “six cols”

‫ ܒ‬/‫ܐ ܐ‬

‫ܐ‬

heptapla = “seven cols”

Num Josh

Josh

(Judg?-)Ruth48 3 Kgdms

3 Kgdms 4 Kgdms (3x)

Lam Dan (twice) Twelve Prov [Eccles]49 Cant Job N.B.: The “Syrohexaplaric” Pss are not hexaplaric50

Similarly, explicit references to Origen, Pamphilus, and Eusebius, are prevalent throughout the extant colophons, though in unexpected ways (→ §§2.2; 3.2): Table 1.1.1.2: Origen, Pamphilus, and Eusebius in the Extant Hexaplaric Colophons51

Gen

Exod

Num

3 Kgdms

4 Kgdms

Isa

Twelve

Prov

Eusebius

x (libr.)

x

x (libr.)

x

x

x

x

xx

(‘of Pam.’)

x

x

x x

x

x

xx

Pamphilus Origen 1st per.52

x (libr.) x

x

x

|| 48 In antiquity, Judges and Ruth often circulated in MSS as a unit, implying that the sources of the one could likely apply to the other (on which see the review of canon lists by E. Gallagher and Meade 2017). Compare the colophons to Judges and Ruth (→ APPENDIX). 49 The Solomonic books may have derived from the same codex, implying Eccles also came from the “hexapla” (see Mercati 1941: 43–45). 50 See Hiebert 1989 and previous literature cited there. 51 Bold = SH MSS; italics = Greek colophons; libr. = reference to the “library” of said person.

12 | Prolegomena

Eusebius

Eccl

Cant

Isa (Q)53

Ezek (Q)

x

x

x (comm.)

xx

2 Esd. (‫)א‬

Est. (‫)א‬54

Prov (Tisch)55 x

(‘of Pam.’) Pamphilus Origen 1st per.

xx x (?) x

x 56

x xx

x (exeg.)

x

xx

x(x)x

x

x

x

x

[x? cp. SH]

x

x

x

Thus, to claim that SH was a translation of the “fifth column of the Hexapla [Maior]” or that it reflected the work of Origen alone (or directly) is unsubstantiated. Rather the SH colophons plainly testify to having translated copies of the Eusebian-Pamphilan edition57 ultimately based upon—though not necessarily identical with—the hexaplaric work of Origen (i.e., the Hexapla Maior),58 which were || 52 That is, a first person citation from the original colophon of a given MS belonging to and/or produced by Origen, Pamphilus, and/or Eusebius. 53 On the interpretation of this colophon, see esp. R. Ceulemans 2008. 54 T. Skeat seems to have interpreted the Esther subscription as indicating that Pamphilus and Antoninus were responsible for the total contents of the codex in question, viz., 1–4 Kgdms, 1–2 Chron, 1–2 Esd, and Est ([1999] 2004: 229). If so, then both Pamphilus’ and Antoninus’ roles would presumably extend to each of those books. However, the SH 3–4 Kgdms colophons do not agree; Pamphilus is not mentioned in 3 Kgdms and both subscriptions lack Antoninus altogether. Skeat’s analysis then should not be maintained. 55 The partial subscription is related to that in SH Prov; see Field 2005: 185 (1.c) and Zuntz 1945: 21. 56 On this, see above n. 49. 57 Compare Jerome’s description in his Prolog. in Libro Paralip. (= Adv. Ruf. 2.27): … mediae inter has provinciae palestinos codices legunt, quos ab Origen elaboratos Eusebius et Pamphilis vulgaverunt … . See Law 2011: 17–18, Hiebert 2001: 182–86, and Gentry 2021: 565–66. Note Gentry’s recent opinion: “According to the colophons, Pamphilus and Eusebius continued to develop the ἔκδοσις created by Origen from the Hexapla [Maior]. They added marginal notes or readings from the Hexapla [Maior]. Thus an edition was produced from the Fifth Column that eventually became textually distant from that of the Fifth Column” (2021: 562). Again, Gentry holds this edition, containing the critical sigla and marginal notes, was the “Tetrapla” (see above n. 47) which Eusebius and Pamphilus continued to develop. He applies this term irrespective of whether or not a given colophon mentions the tetrapla as a source. Schironi much agrees in that the Hexapla Maior was a preparatory work used to construct the critical text (2015: esp. 214–15). 58 See esp. Schironi 2015. Given the collective witness of the (SH) colophons concerning to whom editorial activities are attributed (or from whose “library” the original Vorlage was taken), it is interesting to compare the SH “colophons” as described by Timothy I (d. 823 CE), Catholicos of the Church of the East. (On whom, see D. Bundy, “Timotheos I,” GEDSH.) In a letter (Ep. 47) to one Sergius, in which Timothy described the copying out of SH he sponsored,

The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)Hexaplaric Tradition: A Short Introduction | 13

selectively glossed with various marginalia and other para-textual materials (scholia, etc.). Irrespective of the precise roles each individual played in the construction of the running text and marginal apparatus of a given book, the final editorial hand to which many of the colophons testify is not necessarily Origen’s (→ §§2.2; 3.2; 6.2).59 Contemporary research on the SH’s marginalia has moved the discussion further still, beyond the reach of Origen and his immediate successors. Studies by T.M. Law60 and P. Gentry,61 in particular, have revealed that the presence of some marginal readings may be attributed to post-hexaplaric, scribal crosscollation activity. While most of these readings (i.e., the Three) probably do go back to the original hexaplaric materials from the Caesarean library,62 some are indeed indicative of a secondary layer of material not native to the initial hexaplaric tradition (e.g., anonymous, marginal Antiochian/Lucianic readings).63 Law goes as far to suggest that perhaps it was Paul of Tella(!) who added various marginal materials, from the Three or others, taken from “the media of bible manuscripts, homilies, and … catenae.”64

|| he wrote:

‫ܣ ܘܕܐܪܓ‬

‫ܨ ܐ ܕܐܘ ܒ‬

‫ܘܐ‬

‫ܘܐܬ‬

‫ܒ‬

‫ ܕܐܬ‬:‫ܒܐ‬

‫ܗܘܐ ܕ ܒ‬

“At the end of every biblical book the following was written: “This was written, collated and compared with the exemplar of Eusebius, Pamphilus and Origen” (Brock’s ET; 1997: 247). However, judging by the colophons from surviving copies, Timothy’s is at best a commixed generalization, unrepresentative of each book individually. On his letter, see ter Haar Romeny 2001, P. Petitmengin and B. Flusin 1984, and A. Butts 2021. 59 In her study on P.Grenf. 1.5 (dated 250–350 CE), Schironi speculates that the production of this critical LXX, based on though not identical with the Hexapla Maior, may have been the work of Origen himself or resulted from the editorial work of Pamphilus and Eusebius (2015: 217). She also admits that perhaps Origen initiated the project, while by Pamphilus and Eusebius “carried [it] out at a larger scale” (2015: 219, n. 85). Cp., the subscription to Ezek (CODEX Q): … και διορθωθη απο των ΩΡΙΓΕΝΟΥΣ αυτου τετραπλων ατινα και αυτου χειρι διορθωτο και εσχολιογραφητο· οθεν ΕΥΣΕΒΕΙΟΣ εγω τα σχολια παρεθηκα· ΠΑΜΦΙΛΟΣ και ΕΥΣΕΒΕΙΟΣ διορθωσαντο. (For the ET and notes → APPENDIX.) This colophon bears ambiguity regarding both the text’s “correction” and annotation (for the latter, cp. Field 2005: 186–87; 1.c–ci, and Jenkins 1991: 267–68). On the ambiguity of the term διορθόω and the implications thereof, see the extended discussion below (→ §2.2). 60 Law’s studies have focused on SH 3 Kgdms (both 2011 and 2008b: 113–17). 61 E.g., his 2003 study concerning the ὁμοίως marginalia in SH Eccles. 62 Note esp. Ceulemans’ important 2012 study and Gentry 2003: 28, n. 35. 63 See Law regarding the Antiochian/Lucianic readings which crept into the SH’s exemplar(s) after Eusebius (2008b: 113–17). 64 2011: 19. He asserts these included the Three “as well as those of the more obscure Hebraios, Suros, Samareitikon, etc.” (cp. Law 2008b: 103–04). This claim, however, is specious: Samareitikon readings do not appear in SH whatsoever (→ §1.3), and I know of no ὁ συρʹ read-

14 | Prolegomena

The exact procedure of Paul with respect to his exemplars is a thoughtprovoking question. It should be pointed out, however, that unlike the Hark colophons, the SH subscriptions do not explicitly attribute either collation or marginal annotation duties to the Syriac translators. In fact, the majority of instances of the terms ‫‘ ܐܬ‬collated’, ‫‘ ܐܬܬ‬annotated’, or ‫‘ ܬܪܨ‬correct/edit’65 occur after the introductory formula immediately preceding the translation of the exemplar’s Greek colophon.66 It is thus unsafe, and probably flawed, to assume that Paul had performed any such activity.67 Rather the colophons overwhelmingly describe Paul’s exemplars as having already been crosscollated—a prospect Law admits.68 However complicated the history of SH’s marginalia may be—and it is indeed complex—the Samaritan passages, i.e., the so-called “expansions” such as that recorded by Masius, were explicitly mentioned in the SH colophons to Exod (→ §2.2) and Num (→ §3.2); and the descriptions given therein make it clear that Paul of Tella was not in any way responsible for them. Rather the subscriptions explain that they were part of the old Eusebian layer—or what might more neutrally be called the “basic Caesarean layer”69—of the Greek, hexaplaric ἔκδοσις Paul translated.

|| ing transmitted by SH. Nevertheless, “the Hebrew” certainly dates to the earliest layer. For the nature of the ὁ συρʹ readings, see ter Haar Romeny 1997. 65 For the historical nuances of these terms, in particular ‫ܬܪܨ‬, see the extended discussion below (→ §2.2). 66 The only exceptions are the SH subscriptions for Josh, 3 Kgdms, and 4 Kgdms (though the latter is ambiguous, cp. also that for the Twelve), which may have contributed to Law’s opinion. He did not analyze the colophon in his 2011 study—a major omission on his part (cp. Schironi 2015: 219, n. 85)—so it is difficult to know. On the situation for Josh, see below (→ §4.2). 67 Correction of obvious errors should be assumed. 68 See Law 2008b: 115; 2011: 316 and esp. p. 364. His hypothesis, in part, derives from Fernández Marcos’ observations (1998: 411–12; 2005: 154). The latter noticed that material from Symmachus (and Lucian) was more prevalent than that of the other revisers in SH MSS (2005: 154). This begged the question of whether this was due to the Syrian translators’ intentionally preserving (or adding?) this material, or whether they chose MSS which had already contained such an imbalance (see also Fernández Marcos 1998: 411–12). It should also be pointed out that these studies focus on the books of Kingdoms, and the textual state of these specific books should under no circumstances be imputed to the remainder of the canon. 69 I define this layer as “those hexaplaric materials (textual or para-textual) directly resulting from the work (collectively or individually) of Origen, Pamphilus, and/or Eusebius.” In other words, the “basic Caesarean layer” ceased upon Eusebius’ death or shortly thereafter assuming his students would have completed his work (→ §6.2).

The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)Hexaplaric Tradition: A Short Introduction | 15

1.1.2 The Samaritan Pentateuch’s “Expansions”: A History in Outline The beginning of the study of SP70 in the West is dated to 1623,71 when Achille Harlay de Sancy (1581–1646),72 sometime French ambassador to Constantinople, entered the Parisian Congregation of the Oratory, bringing with him the Hebrew SP MS73 which the famed Italian traveler Pietro della Valle (1586–1652) had purchased for him while travelling in Damascus in 1616.74 Upon its publication in the Paris Polyglot (ed. G.M. Le Jay; 1629–45),75 it was this MS which became the exemplar of SP76 used in the scholarly dialogue of the 17th and 18th centuries.77 || 70 The following section, far from exhaustive, primarily sketches those whose critical works treated the Hebrew SP, while those who dealt meaningfully with the Greek SP are described separately in the section thereafter. There are a some notable exceptions (e.g., Richard Simon and a few post-Qumran scholars) whose studies are found in both sections. 71 As correctly described by M. Stuart ([1826]1832: 682) and to be distinguished with della Valle’s acquisition of the MS in 1616 (pace J. Zsengellér 2009: 190, n. 1). As noted above, this was not the first time a European had encountered SP (see above n. 11 on Guillaume Postel). According to Schur’s research, a number of (European Christian) travelers encountered the Samaritans in the Levant and Egypt from the 14th–18th centuries, each of whom mentioned divers things about the Samaritans. Among those listed who preceded della Valle, Schur lists only the Frenchman Henry de Beauvau (who visited Gaza in 1604) as having mentioned that the Samaritans hold only to the Pentateuch as Scripture (see Schur 1986: 146–47, with n. 29 and further references). Did these travelers seek to learn more details about their Pentateuch? Apparently not. This is somewhat surprising given the list Schur supplies enumerating some 18 travelers (both Postel and de Beauvau included) before della Valle who apparently knew nothing in detail about the SP as such. 72 See, P. de Robert, “Sancy, Achille Harlay de,” CSS, 211; A. Tal 1989: 434. 73 Now MS BnF, Sam. 2 (1345 CE; von Gall’s MS B; Schorch’s P2); see von Gall’s edition for a cataloguing (1918: iii–iv). The MS has been posted online by the BnF: https://gallica.bnf.fr /ark:/12148/btv1b10091750h. For a summary of the MS, its scribe, and the MS’ relationship with other medieval Samaritan codices, see R. Anderson and T. Giles 2012: 150–54. 74 For the “discovery” and acquisition of the SP MS in question, as well as the copy of the Samaritan Targum (hereafter ST) he bought, see the portion of della Valle’s travel journal (dated June 1616) reprinted (original Italian with ET) in M. Gaster 1925: 181–84 (his “Appendix II”; cp. Schur’s ET which has some slight differences [1986: 147–48]). Gaster observed that della Valle said that de Sancy gave him 100 scudi for the purchase, “a very large amount at that time” (1925: 101). Della Valle immediately sent the SP MS to de Sancy while keeping the copy of ST for himself. For a recent ET of the same passage, see G. Bull’s publication of his travel journals (1990: 88–90; as noted by Pummer 2016: 186). 75 See G. Firmin and P.L. Stenhouse, “Morin, Jean,” CSS, 160. Morin edited the Oratory’s copy of SP for the Paris Polyglot (Pummer 2016: 198, n. 13), after some limited collation work (see A. Hamilton 2016: 151). 76 Della Valle in his travel journal (see above n. 74) reflected on and ultimately rejected the possibility of sending his ST to the Vatican Library, as he felt few would have access to it and

16 | Prolegomena

Though interest in Samaritans and Samaritanism predated the arrival of SP in Europe, it was the arrival of their sacred text which prompted wider discussion.78 For SP had arrived at a time when the fires of religious unrest, kindled and continuously fanned by the Protestant Reformation, were still very much alive; and, as such, scholars on both sides of the Protestant–Roman Catholic confessional divide sought to integrate SP into their own understanding of textual authority, in order to delineate their positions and/or intellectually outmaneuver their theological adversaries.79 And while one could rightly argue that the intellectual milieu into which the SP first found itself in Europe was often openly hostile, the fact that SP was used—often promoted by the Roman Catholic, pro-Septuagint party, while the Protestant side (normally) preferred the vocalized Rabbinic Masoretic Bible (e.g., Johannes Buxtorf, see below)—required both sides to take note of and engage with the recently introduced text, one which may have otherwise been ignored or too easily dismissed. 1.1.2.1 The Period before Gesenius SP’s many “expansion” passages, of which Masius’ excerpts only represented two (→ §1.1), were immediately noticed after SP arrived in the West. Naturally, these long, largely repetitive blocks of text, elicited different responses from the various scholars who studied them.

|| would thus fall into obscurity. His ST MS would eventually make its way to the Oratory and end up in the polyglots along with the SP he bought for de Sancy (Gaster 1925: 101). 77 The same text was reissued in the London Polyglot (1653–57) revised slightly by Edmund Castell (Pummer 2016: 198, n. 13, and Hamilton 2016: 153; → §1.2.1.1). S. Mandelbrote notes that the Pentateuch was in print before the end of 1653 (2006: 86). Given the numerous problems which accompanied the publication of the Paris Polyglot (see Hamilton 2016: 151), the London edition superseded its French cousin, the latter being “doomed … to a fate even worse than being remaindered: sold for paper-weights!” (P. Miller 2001c: 124). The (Roman Catholic) Morin later offered high praise for the success of the (Protestant) London edition in a 1658 letter to Cardinal F. Barberini (see Miller 2001: 467–68). 78 Aside from the aforementioned Postel, the famed chronologist Joseph Justus Scaliger (1540–1609) also sent letters to Samaritan communities in both Palestine and Egypt (see J. Loop 2013: 106; Schur 1986: 155, n. 39). For an overview of Western correspondence with Samaritan communities—including several less-than-honorable attempts by Europeans in the 17th cent. to solicit copies of SP by claiming “Samaritan brethren” lived in Europe, e.g., Robert Huntington (1637–1701)—see Anderson 1989: 103–12; for Huntington, see Schur 1986: 148–49, with literature, Gaster 1925: 159–161, and Pummer 2016: 253–54. 79 While modern scholars are correct to point out both of these motivations, the latter need not exclude the former.

The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)Hexaplaric Tradition: A Short Introduction | 17

Jean Morin (1591–1659) The first outspoken proponent of the value of SP was the French Oratorian Jean Morin.80 The Catholic Morin, himself a convert from Huguenotism, insisted that the Roman Catholic Church-endorsed LXX/G was the properly inspired sacred text. In so doing, his prolegomena, written for the reissued GRECO-LATIN SIXTINE edition (1628 → §1.2.1.1), mustered not only the Church Fathers and the NT in support of G’s authority, but an entirely new line of argument—SP.81 Taken in by the ostensible textual agreement between the G and SP against MT,82 Morin used any and all argumentation to prop up the textual newcomer in support of the Catholic cause, beginning with his Exercitationes ecclesiasticae in utrumque Samaritanorum pentateuchum … in 1631.83 Morin argued for the supposedly more pristine nature of SP, noting especially the antiquity of the Samaritan script84 and the consistency of the Samaritan text vs. the “corrupted” nature (accidental or otherwise) of the Jewish text.85 He alleged the unvocalized, unaffected86 SP was ideal, and any ambiguities resulting therefrom were to be re-

|| 80 On Morin’s role in SP studies, see (with the above-mentioned CSS article) P. Auvrey 1959: 400–06, J-P Rothschild 1989b: 71–73, P. Gibert 2008: 767–73, Anderson and Giles 2012: 154–60, and Loop 2013: 107–10, to all of which this section is indebted. Concerning Anderson and Giles’ coverage of this period, see Pummer’s 2013 review. 81 Auvrey 1959: 401; Gibert 2008: 768–69. 82 Anderson and Giles 2012: 154–55; Miller 2001c: 125–26. 83 For a brief summary of his later works, see Gibert 2008: 770–72. 84 Anderson and Giles 2012: 154–55. Note Loop’s summary and ET (2013: 108): … the idea that the Samaritans were still using the original Hebrew script was pivotal: “They have to be especially praised for having preserved the Mosaic letter unchanged up to this day, the letter, I say, written down by the finger of God, the letter in which the law was first written and the promises of the coming of the Messiah were first revealed” [Morin, Exercitationes, 91]. With the same diligence and ‘maxima cum cura’, Morin argued, the Samaritans would also have conserved the integrity of their Pentateuch. The antiquity of the Samaritans’ script was widely held to pre-date the Jewish change to Aramaic square script in Ezra’s period, e.g., B. Walton followed Scaliger in holding this view (see Miller 2001a: 480, with references). For a brief overview of recent discussion of the distinctive Samaritan script, see below (→ EXCURSUS A). 85 Both the Kethib/Qere and Kabbalistic errors were posited by Morin (see Anderson and Giles 2012: 155–59). As Mandelbrote observes, Morin’s criticism of the received Hebrew text “implicitly attacked those Protestants who were wedded to its authority” (2006: 75). 86 Morin: “… nothing can be found in their books, no points, no accents, no variant form of the same letter, or variant position, no distinction of verses, and no traces of grammatical subtleties” (Exercitationes, 91; Loop’s ET [2013: 108]). See also Rothschild 1989b: 71, n. 50.

18 | Prolegomena

solved by the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.87 In the course of this argumentation, Morin naturally needed to excuse (or explain) these “expansions.” He attempted to do so by appealing to the practice of the Church Fathers who similarly connected texts from different places to clarify the sense. By way of example, he compared the “expansions” with Origen’s interpolation of LXX with Theodotion (!) in his hexaplaric work, something which, as Richard Simon would later point out (see below), really does not follow.88 Morin’s foray into textual politicking unsurprisingly elicited strong negative reactions, both publically and privately, chiefly from Protestants, though some Catholic colleagues also argued against him.89 The Oratorian Father had dared to trample upon the then current theory popular amongst some Protestants, whereby specifically MT and its Masoretic vocalization was, viewed through the pan-Protestant prism of sola scriptura, considered to be divinely inspired.90 Famously the chief proponent of this view, Johannes Buxtorf (1564–1629), argued that even the vowel points themselves were at least as old as Ezra.91 One of || 87 Loop: “In [Morin’s] writings, Scripture was compared to a mere ‘nose of wax’, which could be turned in any way and thus needed an infallible external authority of interpretation” (2013: 109). See also Gibert 2008: 770, and Miller 2001c: 136 and passim. 88 See Simon 1682/1.87–88; Morin 1631: 294–302, esp. 299. Morin, in a letter to a colleague in 1630, described these passages as “constitut[ing] an inner-textual commentary on the Pentateuch” (Millar 2001a: 137; here cited is Millar’s description of the letter’s contents). 89 For a brief overview of these, see Anderson and Giles 2012: 160–62. Note that both Siméon de Muis (1587–1644) and Valérien de Flavigny (d. 1674), Catholic professors of Hebrew in Paris, opposed Morin (Loop 2013: 107; Anderson and Giles 2012: 161, where de Muis is wrongly implied to be Protestant). Writing as late as 1826, Stuart noted: “But the publication of Morin soon exited a controversy, which, even at the present hour, has not wholly subsided” ([1826]1832: 684). Compare the quotation opening this study. 90 The Protestant adherence to the Rabbinic Bible and its vocalization is succinctly described by Loop (2013: 104): The stability of the Hebrew textus receptus was pivotal for the project of the Reformation and its battle cry of sola scriptura. Although most early Reformers and even eminent Protestant Hebraists of the early seventeenth century [e.g., Louis Cappel (1585–1658)] doubted the antiquity of the vowel points, the standard Protestant position that emerged in the second half of the sixteenth century was that the Masoretic vowel-pointed text—and this meant, in practice, the text of Jacob ben Ḥaiyym’s [sic] Biblia Rabbinica, published in Venice in 1525—was the inspired and infallible word of God. Thus, the existence of another, rival textual tradition—especially one which often seemed to agree with G against MT—was a matter not only of textual concern, but one which challenged, or at least cast doubt upon, a commonly held Protestant theological statute. 91 On Buxtorf, see S. Burnett 2008: 787–89, and Loop 2013: 104–05.

The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)Hexaplaric Tradition: A Short Introduction | 19

fiercest opponents to Morin’s work was that by the Buxtorfs’ fellow Leidenite, Johann H. Hottinger (1620–67).92 His work Exercitationes anti-Morinianae de pentateucho (1644), dripping with polemic, claimed “… if neither the manuscripts of the Hebrew Old Testament nor the ones of the Greek New Testament are pure sources, then there is no pure Scripture in God’s Church at all.”93 One argument Hottinger proposed to depreciate the SP was to prove it was badly transcribed from a Jewish text in square script; for the obvious confusions between certain letters could not be explained by recourse to Samaritan script.94 Hottinger also had access to the Samaritan Book of Joshua,95 which he promptly enlisted to discredit the Samaritan documents given its profound disagreements with the (Masoretic) biblical book and Josephus.96 Later, the American biblical scholar Moses Stuart (1780–1852), when reviewing and reflecting upon this earliest period, justly described the ideological infighting: “The principal aim [of these scholars] was to overthrow their [opponent’s] positions, than to examine the subject before them in a critical and thorough manner.”97 Richard Simon (1638–1712) Between the polemically-laced arguments of Morin and his pro-MT (mostly) Protestant opponents stood the more centrist opinion of another Roman Catholic member of the Parisian Oratory, Richard Simon.98 Simon’s Semitic studies were encapsulated in his important work Histoire Critique du Vieux Testament (1678)—a volume which (eventually) fell afoul of King Louis XIV’s government, at the behest of Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet (1627–1704), Roman Catholic bishop

|| 92 On the interactions between Buxtorf and Hottinger, see Loop 2013: 91–129, esp. p. 117, where Loop describes a correspondence between them in which the former encouraged the latter to attack Morin. 93 Loop’s ET (2013: 117 and n. 119) from Anti-Morinianae, Pref. 3r. 94 Loop 2013: 120–21, and Rothschild 1989b: 71–72, n. 52. See also Simon’s criticism of Hottinger’s reasoning (1682/1.81). 95 For the critical problems with the Samaritan Book of Joshua, see A.D. Crown, “Book of Joshua,” CSS, 42–43. 96 Loop 2013: 119. 97 [1826]1832: 684. 98 On Simon generally, see J. Rogerson 2008: 837–43 (with literature) and, esp. W. McKane 1989: 111–50. The latter notes that Simon’s less polemic, more critical approach led him into trouble. His work was censured and “the long shadow of ecclesiastical and political authoritarianism, never subsequently to be lifted, fell on Simon’s career as a biblical scholar” (p. 112). Subsequent attempts to restore his public reputation failed (pp. 112–13). For a description of the complex religious-political morass in France during Simon’s troubles, see P. Lambe 1985.

20 | Prolegomena

of Meaux.99 In his Histoire, during the course of his critical discussions on SP,100 Simon strove for a via media between both the opinions of Morin and others.101 While arguing against Morin’s regard for the Samaritans’ ancient script,102 preference for the plene orthography,103 and partiality for SP’s lack of Kethib/Qere readings,104 Simon found Morin’s vindication of SP’s “additions” equally wanting: But it is probable enough that the Samaritans have took the liberty of adding words to the Text to render it more intelligible, and of expressing at length phrases which were too short, which rather will be an addition to the Samaritan Copies than a failure in the Jewish ones; … Father Morin himself acknowledges that the Samaritans have not took care enough to preserve their Text in its purity; … For then, says Father Morin, to make the sense more clear, they have added in another place what they thought was wanting. He brings Origen for another example, who made additions to the Septuagint to compleat what was wanting by mingling with it the Theodoret [sic, read “Theodotion”] Translation. But all these examples are beside the purpose, and plainly shew that the Samaritans have took a great deal of liberty in making additions to the Original, and therefore their Copy cannot be said to be a true one. The Fathers have been permitted to explain the holy Scriptures after this manner, because there is a great deal of difference betwixt explaining of a Text and copying it faithfully; … .105

As for the other side, Simon found Hottinger’s logic equally lacking. He reasoned that it was not graphic confusion in the Samaritan transcription of the Jewish square script which accounted for confusion of guttural letters, but rather that the Samaritans pronounced these letters similarly—something general|| 99 For an historical review of the dysfunctions in the French government’s printing approval process, as well as Bossuet’s motives in opposing Simon’s work, again see Lambe 1985. 100 See McKane’s summary (1989: 121–23). 101 Simon: “Father Morin of the Oratory … seems to have prefer’d it too much before the Hebrew Pentateuch of the Jews; on the other side Hottinger and some others … have not been moderate enough in speaking of the Samaritans …” (1682/1.77). Cited throughout this study is the anonymous ET of Simon’s work published in 1682 by “a Person of Quality.” (On whom, see McKane 1989: 113, with n. 9; he suggests either John Hampden or his father Richard was responsible.) The translation was published in three books, each individually paginated. For a brief overview of Simon’s work being smuggled into other European countries for the purposes of translation and/or printing, see Lambe 1985: 158 (“Once in the hands of the Dutch printers, the book was unstoppable and ran into many editions”). Lambe also mentions efforts to smuggle the book back into France under a false name and date. 102 1682/1.76–77. 103 See McKane 1989: 121–22. 104 1682/1.80–81. For Simon’s thoughts on Kethib/Qere, see McKane 1989: 120–21. 105 1682/1.87. Emphasis and spellings are original for all excerpts from Simon. See also McKane 1989: 122.

The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)Hexaplaric Tradition: A Short Introduction | 21

ly confirmed by the linguistic research of Zeʾev Ben-Ḥayyim (1907–2013), who explained that this guttural “confusion” in Samaritan Hebrew began during the Second Temple period (→ §3.3.3 at Num 21.11‫)א‬.106 Despite his misgivings about SP’s “additions,” both SP and MT were, to Simon, viable options in the restoration of the original text,107 for both were but two streams of transmission of the same “Original.”108 As such, SP was not to be unduly preferred or depreciated. However, while Simon’s attitude and handling of MT and SP was more fair and critically minded, in the end, Simon seems to have perhaps leaned towards MT,109 not only on the part of the “freedom” of the Samaritan scribes,110 but also in terms of religious authority: However, I readily grant that the Hebrew Exemplar [sc. MT] is to be chiefly preferr’d, for the Christians borrow’d the Books of Scripture from the Jews, and not the Samaritans. Only the Authority of any Assembly whatever does not make a Book to be without Error or Fault, but only declares it to be receiv’d and fit for practice.111

Benjamin Kennicott (1786–1842) Another marker in the history of western study of SP is the work of Benjamin Kennicott erstwhile Canon of Christ Church, Oxford.112 Continuing the spirit of J.

|| 106 Simon: “This is the reason that in the Hebrew Samaritan Copy the Letters Aleph and Ain are sometimes confounded, because their pronunciation is almost the same …” (1682/1.81). 107 McKane 1989: 123. Simon (1682/1.85): In defect of the Hebrew Samaritan Copies we ought to have recourse to the Copies of the Jews, but if it happens that the two various readings make each of them a probable sense they ought to be mark’t as varieties of two Copies from the same Original; for supposing that the Samaritan Copy was heretofore taken from that of the Jews, … it is enough to put in the Margin of the ordinary Copies the various readings of the Samaritan, since it is certain that they are but two Copies of the same Original writ onely in different Characters. 108 See further his comments at 1682/1.88; see also Rothschild 1989b: 73. 109 Such is McKane’s judgment (1989: 122). 110 1682/1.88; again see Rothschild (1989b: 73) and McKane (1989: 122). 111 This explanation was provided in his Critical Enquiries into the Various Editions of the Bible, published 1684 in both Latin and ET (here at p. 84). The context of Simon’s statement was his response to the Protestant claim that recourse to SP was wrong-headed because it was the Jews, not the Samaritans, who had preserved the right priestly line and were the proper “people of God.” Along this similar line of thought, Simon earlier in his Histoire found it ironic that Protestants used the (Rabbinic) “Tradition” of the Jews in their argumentation against the Samaritans’ since the latter, like the Protestants, were “Schismaticks” who do not regard as equal “the Gloss of their Doctours with the Text of Moses” (1682/1.77). 112 On Kennicott’s life and works, see McKane 1977 and Burnett 2008: 795–801.

22 | Prolegomena

Morin,113 in his mistrust of MT and Masoretic114 vocalization, he sought to find the true consonantal text of the Hebrew Bible—and made much of SP in so doing. For not only did he record SP in parallel with MT in his large, subscriptionfunded Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum cum variis lectionibus (1776–80), but he also made SP the special subject for his second Dissertation on the Hebrew text (1759). In his second Dissertation—in part, a longwinded argument in favor115 of SP—Kennicott’s motive could hardly be described as purely academic.116 Whatever his motives, his defense of the Samaritan reading “Gerizim” in Deut 27.4 (→ §4.3.3), one which many modern scholars now actually do support,117 certainly failed to attain scholarly consensus in his own era (→ §1.1.2.2).118 During his discussion, he even proceeded so far as to claim that the so-called “Samaritan Tenth Commandment” (hereafter denoted STC, → §§1.1.2.3; 7.1.2),119 namely the “expansion” at SP Exod 20.17(13)‫ =( ו–א‬Masius’ Deut 5.21(17)‫ ח–א‬discussed above → §1.1), was original to Exod 20 but had been subsequently removed by the Jews. Not content, however, to make such a claim without “textual evidence,” he contrived some:

|| 113 Burnett describes both Kennicott and G. de Rossi as his “intellectual heirs” (2008: 796). 114 For a description of Kennicott’s views of the Masora, see McKane 1977. 115 In opposition to previous opinion, especially B. Walton’s Prolegomena to the London Polyglot (XI, §16; 1.79; on whom see below). 116 E.g.: “But, however desperate the cause of the Samaritans may, in this case, be thought; and is, at present, peremptorily pronounc’d : it will not, I presume, be unpardonable for me to apppear [sic] in their defence --- an advocate for (what appears to me) much – injur’d Innocence, and zealous for the true honor of the original Word of GOD” (1759: 23, orthography and emphasis original for all citations from Kennicott). See also McKane 1977: 458. 117 E.g., McCarthy, BHQap. For others, see below at Deut 27.4 (→ §4.3.3). 118 A notable exception might be had in the similar, though perhaps more delicately explained, argument found in a treatise by William Whiston (1667–1752). Whiston, better known as a translator of Josephus, in his An Essay Towards Restoring the True Text of the Old Testament (1722) felt the purity of SP was “so evident” that he “only just name the particular Arguments” (p. 164); one of these was the priority of Gerizim in Deut 27 (pp. 168–71). Whiston also defended the “Repetitions” given that “… the Addition of which in the Samaritan no Reason can be assigned” (p. 167). For a brief review of further scholars, both before and after Gesenius, who defended the reading Gerizim, see the outline by B. Waltke 1965: 328–32. Waltke himself believes that Gerizim is an ancient, originally non-sectarian reading “probably corrupt[ed]” from MT’s Ebal (1965: 332–37). 119 Note however that Kennicott does not appear to have actually realized that the passage in question contains what is (now) reckoned traditionally by the Samaritans as the Tenth Commandment. On this very important issue, see at length below (→ §7.1.2).

The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)Hexaplaric Tradition: A Short Introduction | 23

… we have not only the authority of the Samar. Pentateuch … but we have also the authority of an ancient SYRIAC MS, which contains a version of the old Testament … . Between the 17th and 18th verses, at the very place where this passage is now found in the Samar. Pentateuch; in this Syriac MS (tho’ translated from an ancient Hebrew copy) there is left, in the middle of the page, a vacant space just equal to the five verses express’d in the Samaritan: and no such space is left any where else thro’ the whole MS … . The inference, from this very remarkable circumstance, I leave to the learned Reader.120

From this, together with the previous argumentation, he concluded: That the Samaritan text should be condemn’d as corrupted, merely, for having more in it than the Hebrew; no man of learning will maintain. Certainly the Jews might omit as easily as the Samaritans might insert. And I presume, it has been, and will be hereafter more fully prov’d—that several whole passages, now in the Samaritan, but not in the Heb. Pentateuch, are not interpolations in the former, but omissions in the latter. And as to this particular passage (which, with a very absurd sneer, has been call’d the eleventh Commandment*) it is, if genuine, a solemn order from God, relative to the ten Commandments just before deliver’d : enjoining the Israelites, that, when they took possession of the land of Canaan, they should engrave these Ten Commandments upon stones, and fix them upon mount Gerizim, near Sichem.121

Kennicott’s mention of the besmirched (hence “with a very absurd sneer”) “eleventh Commandment” was in reference to Johann Gottlob Carpzov’s (1679– 1767) having called this passage in SP the “praeceptum undecimum” in his Critica sacra Veteris Testamenti … .122 As will be explained at greater length be-

|| 120 1759: 99–100. The MS he referenced as “N° 3130” is Peshitta Institute 17a3 (= Bodl. Lib. Oriental 141 = Payne Smith 1 = Uri 1; see H. Takahashi 2005: 451). The gap of which he spoke is indeed present in Exod 20 (see fol. 53b‫ )ܒ‬for approximately 16 lines of the bi-columnar text. ̇ ‫“ ܗ ܐ ܐ‬Thus I The scribe excused himself for this waste of space, writing vertically found (this gap in my exemplar).” Deut 5 (fol. 122b) has no such gap. Be this as it may, 17a3 bears neither antiquity nor quality of any kind (see M. Koster 1977: 261–62, with n. 156; also p. 316). 121 1759: 100. Kennicott also argued for SP’s internal logic from Deut 27.12, where the tribes of Joseph (and thus Joshua) stood on Gerizim for the blessings (pp. 73–74): Shall we suppose Him to have stood, on the beautiful mountain of Blessings, or upon that of Cursings; on the mountain honour’d with the Altar and the Law, or the contrary?— Joshua was of the tribe a Ephraim; Ephraim was the son of Joseph; and the descendants of Joseph were certainly station’d upon Gerizim. ‘Tis therefore highly probable that upon Gerizim, where Joshua was station’d, THERE were in fact the Altar and the Law” (1759: 74). He also posited that as Levi was on Gerizim, surely the altar was also located there (pp. 75–76). 122 1728: 606.

24 | Prolegomena

low (→ §7.1.2), the Samaritans do not have eleven Commandments,123 rather their enumeration of the Commandments in the Decalogue commonly held with Jews and Christians is different, contracting the Jewish-Christian ten as nine, while reckoning some part of this additional passage as the tenth. While Kennicott’s line of argumentation in his Dissertation failed to achieve consensus,124 the contribution his Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum edition made for Samaritan studies is altogether different. Although Moshe GoshenGottstein’s criticisms of the text-critical assumptions underlying his work125 have prevailed in modern scholarship, it should be acknowledged that Kennicott’s edition, at least for the Pentateuch, did provide a valuable dissemination of SP to the wider scholarly world. That is to say, his was a collation of “no less that sixteen”126 Samaritan MSS which, unlike the polyglots, was in square script (→ APPENDIX A). This should not be overlooked as even modern critical editions of SP are published in square script for the sake of expediting wider usage (e.g., von Gall’s in 1918, Schorch’s 2018—).127 Furthermore, Kennicott’s system of demarcating variations is also striking. Unlike the polyglots, where the onus was on the reader to compare and contrast the two texts, Kennicott’s are printed side-by-side and line-for-line. Only those parts of SP which are different from MT were printed, and all (consonantal) variations between MT and SP were marked with asterisks. Observe Gen 1.14: ‫ להאיר‬- - - - - - - ‫ מאורות‬- - - - - - - - - - -

***** ‫ויאמר אלהים יהי מא*ר*ת ברקיע השמים‬

‫ לאתות‬- - - - - - - - - - - - ‫על הארץ ולהבדיל‬

‫** **** *להבדיל בין היום ובין הלילה והיו לאת*ת‬

---- ------ -

‫ולמועדים ולימים ושנים׃‬

This layout, together with the collated variants (SP was given its own section in the apparatus, on the left side), easily permits a Hebrew learner to discern the variants between the two traditions—particularly any alleged “additions” or “expansions” in SP. Whatever the faults (perceived or otherwise) of Kennicott’s

|| 123 Somewhat surprisingly, this same language is used even by modern scholars, most recently J. Charlesworth (2009: 208) and S. White Crawford (2020: 324). 124 McKane collectively described these aspects of his work as a “succession of not very good arguments” (1977: 459); cp. however A. Schenker 2010: 106 (on the reading Gerizim only). 125 1967: passim, especially pp. 251ff; see also Tov, TCHB3, 37–39. 126 Tal 1989: 434. A listing of the MSS used (whether completely or partially collated) was provided at the end of each biblical book. 127 On this aspect of SP editions, see Schorch’s remarks (2013: 14).

The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)Hexaplaric Tradition: A Short Introduction | 25

works vis-à-vis textual criticism generally, this work at least provided scholars with a felicitous means of comparing the Samaritan text with MT. 1.1.2.2 H.F.W. Gesenius’ De Pentateuchi Samaritani Origine (1815) In contrast to the polemical tendency so characteristic of previous study of SP (Simon excepted), stood the work of Heinrich Friedrich Wilhelm Gesenius (1786–1842). His De Pentateuchi Samaritani Origine, indole et auctoritate commentatio philologico-critica, highly approved (even if slightly modified) by later scholarship,128 strove for greater scientific analysis and argued that SP (along with G)129 was textually secondary to MT.130 He propounded this thesis by means of categorizing said secondary variations: 1) interventions of a grammatical nature; 2) interpretive changes that simplify the text; 3) emendations of difficult passages by conjecture; 4) corrections according to parallel passages; 5) additions taken from parallel passages; 6) corrections of chronological order; 7) forms of words assimilated to the Samaritan idiom; and 8) textual adjustments demanded by ideological or religious matters.131 In Gesenius’ discussion of the additions taken from parallels (group #5),132 he summarized several previous arguments, finding them largely problematic.133

|| 128 E.g., Stuart (1826)1832: 685–89; J. Nutt 1874: 90–93, with n. 1; Waltke 1965: passim; 1970: 213, and his “Samaritan Pentateuch” ABD 5.932–40. 129 Waltke, ABD 5.932. 130 Recently Knoppers gave an apt summarization Gesenius’ conclusions: [… SP resulted from] an older Jewish text [which] had been simplified linguistically, harmonized stylistically, expanded literarily, and corrected theologically to comport with the views and practices of the Samaritan community” (2017: 165). In other words, according to Gesenius, SP was not simply textually secondary to MT, but inferior to MT in each and every sense a scriptural text can be. 131 His classifications have been enumerated many times: e.g., Stuart (1826)1832: 685–87; Nutt 1874: 90–93, n. 1; Waltke 1970: 212–13; J. Margain, DBSup 11.763–68; Tal 2013: 142–46; Schorch 2013: 3–4; Knoppers 2017: 164–65. The category descriptions here are taken from Tal’s summary. 132 Gesenius 1815: 46–48 (§13); cited here is Waltke’s ET of the same (1970: 222–24; found also in his 1965: 304–06). 133 Among those rejected was Charles François Houbigant (1686–1784) who, following Whiston (1722: 167), justified the “additions” by means of appealing to the writing style of

26 | Prolegomena

For example, Kennicott’s explanation of the relationship between G and SP visà-vis the latter’s “expansions” was that the translators had omitted them “for the sake of simplification.”134 Gesenius rejected this on the basis that Kennicott had “overlooked completely the religion of the Jews who were already very solicitous … not to lose by carelessness even an iota from these most sacred documents.”135 Gesenius similarly rejected the idea set forth by S. Ravius (Sebald Rau 1725–1818) that the Samaritans, hating the Jews, had intentionally interpolated their texts in order to imply the Jews had “mutilated their codices.”136 Rather, Gesenius concluded: [Ravius’] opinion cannot be brought into harmony with those rules which we see the Samaritans followed in their making of their Pentateuch. We prefer, therefore, to see these interpolations as the endeavor of the Samaritans to render their text more plain and more complete. This opinion has the support of the obvious analogue of the smaller additions of which we spoke above. So it cannot be accepted with some other critics that these pericopes were derived from the authority of some ancient codices or glosses on their margins. [¶] If you ask about the time when these interpolations were inserted into the text, it appears that they were introduced between the time of the Alexandrine translation and Origen because Origen mentioned such a passage which he certainly found in the Samaritano-Greek translation.137

In the end, Gesenius preferred only four(!) readings from SP over MT: Gen 4.8 (→ EXCURSUS D), 14.14, 22.13, and 49.14.138 As to the origin of SP, Gesenius held G

|| Homer (see Gesenius 1816: 46, n. 156 for literature). To this, Gesenius replied: “… it is not right to appeal to the Greek poets whose way of speaking differs considerably from the Hebrew. We should rather study the Oriental writers and especially the Hebrews” (1970: 223). Gesenius’ rebuttal is noteworthy in light of recent scholars who follow Whiston’s line of thought (→ §1.1.2.3 for J. Ben-Dov’s and M. van der Meer’s recent work). 134 Quoted from Gesenius (1970: 222). 135 Gesenius continued (Waltke 1970: 224; 1965: 305–06): These men would have never permitted themselves to drop entire sections in order to serve the laziness of the copyists. Furthermore, even if we assume that some codices were mutilated in such a way that even those from which the Alexandrine translation came were effected [sic], how can we explain that such mutilation having invaded all codices, only the Samaritan ones were left intact? While the latter part of this statement is an academic argument, the former is clearly not. 136 1970: 224. 137 1970: 224. 138 See M. Kartveit 2009: 261; Gesenius 1815: 62–64 (§17). This list is curious. One is tempted to think that Gesenius only really examined Gen in this manner and, finding so little to commend

The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)Hexaplaric Tradition: A Short Introduction | 27

and SP “followed a different εκδοσιν of the Pentateuch from the one which obtained public authority with the Palestinians. The Samaritan exemplar … was later corrected and interpolated in many passages by half-learned scribes [ab librariis semidoctis].”139 He argued that as different passages of the Hebrew Bible had different recensions (e.g., Ps 18 and 2 Sam 22), so too the Jews had more than one Pentateuch. This other recension was one where: the authors … tried to correct the difficulties and imaginary problems [by means of] glosses and conjectural emendations. The exemplars of this other edition which you could call Alexandrino-Samaritanus … were received by the Alexandrians as well as by the Samaritans. But others, first of all the Jews of Jerusalem, tried to conserve piously the ancient reading unchanged even though it was harder to understand and more obscure, and not completely free from defects.140

Gesenius’ study would, with very few exceptions,141 completely dominate the wider text-critical evaluation of SP from the time of its publication,142 and con-

|| SP (in his opinion), gave up on the remainder of the Pent. The effect of this assessment had consequences. See Stuart’s toadyish remarks: “… [SP’s preferred readings are] of little importance, and all, we are well persuaded, of such a nature that the probability is quite in favour of the [Jewish] Hebrew text” ([1826]1832: 686). 139 1970: 231. 140 1970: 231. It should be observed that Gesenius’ appeal to piety (as well as his defaming Samaritan scribes as “half-educated”) is as unscientific as some of Kennicott’s comments. Gesenius’ (religious?) motives have been differently evaluated by later scholars. E.g., Tal holds that he was “free of pre-conceived attitudes and approached the subject on a purely philological basis” (2013: 141), whereas Kartveit argues that “[he] was a part of the Protestant-Catholic discussion, and sided with the Protestants in their high esteem of the MT” (2009: 261). While Gesenius’ (religious?) motive(s) may or may not have played a role in his thesis, his overall analysis is obviously more systematic and philological than those preceding (and even some of those proceeding) him. 141 There was of course some dissent to Gesenius’ thesis. E.g., Harold Wiener (1875–1929) argued Gesenius’ Alexandrino-Samaritanus recension hypothesis was fundamentally flawed since he had compared G to SP and MT only when the latter two disagreed. Instead, Wiener held, correctly, that all three ought to be compared to one another in toto and that such analysis results in SP and MT agreeing more with each other vis-à-vis G (1911: 202–03; 217–18). Later, Tov (2015 and 2016), following his student K. Kim (1994), would take up these criticisms. For a very brief overview of other scholarly critiques, see Knoppers 2017: 165–66. 142 Stuart’s nearly-contemporary praise is illustrative ([1826]1832: 685, 687): He has settled the question, (it would seem forever settled it,) about the authority of the Samaritan Pentateuch compared with that of the [Masoretic] Hebrew; or rather, he has shown, … the nature of the various readings exhibited by the Samaritan Pentateuch to be such, that we can place no critical reliance at all upon them. … On this part of the subject

28 | Prolegomena

tinues to hold, to some extent, significant sway up the present.143 As such, much subsequent evaluation more or less parrots his conclusions, though some felt it necessary to adjust, ever so slightly, elements of his discussion.144 Ultimately, it would take the discovery of new materials from the Judean desert to significantly challenge his evaluation. 1.1.2.3 Scholarship from Qumran to the Present Then in 1947 ancient Hebrew scrolls were found in the caves of Qumran and elsewhere in Judean desert and everything changed. The long-held supposition that it was the Samaritans—half-educated or not—who had altered the Torah, inserting these “expansions,” had to be overruled. For amongst the unearthed scrolls were certain Jewish exemplars containing a great deal of these so-called “expansions”—and indeed some beyond those previously known from SP. A seismic change in the field of biblical studies vis-à-vis SP followed and resulted

|| there can be little or no doubt left, hereafter, in the mind of any sober critic. … Never before did the Samaritan Pentateuch undergo such a through critical examination; and never, perhaps, in a case that was difficult and had been long contested, was truth made more evidence and convincing. See also Gaster’s description nearly a century later: “… [Gesenius concluded] that the Samaritan text was nothing else but a corrupt copy from the Jewish Massoretic recension. So cogent did these conclusions seem, that for some time afterwards they were accepted unquestionably, and the importance attached to the Samaritan text was reduced to vanishing point” (1925: 103). 143 More recent (and succinct) voices are as follows: Waltke: “Undoubtedly Gesenius accurately appraised the text, and to ignore his work, as some recent writers have done, is to court failure.” (1970: 213). Schorch: “… Gesenius’ analysis … still shapes the scientific opinio communis about the SP to a considerable extent” (2013: 4). Further, McCarthy calls Gesenius’ work a “watershed” (2004: 119), a description entirely typical of the secondary literature. 144 See, e.g., those who reshuffled his abovementioned categories (Nutt 1874: 90–92, n. 1 [§8]). Also noteworthy is Stuart’s claim that SP was older than the “Babylonish exile” ([1826]1832: 703), even if his was admittedly an attempt to preserve Mosaic authorship. Waltke, whose 1965 Harvard PhD dissertation was written under the supervision of F. M. Cross, despite taking the Qumran data into account, still came to decidedly Gesenian conclusions: “The Samaritan text demonstrates the relative purity of the Massoretic text” (1965: 348). “When used in the light of the history of the Pentateuchal recensions, the Samaritan text can be a useful, but limited tool in the hand of the literary critic seeking to reconstruct the original text” (p. 439). On Waltke’s evaluation as a modern day reiteration of Gesenius’, see Kartveit 2019: 5.

The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)Hexaplaric Tradition: A Short Introduction | 29

in what could be described as a kind of Samaritan Renaissance, one which is still ongoing.145 The seminal study initiating this era was the publication of some fragments from an Exodus scroll by Patrick Skehan (1909–80). This scroll, dubbed 4QpaleoExodm (hereafter 4Q22),146 was found to have a number of the so-called “expansions,” notably that at Exod 20.19‫§ →( ד–א‬2.3.3) as well as those in the Plague Narrative (→ §2.3.1). Though 4Q22 was fragmentary, Skehan argued 4Q22 was not Samaritan—for there was no evidence it contained the Gerizim-centric florilegium at Exod 20.17(13)‫ו–א‬, i.e., the so-called STC (→ §1.1.2.1, Kennicott, and §7.1.2).147 As it happened, 4Q22 was but one such exemplar of this type of text, eventually designated as, for lack of a better descriptor, “pre-Samaritan” (or pre-SP148), which contained a text-type full of “expansions” and other such

|| 145 The literature for this period is substantial, especially the last 15 years. Accordingly, the following is but a sketch intended only to outline scholarly views of the “expansions” in the “pre-Samaritan” text-type (see below) in service to the present endeavor. For more thorough treatments, see Kartveit 2009: 259–312, Tov, TCHB3, 74–93, R. Hendel 2016: 238–43, E. Ulrich 2015 and 2019, Kartveit and Knoppers 2018, as well as the essays in M. Langlois (ed.) 2019, some of which are noted here. 146 In the present study all DJD materials are referred to by their numerical cataloguing only, e.g., 4Q22, 4Q27, et al. 147 Though initially reluctant to state whether 4Q22 was Samaritan (1955: 183), Skehan later concluded that since the scroll contained Exod 20.19‫( ד–א‬the request for Moses to act as a prophet), it was only logical the scroll should also have transmitted Exod 20.21(17)‫( ט–א‬the granting of a prophet like Moses thereafter) since, according to his calculations, the reconstructed columns could only fit two of the three passages (1959: 22–23): [Arguing that 4Q22 contained Exod 20.17(13)‫ ]ו–א‬within the columnar structure such as we can determine it, would be the wildest stretch of irrational fancy. Between what we have and what we know to be required, there is simply no room for it. The conclusion is that the paleohebrew Exodus is not a Samaritan sectarian document, though it does offer the type of text the Samaritans have preserved as their own (at p. 23, emphasis mine). Both J. Sanderson (1986: xi and 235) and Ulrich (2019: 6) adopted Skehan’s reconstruction, and it is his understanding of the scroll’s layout present in DJD 9 (→ §2.3.3 at Exod 20.21[17]‫)ט–א‬. See further, Kartveit 2009: 290–93. 148 While one might object to using “pre-SP” for “pre-Samaritan,” both are in fact anachronistic. Throughout this study they are used interchangeably. Hendel prefers to use “proto-” instead of “pre-” in order to underscore that the MS evidence comprises of “contemporary and related textual families,” some members of which are “typologically later than SP” itself (2016: 236, citing 4Q27 specifically; see also n. 156 below). While I acknowledge this imprecision, “pre-” is perhaps more common than “proto-” in the literature and is retained here.

30 | Prolegomena

“harmonizations”149 but (apparently) lacked any discernible, specifically Samaritan, or rather Gerizim-centric, Tendenz. The MSS generally considered to represent this text-type have included 4Q17 (4QExod-Levf), 4Q22 (4QpaleoExodm), 4Q26 (4QLevd, “possibly” pre-SP150), 4Q27 (4QNumb), 4Q158 (4QRPa),151 4Q364 (4QRPb), 4Q365 (4QRPc), 4Q366 (4QRPd), 4Q367 (4QRPe),152 and 4Q41 (4QDeutn).153 These texts are dated from the 3rd cent. BCE to the 1st cent. BCE,154 and, importantly, have been described as utterly lacking sectarian readings.155 While their shared features are typical of the text-type SP itself transmitted, it is

|| 149 Kartveit conveniently provides a synoptic table of the larger “expansions” (2009: 310– 312); note he adopted his own sigla as he too is irritated with that used by von Gall, and consequently DJD editors like N. Jastram, who edited 4Q27 (p. 266; → §1.1 at n. 7). 150 Tov, TCHB3, 90–91; White Crawford 2020: 324. 151 For an overview of the issues the so-called “Rewritten Pentateuch” presents, see M. Zahn 2011: 3–7. In the original publication (DJD 13; published 1994), Tov and White Crawford designated them as “non-biblical.” However, Tov later changed his mind, believing them as copies of a Pentateuch (TCHB3, 90–93). White Crawford balked at first insisting there is no evidence for 4QRP’s authoritative status; however, in more recent publications she has discerned evidence for their authority (2008: 51, specifically on 4Q365; also p. 56–57). Generally, only the status of 4Q158 as a “biblical” scroll has been disputed (cp. M. Segal 2007: 10–11, n. 24; 2018: 215 vs. Zahn 2008: 327–328, n. 41; 2011: 11–12, following Ulrich 1998: 88, n. 30). Ulrich, who succeeded Skehan as editor of the “biblical” texts for DJD, reckons these as “biblical” in accordance with his “successive literary editions” theory (2019: passim). Tov is sure to distinguish 4Q158 from the other RP MSS (2020: 142, with n. 6). For a further study on the redactional techniques employed in 4Q158, see C. Berner 2013. For the suggestion that the RP MSS represent a secondary Torah, a “metadiscourse on the Torah,” see Hendel’s recent evaluation (2016: 119– 21, following, in part, Moshe Bernstein, and pp. 250–53). 152 Scholars disagree how many witnesses the 4QRP corpus represents: Are they copies of a single edition of the Pent or individual exemplars of a text-type? (Again, see the overview in Zahn 2011: 3–5.) Tov and White Crawford originally assumed they collectively represented copies of a single text (Kartveit followed, see 2009: 264–65 and notes). However, Zahn (2008: 319–320) strongly disagreed, following earlier criticisms by Segal, M. Bernstein, and G. Brooke (2011: 3–5). Taking the 4QRP MSS separately obviously multiplies the potential influence of the pre-Samaritan group. White Crawford has changed her mind taking them as separate compositions (Zahn 2011: 5, n. 18). Tov views them as “five different sources” of an “exegetical edition of the Torah” (TCHB3, 323). Note that Hendel views 4Q365 as a proto-MT (his “outer circle” classification) as opposed to pre-SP; he does include 4Q364 as grouped with the latter however (2016: 198, 239, and 251–52). Recently, White Crawford does not list 4Q365 as explicitly pre-SP but seems to view the work as within the orbit of the wider pre-Samaritan group (2020: 327–28). 153 4Q41’s pre-SP status is disputed (cp. Hendel 2016: 242–43 and Tov, TCHB3, 91, n. 147, with Eshel and Eshel 2003). Note H. Eshel and E. Eshel, however, disliked the categorization “preSP” (p. 220–21, preferring “harmonistic texts”), somewhat alleviating the terminological issue. 154 Kartveit 2009: 276. 155 Ulrich 2002.

The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)Hexaplaric Tradition: A Short Introduction | 31

interesting to note two specific aspects of the texts found since 1947 in contrast to SP: 1) A number of MSS bear “expansions” and “harmonizations” beyond what is in SP;156 2) no MS explicitly (see below) attests to the so-called STC (Exod 20.17[13]‫ ו–א‬or Deut 5.21[17]‫—)ח–א‬the very text Masius excerpted from his copy of SH Deut (→ §1.1). Thus, scholarly consensus eventually developed a new hypothesis for the origin of SP. Essentially, the Samaritans adopted(?, see below157) a pre-existing texttype, common to the Judeo-Israelite matrix of the Second Temple period and added but a thin ideological layer158 reinforcing their cultus centered on Mount Gerizim. Hence Schorch summarized the state of things in 2013 as follows: Therefore, … it is only the florilegium of verses selected from Deuteronomy (11:29; 27:2–6; 11:30) found in the SP after the Ten commandments [= Exod 20.17‫ ו–א‬/ Deut 5.21‫]ח–א‬, which can be regarded as a later addition … . The florilegium was inserted to reinforce (although not to create!) the reference to the altar on Mount Gerizim by immediately connecting it with the Ten commandments.159

Such is, of course, a very different position when compared with that of Gesenius.

|| 156 See Eshel and Eshel 2003; also White Crawford 2008. Including witnesses which harmonize beyond SP, such as the Nash Papyrus, and select phylacteries and mezzuzot, would expand the pre-Samaritan group (Eshel and Eshel 2003: 232–37). A large part of the issue stems from whether or not pre-SP is viewed as a distinct edition or more of an exegetical spectrum or scribal movement; see esp. Zahn 2015: 307–13 and Ben-Dov 2019: 239–41. For a recent renewed study on Nash, see Tov 2020b. 157 The nature of this “adoption” is also disputed, i.e., was this intentional (hence ch. 7 in Kartveit’s 2009 study is entitled “The Pentateuch that the Samaritans Chose”) or not (Tov, TCHB3, 93)? 158 For this sort of terminology, see Tov, TCHB3, 79, and many others. Typically, something akin to “layer” is used with “small” / “thin” and/or “theological” / “ideological” / “sectarian” (see also, e.g., Knoppers 2017: 171–72, Segal 2007:10; Ulrich 1998: 86; 2015: 225; 2019: 4; Zahn 2015: 307; etc.). Useful is Pummer’s definition of the same: “What is specific to the Samaritan Pentateuch is the emphasis on the central theological tenet of the Samaritans—the sanctity of Mt. Gerizim—[which was] achieved by making minor modifications in the text …” (2016: 202). 159 2013: 7. Schorch here assumes the reading Gerizim instead of Ebal in Deut 27.4 (→ §4.3.3). He also denies the ‫ בחר‬/ ‫ יבהר‬variation between the SP and MT (Deut 12.5 et al) was a Samaritan sectarian correction (2013: 5; 2019: 78–79), following Schenker’s 2008 proposal. For reflection on this issue, see Ulrich (2015) who is still unsure.

32 | Prolegomena

Furthermore, the last two decades have seen a number of studies relating to different aspects of these “expansions” in the pre-SP text. (Indeed, a full survey and evaluation of the studies partaking in this Samaritan Renaissance would a require a study in itself.) A few aspects, however, may be very briefly summarized here, namely those scholarly proposals regarding: 1) the overall editorial character of the Pentateuchal text-type represented by the pre-SP MSS, 2) the potential motive (or lack thereof) for the Samaritan “adoption” of this text, and 3) the extent to which the Samaritans themselves altered this textual base with sectarian readings, if at all. 1ʹ) Against much previous discussion, J. Ben-Dov views the “expansive” pre-SP layer—in comparison with ancient scholarly editions of Homer—not as a popular or vulgar text-type resulting from freer scribal technique,160 but “an attempt to produce an academic version of Moses’ writings” by scribes who “were not free to meddle with the text.”161 Most interesting for this hypothesis is M. van der Meer’s 2019 study reviewing the MS data for Homeric papyri, some of which demonstrate this very editorial technique (sc. expansion by duplication); thus van der Meer advances Ben-Dov’s theory, arguing not merely for a common intellectual background but, at least hypothetically, a potential direct influence of Greek Homeric scholarship on Hebrew scribes.162 Ben-Dov’s proposal has been influential,163 and even Tov has changed his earlier assessment, at least for the “expansions” in pre-SP.164 Some years later, Ben-Dov further analyzed the techniques and motives behind the scribal duplications found in this academic, pre-SP edition, noting that one major motive was to render “full credibility to speech acts” between two accounts of the same story in the divine text, specifi-

|| 160 Thus Tov (TCHB3, 91, 93) whom many have followed. 161 2013: 233, emphasis mine. 162 2019: 63–75. 163 Zahn calls his academic edition thesis “absolutely correct” (2015: 310), although she does not believe the influence was from Greek sources only but wishes to include scribal traditions from the wider ancient Near East. 164 2019: 31. Tov still holds that the pre-SP text as a whole is “popular” although the “expansions were not popular.” It is unclear what the implications of Tov’s dualistic view of this edition of the Torah, being both “academic” and “popular,” may be.

The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)Hexaplaric Tradition: A Short Introduction | 33

cally those in Num 20–21 and Deut 2–3.165 He characterizes this scribal move, though theological in origin, as formal in execution.166 2ʹ) Further, considerations of the motive behind the Samaritans’ selection of this text-type have occupied recent scholarly research. The most thoroughgoing discussion was undertaken by M. Kartveit.167 He suggests that the principal reason for the Samaritan community’s adoption of the “expansive,” pre-SP texttype (in exclusion to others) was that it best fit their theology, viz., their high esteem of Moses and rejection of any prophecy after Torah.168 The selection, Kartveit reasons, was due to a “Moses layer”169 already present in the preSamaritan text-type. Accordingly, Kartveit interprets the choice of this text as a willful means of establishing Moses over and against the latter prophetic corpus so influential in Judah: The pre-Samaritan texts and the SP contain a layer highlighting Moses as prophet and defining later prophecy as fundamentally a preaching of the law. … This text-type was created before the writing of the oldest manuscript in this group, 4Q17 from the middle of the third century BCE, and it was in use down to the turn of the era. This means that this texttype was formed at a time when the prophetic corpus was gaining in importance. The focus on Moses defied this latter process. One may hear behind these texts the discussion between Moses and the prophets, between the traditions behind the Pentateuch and later prophecy. In the pre-Samaritan texts and in the SP the result of the discussion is clear: Moses is the absolute authority from which the other prophets had to derive theirs.170

Kartveit’s theory is attractive because it brings theological causation to bear on the issue,171 moving the discussion nearer the orbit of canon. As such, it can supply what others struggle to do (or fail to see any reason for): providing a || 165 2019: 220, with n. 10. Here he develops, in addition to his own work, a thesis proffered in Zahn 2011. 166 2019: 240–41. 167 2009: chh 7–8. 168 See also his 2020 study which attempts to trace this development in wider Second Temple Judaism, even claiming a similar “anti-prophetic” tendency can be seen in 4Q175 (pp. 272–74). 169 Kartveit 2009: 281. Those who work with the 4QRP text(s) also observe a Mosaic emphasis but on a more general level. So, for instance, Segal sees the addition of the Deut texts to the Mosaic narratives as a formalistic means of the scribe “intend[ing] to solve the “technical” problem of the lack of a source for a quotation” (2007: 17). This is why the “harmonized” passages never actually harmonize anything (see Zahn 2011: 147–49). Ben-Dov prefers to view these literary changes more formally akin to Segal (2013: 221, n. 41). 170 Kartveit 2009: 299. He also cites the Samaritan liturgy (pp. 296–99)—also highly Moses centric—as a means to support this theory amongst other historical elements. 171 Interestingly, he does not give a precise date for the insertion of Exod 20.17(13)‫ ו–א‬and Deut 5.21(17)‫ח–א‬, simply insisting this happened “after the turn of the era” (2009: 295).

34 | Prolegomena

motive related to the development of both text and canon amongst the Samaritans vis-à-vis the wider Judeo-Israelite spectrum. However, not all are convinced.172 For example, Tov, whom Ben-Dov follows,173 remains incredulous, preferring that the Samaritans simply chose a “popular text”; no particular reason provoked the selection.174 3ʹ) Lastly, there is the matter of what, if any, alterations the Samaritans imposed on the Pentateuchal text they adopted. Following the above-cited evaluation from Schorch, generally the only undisputed175 change has been the Gerizim florilegium, the STC—itself represented by one of the readings from SP recorded by Masius (→ §1.1)—which has remained the “Samaritan sectarian addition” par excellence, a position held by the vast majority of scholars up to the present.176 Indeed two recent studies by G. Knoppers (2019) and E. Tov (2020)

|| 172 Few expressly approve of Kartveit’s theory; Hjelm is perhaps one of the few exceptions (2015: 200; 2020: §4). 173 2013: 221, n. 41. He points out that while many of the speech acts feature Moses, the pre-SP layer was not only concerned with Moses’ prophetic credibility (2019: 221). 174 TCHB3, 93. Tov does, however, seem to have shifted slightly on this issue, as his most recent statement suggests: At some point … one of the pre-Samaritan texts was adopted by the Samaritan community as authoritative Scripture. The acceptance of such a text was natural as the Samaritans took the popular text that was in the hands of the people. No choice of a text was involved, except for the fact that MT was not chosen; that was a deliberate act since the Samaritans separated themselves from the Judaism that cherished MT (2019: 35, italics mine; see also Tov 2020: 142). It is unclear to me how “no choice” was involved, while at the same time a willful, “deliberate” decision was enacted. 175 Perhaps the reading ‫ אזכרתי‬in SP Exod 20.24 might be considered another (Kartveit 2019: 85). For the other (alleged) sectarian changes, see the discussions in Waltke 1965: 328–38; Kim 1994: 80–81, 124, 190 (on ‫ מקדשכם‬in Lev 26.31, but cp. BHSap ad loc), 300–01, 324–25; Pummer 2007: 242–46; 2016: 202–07; Tov, TCHB3, 87–88 (with notes); Knoppers 2013: ch. 7; Gallagher 2015: 99–103; Kartveit 2019 (esp. pp. 84–85); and Ulrich 2019: 14–15. As these potential changes fall outside the passages reviewed in the present study, only studies focusing on the socalled STC need be surveyed. 176 The following list of modern, post-Skehan scholarship is naturally not exhaustive (* indicates a study dedicated to the Decalogue in SP): Anderson and Giles 2012: 48, 64, 69, 102–03 (with overview of scholarly opinion); M. Baillet 1988 (via Kartveit 2019: §5); Z. Ben-Ḥayyim 1995*; White Crawford 2020: 331–32; F. Dexinger 1977* (the STC was possibly originally liturgical; via Pummer 2016: 205, n. 41); G. Hepner 2006: 148; Kartveit (2009: 281–83, 290–95; thus he states: “When the commandment to build an altar at Mount Gerizim was added, we can speak of a Samaritan text” (2019: §5); Kim 1994: 324; G. Knoppers 2017: 171–72; 2019*; McCar-

The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)Hexaplaric Tradition: A Short Introduction | 35

have analyzed the “Gerizim composition” (to use Schorch’s 2019 terminology) in great detail, concluding that 1) the literary techniques employed in the passage’s construction are very similar to those seen in other such passages in the pre-SP layer,177 2) that the STC is typologically very different from the remainder of the Decalogue,178 and 3) that the Samaritans’ theological motivation for its creation was as a means of justifying Gerizim’s role as the proper site for worship of YHWH.179 Both these studies approach the issue with the perspective that it is a given that the Samaritans added this Commandment in order to address exegetical and intra-religious issues prompted by the altar(s) mentioned in Deut 27 and/or Exod 20.24.180 Thus both view the STC as Samaritan propaganda meant to set forth the unique sacrality of Gerizim. Nevertheless, some scholars, unconsciously following in the footsteps of Kennicott (→ §1.1.2.1), contest181 this so-called “Samaritan Tenth Commandment.” Noted especially here are those studies by E. Gallagher (2015), Schorch (2019), and H. Dayfani (2022).182 Gallagher argues against the widespread notion that Exod 20.17‫ ו–א‬/ Deut 5.21‫ ח–א‬was added subsequent to 4Q22.183 Instead, he suggests the pre-Samaritan text-type developed dynamically as opposed to linearly, and there is “little reason to separate the additional commandment [i.e., Exod 20.17‫ ] ו–א‬from the other additions [i.e., Exod 20.19‫ ד–א‬and Exod 20.21‫]ט–א‬.”184 He cautions: “Not every addition that looks ready-made for Sa|| thy 2004: 124–28; and BHQap at Deut 5; Pummer (2007: 244–45; 2009: 25–26; 2016: 205–206); J. Purvis 1968:72–73; Sanderson 1986: 235; Schorch, pre-2019 studies only; Tov, TCHB3, 87– 88; 2020*; Ulrich 2019: 6; Waltke 1965: 337; Zahn 2015: 301–07. 177 Knoppers 2019: 283–84; see also Zahn 2015: 301–02. Tov wishes to see more of a general association in literary technique comparing the composition to something between the pre-SP editorial method and that in the Temple Scroll (2020: 150–55). Against Tov’s 2020 analysis, Schorch’s 2019 is preferable (see the latter on p. 88 regarding the “ring-like structure”). 178 Tov 2020: 147–48. 179 Knoppers 2019: 288–98; Tov 2020: 150–55. 180 See esp. Knoppers 2019: 288ff. Tov, however, disputes the connection between the STC and Exod 20.24; instead he wishes to see the primary effect of the composition as determined by its place in the Decalogue (2020: 149, n. 23). 181 R. Bóid, in his 1989 study of Samaritan halakha, is the first modern scholar (that I know of) to have challenged the traditional perception of the STC. For his view, see below (→ §7.1.2). 182 Despite the relative dates of their articles, Schorch changed his earlier 2013 view independently of Gallagher (private communication, Dec 2015). 183 2015: 101–106. He calls the widespread assumption that the STC must postdate 4Q22 “poorly reasoned,” pointing out that “none of the proposed dates [for the creation of the STC] is any more than a guess” (p. 102). 184 2015: 105. He too underscores the similar literary techniques between the pre-SP text-type and the STC.

36 | Prolegomena

maritan theology was, in fact, produced by Samaritans.”185 Somewhat later, Schorch would publish a study of the so-called STC which also questioned the traditional view of the passage. He cautions against presuming a “Samaritan” Tendenz lurking behind the composition, observing that the earliest evidence affirming the Gerizim composition as a Commandment is found in Byzantine era Decalogue inscriptions and late 12th cent. SP MSS.186 Further, he identifies the scribal techniques employed by the composer of the “STC” (note particularly his analysis of the “ring-like [compositional] structure”) as precisely the same as the Exod 20.19‫ ד–א‬and Exod 20.21‫ ט–א‬passages already found in the preSamaritan layer, specifically 4Q22.187 Schorch even goes so far as to challenge the original reconstruction by Skehan (upheld earlier by Sanderson and Ulrich) that 4Q22 could not have contained all three “expansions” known from SP Exod 20. Based on his own calculations, he insists 4Q22 can indeed be reconstructed to fit the Gerizim composition along with both Exod 20.19‫ ד–א‬and 20.21‫ט–א‬.188 Lastly, he emphases that the Gerizim composition reads very differently than the rest of the Commandments189 and further points to evidence from the Samaritan tradition which implies that the passage was not originally a constituent part of the Decalogue.190 Thus, he concludes: The Gerizim composition found in the Samaritan text of the Ten commandments in Exod 20 and Deut 5, according to medieval manuscripts, presents a deliberate scribal attempt to stress some main points of Pentateuchal hermeneutics, completely in line with the hermeneutics and the literary techniques attested in the pre-Samaritan textual layer. Nothing in the Gerizim composition itself, or in its insertion at these points of the Pentateuch narrative, is specifically “Samaritan.”191

Building on these suggestions, most recently H. Dayfani,192 aided by previously unidentified fragments of Exod 19 and 20 in 4Q22,193 more precisely reconstruct-

|| 185 2015: 103. He does, however, allow for the possibility that perhaps Samarian scribes produced the STC (p. 106). Among the readings in SP often held as Samaritan sectarian changes, he holds SP Exod 20.24 as possibly “Samaritan” (pp. 100–01, but cp. at p. 105). 186 2019: 81–82. 187 2019: 88–90. Schorch argues that the Gerizim composition was integrated into Exod 20 first, in order to explain Exod 20.24–26, and then to Deut 5 to harmonize both Decalogues. 188 2019: 91–92. 189 2019: 95. This is also noted by Tov 2020: 147–48. 190 2019: 93–94, with nn. 35–36. 191 2019: 95–96. 192 Dayfani 2022.

The Samaritan Pentateuch in Greek | 37

ed the scroll’s columns (specifically cols. XX–XXII) as having more than enough space for all three “expansions” found in SP Exod 20. Using computerized modeling, she even reconstructed the entirety of said columns, arguing that the Skehan-Sanderson-Ulrich reconstruction was flawed: all three passages would have needed only 66 lines of text, not 79 as claimed by the original DJD editors.194 Thus, the passage must then belong to the pre-Samaritan layer which she holds developed within northern Samarian scribal circles; thus she concludes: “Consequently, the term “pre-Samaritan tradition,” which is based on the two-layer development model of the SP, should be abandoned.”195 It remains to be seen how Scrolls scholars and Samaritanologists react to Schorch’s196 and Dayfani’s reconstructions. Whatever may come from these recently proffered proposals, the final word on SP’s early history and development has yet to be written.

1.2 The Samaritan Pentateuch in Greek Paralleling the historical study of the Samaritan Hebrew text was the critical examination of the SP in Greek, though on a much smaller scale. For the latter remained only in fragments, often within the margins of seemingly unrelated, Septuagintal sources. Nevertheless, as Masius’ excerpts (→ §1.1) were from a Syriac translation of a Greek text, it is necessary to chart in greater detail previous scholarship on the SP in Greek.

1.2.1 The Period before Frederick Field From its inception, generally research into the SP in Greek has been an outgrowth of other critical projects concerning the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. These encompassed the polyglot movement, the aims of which were to be as

|| 193 She accepts the identification of fragments which N. Jastram and D. Longacre identified, including frag. 114 (as Exod 20.20) and 173 (Exod 19.9–11) as well as others from Exod 18 (2022: 681 and 685, with notes). 194 2022: 685–88, 694–96 (reconstructed transcription), and esp. figures 5 and 6. 195 2022: 685–88, 693–94 (citation on p. 694). See also her comments below (→ §7.1.3, n. 125). 196 For example, Zahn has recently reiterated the traditional view: “[4Q22] contained all the major plusses and transpositions found in SP Exodus, except the new commandment in Exodus 20” (2020: 13, italics original). Admittedly, this was said without the benefit of Dayfani’s work.

38 | Prolegomena

exhaustive as possible, as well as the rise of the study of hexaplaric remains. Consequently, the definitive moments in the study of the SP in Greek accompanied the publication of hexaplaric fragments, particularly those of Bernard de Montfaucon and Frederick Field. 1.2.1.1 Research before Bernard de Montfaucon The SIXTINE Edition of LXX and Derived Publications The first published fragments of Greek readings attributed as “Samaritan” occurred in the SIXTINE edition of the Septuagint (1587).197 This edition, based principally upon CODEX B, as well as a collation of different Vatican MS sources, appended varied hexaplaric annotations and other scholia to the end of each chapter. Among these annotations are a collection of readings labelled τὸ σαμαρειτικόν “the Samaritan” (τὸ σαμ΄ or σαμ΄).198 These, while published anonymously in the edition, were provided by Pierre Morin (1531–1608).199 One year later, this same basic set of annotations was also included in the LATIN SIXTINE200 annotated by Flaminius Nobilius (1532–90).201 They would also be discussed in the commentary of hexaplaric fragments published by Johannes Drusius (1550– 1616).202 While there has been some debate as to the extent to which Nobilius simply copied the original notes of Morin, as well as the nature of Drusius’ contribution,203 with respect to the σαμ΄ readings, it can be stated that Nobilius basi-

|| 197 On which, see Swete 1914: 174–182, and Law 2007: 32–33. 198 E.g., Gen 4.8, n. γ (attributed to Cyril), 44.5, n. β (referenced only as “Schol.”), et al. 199 On Morin’s role in the history of hexaplaric scholarship, see Norton 2005: 16–17 (with Field’s original comments, 2005: 19–20; 1.iii–iv); see also Law’s observations (2007: 32–34). For a very brief biographical summary, see J. Townley (2.176) and that in M’Clintock and Strong, “Morin, Pierre” 6.612–13. 200 Often called, along with the Greek Sixtine, the “Roman” edition in older literature. Note that the present study largely uses the parallel edition of the GRECO-LATIN SIXTINE (1628) published by Jean Morin (→ §1.1.2.1). As Law notes (2007: 36) this edition allows for easier comparison of the hexaplaric annotations of P. Morin and Nobilius. (Furthermore, J. Morin versified the texts, greatly facilitating use of the edition.) 201 Again see the very short biographic notice in Townley (2.175). 202 Issued posthumously in 1622. A brief account of Drusius’ career is given in D. Shuger (1994: 15) and M’Clintock and Strong, “Drusius, Johannes” 2.902. 203 Norton is of the opinion that “in almost every case in the edition where Field refers to Nobilius in the context of hexaplaric readings distinguished from the Septuagint text, the attribution is more correctly to Peter Morinus” (2005: 17). Law, however, argued that while he “may certainly agree with Norton, that Morinus has been unfairly ‘eclipsed’ by Nobilius, … we

The Samaritan Pentateuch in Greek | 39

cally reproduced the readings Morin provided in the original collation.204 While Morin failed to provide proper references to his MS sources, one of his letters suggests that he primarily used Vatican-based catena MSS.205 Curiously, neither Morin nor Nobilius recorded any such annotations in Deut. This is odd given that two “Samaritan” scholia, namely “Gerizim” at Deut 27.4 (→ §§2.3.3 at Exod 20.17‫ ;ג‬4.3.3 ad loc) and the χολ scholion at 27.26 (→ §4.3.4), occur in many catena MSS sub “τὸ σαμ΄” from the Vatican and elsewhere.206 The London Polyglot (1653–57) While the SIXTINE lacked any significant musings on where or when this σαμαρειτικόν, whatever it was, may have originated,207 other early European

|| should not be so quick to undermine the uniqueness of Nobilius’s work. To be sure, Nobilius was no mere servant of Morinus” (2007: 34). 204 For a list of these, see the provided ADDENDUM (→ APPENDIX). For example, of the four readings Castell reckoned (see below) from Nobilius’ collation in Gen, each is also found in Morin’s original work: 4.8, 44.5, 49.23(–24), and 50.19. It can also be stated that based upon the extant σαμ΄ readings for Gen, Drusius too failed to augment the collation with additional readings. (In Drusius’ work, Gen 44.5, 49.23[–24], and 50.19 are found in the regular text, while that from 4.8 is found in an Addenda ad Genesin after the chapter.) Nobilius does provide Jerome’s remarks on the reading “Samaritanorum libris” with respect to Gen 5.26, which Drusius also produces in the Addenda, but this is based upon Jerome’s exegetical work (Hebr. Quaest. in Gen.), not a MS source such as in MS 17O at Gen 5.25 (→ EXCURSUS D). 205 See the citation from the letter in Field (“Mihi uni data est provincia commentariorum in V.T. Vaticanorum, quae Catenae dicuntur, …” (2005: 19; 1.iii). 206 Previous research has had some difficulty narrowing down which MS sources Morin (and Nobilius) used for these notes. See, e.g., F. Albrecht’s comments regarding their sources for the notes in Pss (2020: 11–12, and the literature cited there). As for the case of the Samaritan readings supplied in Gen, it would seem that narrowing down Morin’s MS sources is similarly problematic. Namely, for those attributed as anonymous scribal scholia (i.e., “Schol.”), which presumably came from a MS source (as opposed to a patristic work), the evidence from extant Vatican MSS (according to Wevers’ edition) fails to match Morin’s record of the σαμ΄ readings. For instance, MS 57 (Vat. gr. 747, 11th cent. CE) is a reasonable candidate: At Gen 49.15, the reading (και εστι[ν] γεωργος υπηρετειν) is listed as σʹ αʹ μʹ; Morin/Nobilius accordingly list it as α΄ σ΄. (Presumably Morin understood μʹ as an error.) However, against this hypothesis, that at 50.19, reading (according to Morin/Nobilius) μη φοβεισθε· και γαρ φοβουμενος θεον ειμι εγω, does not precisely correspond to the MS (εγω > 57). Furthermore, that at 49.23(–24) is reported to read … τοξευμα αυτου, which does not agree with any extant reading recorded by Wevers (AppII : … τοξευματων [τοξον αυτων 135] 135O 57′ cI; see also Field 1.72, n. 48). Perhaps MS 73 (Vat. gr. 746., 11th–12th CE) is similarly a possible source (e.g., Lev 25.5). One wonders just how many MS sources Morin used and how or if they were collated and/or corrected. 207 The readings were simply registered as part of the Christian scholiast tradition. The only explicit mention of any Samaritan in the edition’s preface is with respect to Symmachus, fol-

40 | Prolegomena

Samaritan scholars did hazard comments on the matter.208 And it was their opinions which were reviewed in the impressively comprehensive Prolegomena209 to the epochal210 London Polyglot.211 Therein, Brian Walton (ca. 1600–61), eventual bishop of Chester, provided some reflections on both the nature and possible provenance of the readings denoted τὸ σαμαρειτικόν: He observed that while the readings transmitted sub τὸ σαμ΄ “often agree with the Samaritan Targum [ST] rather than SP,” nothing contrary to SP was added to the translation.212 Further, he claimed certain Fathers at times quoted this translation (as opposed to the Hebrew SP). As for the origins of this work, unlike the previous opinion of

|| lowing Epiphanius (De Mens et Pond. §15; → §7.2); see Praefatio ad Lectorem: “Hunc vero, qui subsequuti sunt, Symmachus et Theodotio; alter Samaritanus sub L. Vero, alter Ephesius sub Imp. Commodo; …” (n.p.; the reprint in Swete 1914: 176–177, is the most accessible). For his part Drusius proffered: “… το σαμαρειτικον, hoc est editio qua usi olim Samaritani, …” (p. 80); also, most peculiarly: “το σαμαρειτικον. Ita loquendo innuunt editionem pentateuchi Samaritanam, quae hodieque extare dicitur in Syria” (p. 161; at Exod 28.4). Note that Drusius died the very same year della Valle “discovered” SP. 208 E.g., Hottinger: “Ubi per Samariticum codicem intelligur versio Graeca, sine dubio, circa tempora Alexandri Magni, aut paulo post introducta, & ex Samaritanorum codice Hebraeo translata” (1644: 28, provided in the context of discussion on τὸ σαμ΄ at Gen 4.8). Hottinger, as some Protestants opposing SP, was under the impression that SP was the Vorlage of GPent (see Loop 2013: 120). 209 The Prolegomena was not published until the completion of the last volume, prompting the recommendation to subscribers that they not bind the first volume until the completion of the project (see Miller 2001: 469). 210 Mandelbrote justly calls the work “one of the most ambitious publishing projects of early modern England” (2006: 85). 211 For a general overview of the religious, political, and cultural underpinnings of the London Polyglot, see Miller 2001, Mandelbrote 2006, and Hamilton 2016. 212 Prolegomena XI, §15 (1.79): Praeterea observare licet Scholiastem hunc Graecum sepius cum versione Samaritana [= ST] quam cum textu Heb. Samaritano convenire, illamque exprimere, non tamen mendosa est interpretatio, cum nihil textui contrarium additur, nec quod ad explicationem non confert. L.E. Du-Pin (1657–1719; also styled Dupin) parroted Walton’s discussion in his Prolégomènes sur la Bible. Note the older convenient ET of the latter: It is true, there are some wherein he seems to vary from it, but it is because in those Places the Samaritan Word may have two significations; or, because he does not tye himself the Words, but to the Sense; or, because he rather followed the Samaritan Version [= ST] than the Text; or, in fine [sc. in short], because perhaps the Text it self hath been chang’d in some Places by the default of the Copiers …” (1699: 166v; emphasis, orthography original).

The Samaritan Pentateuch in Greek | 41

Morin, Hottinger, or others, who dated the work around the time of Alexander, he felt that this was much later.213 Further studied remarks by Edmund Castell (1606–85)214 were supplied in the sixth and final volume of the London Polyglot (1757) which supplied textual variants. After examining the σαμ΄ readings vis-à-vis ST, he flatly stated: [After brief comments concerning σαμ΄ readings in previous editions] Atque hic minime praeterendum puto, quod cum ibi in Genes. quarter fiat mentio τοῦ Σαμαρειτικοῦ, bis a nostris discordant exemplaria : in Exod. undecis, ubi quinquies diversa sunt : in Levit. etiam undecies, & discordant quater : in Num. novies, & semel tantum dissentiunt : In Deut. mentio nulla. Per τὸ σαμαρειτικόν a. semper intelligitur versio Chald. Samar. non textus Hebr. Sam.

|| 213 T.H. Horne (1780–1862) much later summarized Walton’s views: “Considerable doubts, however, exist concerning the identify of this supposed Greek version of the Samaritan text; which, if it ever existed, Bishop Walton thinks, must be long posterior in date to the Septuagint” (1.270). See Walton’s Prolegomena XI, §22 (1.81): Tertia versio est Graeca, secundum Morinum, Hottingerum & alios, quam quidem vir doctus vult sine dubio factam suisse tempore Alexandri Magni. Fundamentum vero cui innititur (versio enim ipsa hodie non extat) est Scholiastes Graecus antiquus saepe citatus apud Nobilium, & Scholiis Graecis ad editionem Romanam LXX interp. ubi saepe το Σαμαρειτικον citatur, cujus lectiones Graecas adfert ipse Scholiastes. Cyrillus etiam Alexandrinus, Hieronymus, aliique veterum ex codice Samaritico, quaedam subinde producunt. An vero ex ipso codice Samaritico, vel ex ejus aliqua translatione quae tunc extabat, testimonia ista proferunt, dubium videntur. Si vero ex versione quadam Graeca, ut videntur, citentur, potius tamen versionem Samariticam quam ipsum textum, cum inter se variant, exprimere, observatum est. Loca multa ab ipsis adducta supra collegimus : si vero talis aliqua extitisset versio Graeca, nequaquam tamen ad tempora Alexandri pertigisse sed multo recentiorem esse certo persuasus sum. Nam ante LXX. versionem nullam Graecam extitisse alibi, non fallor, satis probatum est. … Walton’s sentiments, again, were précised by Dupin (p. 168r; italics original): ’Tis probable that there was formerly a Greek Version of the Samaritan Pentateuch, since St. Cyril of Alexandria, some other Greek fathers, and an Ancient Greek Scholiast, knew and quoted the Differences of the Samaritan Pentateuch, which ’tis likely they did not take from the Original, but rather from a Greek Version. In the mean while, tho’ it be probable, that there was formerly a Greek Version of the Samaritan Pentateuch, it’s certain that it was not made in the Time of Alexander the Greek, as Father Morin alleges. 214 On Castell’s contributions to early Samaritanology, see G. Firmin, “Castell, Edmund,” CSS, 49. Castell’s significant academic (and even financial) contributions to the polyglot project have been outlined by H. Todd (1.163–79).

42 | Prolegomena

But these things should by no means be passed unnoticed. I estimate that [among Nobilius] in Genesis there is mention of τοῦ Σαμαρειτικοῦ four times, twice they disagree with our examples; eleven times in Exodus, where five times they disagree with our examples; in Leviticus eleven, and four differ, in Numbers nine, and once only they disagree. In Deuteronomy there is no mention. By τὸ σαμαρειτικόν is always to be understood the Chaeldeo-Samaritan version [= ST], not the Hebrew-Samaritan version.215

It is essential to observe that Castell’s (and Walton’s) contention—that the readings marked τὸ σαμ΄ basically stem from ST—became the central, recurring feature of text-critical discussions of these readings, influencing scholars well into the present time, permitting varying adjustments to the central notion in light of new MS evidence.216 Another important component of early discussion relating to the σαμ΄ readings was the process through which Samaritan readings became known to Christian sources. Of interest again is Walton’s Prolegomena. Though he appears to have stopped short of specifically claiming that Origen’s hexaplaric work disseminated these Samaritan readings, he did support the notion of many Church Fathers’ having used the source—Origen included. When prompted by the criticisms of John Owen (1616–83) two years after the Prolegomena was published, he responded to the Puritan’s charge that the Samaritan text was so corrupt that no Church Fathers even bothered to consider using it.217 Walton riposted:218 || 215 See his §5 Annotationes & Observationes doctissima ad Textum & Versionem Samarit. Spectantes. (6.11; found in the section titled: Praefatio, De Animadversionum Samariticarum in totum pentateuchum ab eo collectarum, Scopo atque usu.; note that the sections of vol. 6 are independently paginated). Castell’s conclusion was given amidst his comments based on the data in Nobilius’ collation. Cited is Norton’s ET of Field’s quotation of Castell (2005: 156, n. 36; 1.lxxxiii, n. 36). 216 See my 2020 article cited below (→ §1.2.3.10) as well as the wider discussion in §1.2.3. 217 Owen’s work Of the Divine Originall, Authority, self-evidencing Light, and Power of the Scriptures… was issued in 1659 in two parts, the latter entitled Of the Integrity & Purity of the Hebrew and Greek of the Scripture, with Considerations on the Prolegomena … . In this second part of his work, Owen offered his opinions on the Samaritans and their texts which were wholly negative as the following excerpts show (quoted from ch. VII, section 10, pp. 327–32, orthography, capitalization, word division, and emphasis all original): … In a word, an Idolatrous, Superstitious, wicked people they were, before they were subdued by Hyrcanus; afterwards they continued in the Seperation from the true Church of God; & upon the Testimony of our Saviour had not Salvation among them. When they received their Pentateuch is uncertaine; Uncertaine also how long they kept it; that they corrupted it whilest they had it, is notuncertaine; They are charged to have done so by the Jewes in the Talmud, … to give Countenance to their abominations. ... Now one such vol-

The Samaritan Pentateuch in Greek | 43

XI. That no ancient Christians made use of their Pentateuch [SP], is like the rest [of Owen’s unfounded accusations]. The Author had read the contrary proved, Prolegom. 11. where Sect. 7, 14, &c. he could not but finde, Origen, Eusebius, Africanus,219 Cyril of Alexand. Diadorus Tars. Hierom, Eulogius, Procopius [of Gaza], Epiphanius, the Greek Scholiast, and

|| untary corruption made on set purpose to countenance a sinne, and false worship, is enough to lay low the Authority of any Copy whatever. … Now that this Pentateuch which was never as such committed to the Church of God, that had its rise no man knowes by whom, and that hath been preserved no man knowes how, knowne by few, used by none of the ancient Christians, that hath been voluntarily corrupted by men of corrupt minds to countenance them in their folly, should be of any Authority upon its own single account to any end or purpose, especially to vye [sc. vie] with the [Jewish] Hebrew Text, men that have not some designe that they publickly owne not, will scarce contend. The places instanced in by Morinus to prove its integrity above the Hebrew Copy, as to the solution of difficulties by it, in Gen: 11. 29, 31. Exod. 12. 40; doe evidently prove it corrupt; [he lists several examples of textual difficulty], nor would Hierome, who had this Copy, make any use of it, in these difficulties. Might I goe over the rest of Morinus his instances whereby he seekes to credit his Samaritan Copy, which we have in these Biblia Polyglotta, I could manifest that there is scarce one of them, but yeelds a cleare Argument of Corruption in it, …; and if this Pentateuch had been of any credit of old, it would not have been omitted, yea as it seemes utterly rejected as a thing of nought, by Origen in his diligent collection of the Originall and Versions. But we are in a way and businesse, wherin all things are carried to and fro by conjectures; and it were no hard taske to manifest the utter uncertainty of what is fixed on as the Originall of this Pentateuch, by the Authour of the Prolegomena, or to reinforce those conjectures which he opposeth; but that is not my present work; nor do I know that ever it will be so. … then any is to be hoped from the Example of the Samaritans: Were they all Barbars [sc. uncouth], and Porters, and Alehousekeepers, yet they might easily discerne, that the example and president of a wicked people, forsaken of God, and forsaking of him, to whom the promise of the Spirit of Supplications, was never made, nor he bestowed upon them, is not Cogent unto the people of Christ under the new Testament[.] 218 Unmistakable in the present exchange is Walton’s obvious vitriol for a theological and political enemy (hence “Adversary,” i.e., Satan). Owen was both a Puritan and Cromwellian, while Walton was firmly Royalist and Laudian, i.e., High Church/Anglo-Catholic in modern Anglican parlance (see ODCC, “Walton, Brian”; see also especially Miller 2001: 468–70, on the political situation, and pp. 470–78, on the “theology” of the polyglots, specifically Walton’s adiaphoronic view vis-à-vis textual criticism, something Owen could not abide). To point out that the two had different theological outlooks would be an understatement. Mandelbrote, who observes that Morin’s works were “widely taken up, particularly in England,” succinctly summarizes Owens’ attitude towards diverse textual traditions: “[O]pennesss to the indeterminacy of textual traditions was … a threat to the foundations of Protestantism” (2006: 76–77). See also Hamilton 2016: 151–54. 219 I am unclear as to what demonstrates Africanus’ usage. No such evidence is found in the recent GCS volume of Africanus’ fragments (see M. Wallraff et al 2007).

44 | Prolegomena

other ancient Writers quoted, and their testimonies produced to prove the Samaritan Copy they used to have been the same with this now extant, by the places they alleged about Chronologie, and other controverted Texts, yet all these men must not be reckoned among ancient Christians, for no ancient Christians made use of it. It is strange, if anything can be strange, in such an Adversary, that he should so boldly affirm such things, which are so easily detected, and so plainly confuted.220

Presumably Walton meant that these writers encountered SP in its Greek form. Nevertheless, when Walton’s defense is compared to his Prolegomena, nowhere did he cite Origen’s “hexapla” specifically as evidence; instead Contra Celsum (Proleg. XI §7) and Comm. on John (XI §11) were cited as indicating Origen’s familiarity with Samaritan matters.221 The Post-Polyglot Period Rather it was a contemporary of Walton’s, the patristics scholar Isaac Voss (1618–89), who explicitly attributed the Samaritan readings in Christian MSS to Origen’s hexaplaric work. In his De Septuaginta Interpretibus eorumque translatione & chronologia dissertationes (1661), Voss argued that his use of SP should be inferred from a close reading of Eusebius’ description of Origen’s textual work in H.E. 6.16, specifically the former’s use of the word σημείωσις:222 Σημείωσις vocat Eusebius [H.E. 6.16.4]. Sicubi itaque discreparet exemplar Samariticum a codicibus Iudaicis, varietas illa in margine signabatur. Si quid abesset aut redundaret in alterutro exemplari, id asterisco aut obelo notabatur. Sane pleraeque Samaritici codicis lectiones, quae in scriptis & catenis Patrum occurrunt, non aliunde quam ex Origenis Hexaplis fuere depromptae. … For wherever [SP] disagreed with the codices of the Jews, these variants were recorded in the margin. If anything was shorter or longer [lit. was missing or redundant] in either of

|| 220 1659: 184 (emphasis, abbreviations original). Walton’s observation that some in the ancient Church utilized SP was crucial since church usage was a criterion (among others) for untangling textual ambiguities according to his theology. Walton held that “one has to turn to the best and to the most ancient codices, to the use and custom of the Church, how the most ancient Fathers of the Church read, or to the ancient versions approved by the Church or whatever reading accepted by the Church today” (Miller’s ET of an excerpt from his Prolegomena; 2001: 478). 221 Compare Walton’s list provided against Owen with his discussion in §14. Again, Dupin repeated Walton’s list: “The Samaritan Pentateuch, though but lately published, is not a Work unknown to Antiquity : Eusebius, Africanus, Origen, St. Jerom, Diodore of Tarsis, St. Cyril of Alexandria, and Procopius of Gaza, have quoted it; …” (1699: 166r). This list was commonly reiterated in later literature. 222 1661: 95–96.

The Samaritan Pentateuch in Greek | 45

the two, this [difference] was indicated with the asterisk or obelus. Naturally, it follows that very many readings of the Samaritan codex occurred in the writings and catenae of the Fathers—these had been taken from none other than the Hexapla of Origen.223

Of interest is not only Voss’ assertion that Origen consulted and collated SP— something most later scholars would accept in toto et ad nauseam—but that he did so using the hexaplaric sigla. This claim lay pregnant with the later musings that the SP had its own column (or designated section) in the Hexapla Maior (→ §§1.2.3.1; 2.4.2; 6.1). However, Voss’ understanding did not remain long unchallenged. For his part, Richard Simon (→ §1.1.2.1) severely criticized224 his interpretation: Vossius seems likewise not to have understood the words of Eusebius, when he pretends to prove that Origen had a Hebrew Samaritan Text for his particular use. Eusebius onely says that Origen applied himself with so much care in the search of the holy Scriptures that he learnt the Hebrew Tongue, and that he had an Original of his own writ in Hebrew Characters. But Vossius has translated the words of Eusebius according to his own prejudice, and not according to the sense of the Greek words which he relates. There is not a word in that place of the Samaritans but of the Jews, and moreover mention is there made of a Hebrew Jewish Copy. Eusebius says that this Copy was writ in Hebrew Characters to distinguish it from other Copies of the Hebrew Text which were writ in Greek Characters, … I onely wonder that so learned a man as Vossius has so strangely altered the sense.225

Simon, not being content to have called out Voss’ eisegesis but once, reiterated: I shall not stay here to confute Vossius, who affirms that Origen had put in his Hexaplas the Samaritan, and that these Hexaplasses were otherwise ordered than usually they are set down. Till he gives this new order or placing of the Hexaplasses, we may be permitted to follow Eusebius, Epiphanius, Ruffinus, St. Jerom, and other Fathers who have spoken of these Hexaplasses of Origen, as being eye witnesses. It is also certain that Origen consulted not the Samaritans but the Jews … . It is true that he put into the Margin of his Hexaplasses, some Greek Scholias, […; but] there is no proof whereby we can demonstrate that the places where the Samaritan Text differed from the Hebrew were markt in the Margin. [… A]nd it is certain that the Greek word σημείωσις does not signifie in that place Scholia, in the sence [Voss] takes it in.226

|| 223 1661: 96 (emphasis mine). 224 On the wider theological controversy in the 17th cent. which formed the backdrop of Simon’s somewhat prickly response against Voss, see Mandelbrote 2021: 43. 225 1682/1.94–95. 226 1682/2.20. In another place Simon again stated: “Nevertheless in all the search I have made, I have not found that Origen put the various Readings of the Samaritan Pentateuch in the margin of his Hexaplasses, as Vossius has affirm’d.” (1682/2.67).

46 | Prolegomena

Instead, Simon believed τὸ σαμαρειτικόν, as quoted by the Fathers, had been taken—not from Origen’s “hexapla”—but from an actual Samaritan translation they created for their own use, akin to the Hellenistic Jews and the Septuagint.227 He further addressed the alleged relationship between τὸ σαμ΄ and ST: We may however judge by what we have, that it was according to the Letter, although the Author does not always endeavor to translate the words of his Text, according to the utmost rigor of the Letter; … Sometimes the Greek Translation of the Samaritans happens to agree with the Samaritan Translation [= ST], more than with the Samaritan Hebrew Text; which would make one believe it was made from this Samaritan Translation; but as these two Translations agree not in many places, we cannot affirm that one was made from the other, but only that sometimes the sense is the same in both. As they both were made by Samaritan Authors from the same [Hebrew], it is not strange that the sense of the Text is sometimes express’d after the same matter. [… He gives various examples and concludes:] Lastly, There are several places where the Greek Translation of the Samaritans agrees with the Septuagint; so that the Samaritan Translator seems to have consulted it in his Translation.228

Thus Simon opposed the theories both regarding Origen’s role in the transmission of τὸ σαμ΄ and the proposed connection between τὸ σαμ΄ and ST. To Simon, the Samaritans simply created their own Greek translation, at times under the influence of the Septuagint,229 and that the Fathers somehow gained access to

|| 227 Simon (1682/2.59–60): Origen took the pains of collecting of them all, or at least all he could find, and putting of them in his Hexaplasses, except the Greek Translation of the Pentateuch, made by the Samaritans for their particular use. … [T]here is no body who reads the passages of the Fathers, where they mention the Samaritan Readings, but will conclude, that there really was a Greek Translation of the Pentateuch, for the Samaritans particular use. … [B]ut we ought not for all that to infer, that the Fathers have said concerning the Samaritan Copy, was taken from [Origen’s] Scholia’s, and not from a true Greek Translation us’d by the Samaritans, who were scatter’d up and down in all the Provinces where Greek was spoke. As then the Greek Tongue was us’d in most of the places where the Samaritans dwelt, it is probable that they made for their own particular use a Translation of the Pentateuch, into the Tongue they then spoke in their Synagogues; imitating in this the Hellenist Jews, who then us’d the Greek Septuagint Translation. … This is the Samaritan Translation so often quoted by the Fathers, which Eusebius mentions in the beginning of his Chronicle … . On Eusebius’ quotations of SP in his Chronicon, see below (→ §§6.2.1–2; EXCURSUS D). 228 1682/2.60–61. 229 With respect to the last quoted point (“Lastly, …”), Simon’s second revised and augmented French edition read: “… ; de-sorte qu’il semble que l’Interprète Samaritain l’ait consultée ou imitée dans sa Traduction Grecque” (1685: 235; bold mine).

The Samaritan Pentateuch in Greek | 47

this edition. Simon’s opposition to both points in some ways presaged some current text-critical theory.230 Given the handful of readings then available, his work in this sense was remarkable. Still, yet another scholar ought to be consulted in reviewing early critical opinion of Origen’s potential role in the transmission of Greek Samaritan readings, Humphrey Hody (1659–1707). Hody, who had previously demonstrated that the Letter of Aristeas was indeed a forgery,231 published an opus of noted repute in his multi-volume work De bibliorum textis originalibus (1705). Therein, in the section detailing Origen’s hexaplaric works, he responded to the prompting of Voss’ and Simon’s opposing views regarding the matter of the Samaritan readings in Greek hexaplaric sources: Respondeo, non cum Huetio & Simonio, id cos didicisse ex Graeca quadam Samaritici codicis Versione, sed verum esse, in margine quorundam Bibliorum Ed. Origenianae, varietates Samariticas fuisse adnotatas, quod patet ex Praefat. Pent. Arab. in Bibl. Bodl. Utrum vero ab ipso Origene, vel ab Eusebio, vel ab alio paulo junior, adnotatae fuerint, incertum. Potuerunt etiam Patres, quid in certis quibusdam locis haberet textus Samariticus, ab ipsis Samaritanis edoceri. I answer, not with … Simon …, rather it is indeed true that, in the margin of certain editions of the Origenic Bible, a variety of Samaritan [readings] had been recorded, because this is confirmed by the Preface of an Arabic Pentateuch in the Bodleian Library. Whether these were recorded by Origen himself, or by Eusebius, or someone a little later, is uncertain. Naturally, it is possible (any) Father in a given place might have learned of the Samaritan text from the Samaritans themselves.232

Central to Hody’s response was a certain Arabic Pentateuch MS whose translator’s Preface he referenced. This text, first published in LT in 1692, is the same Prefatory Epistle attached to the Arabic translation of SH Pent undertaken by the Arab Christian scholar al-Ḥārith ibn Sinān ibn Sunbāṭ al-Ḥarrānī in the 10th cent. CE (→ §3.1.1). Therein, al-Ḥārith described his source, including remarks regarding certain sizeable marginal excerpts from SP found in the margins and “at the end of the book” (cp. SH Deut 5.21(17)‫ ח–א‬in SHM → §§1.1; 4.2). Thus, Hody rejected Simon’s conclusion, that hexaplaric MSS derived from Origen’s work did not contain “Samaritan” readings. Yet, he was careful not to overstep the evidence, and as a result, left open the possibility that these could have been inserted by someone other than Origen.

|| 230 Compare below the view advocated by J. Joosten (→ §1.2.3.9). 231 Contra Historiam Aristeae de LXX Interpretibus Dissertatio (1684). 232 1705: 603.

48 | Prolegomena

Hody’s is an important point.233 For at the time of the London Polyglot, the only sources of Samaritan Greek readings were the peculiar scholia found in MSS sub το σαμ΄. However, additional sources would surface, not only during Hody’s lifetime but most especially the ensuing 100–250 years, whose margins provided an increase of Samaritan readings in Greek (or translated from Greek)—many of which lacked the specific designation “τὸ σαμαρειτικόν.” 1.2.1.2 Bernard de Montfaucon’s Hexaplorum Origenis … (1713) The first substantial milestone in hexaplaric studies is the edition of fragments issued by Bernard de Montfaucon (1655–1741) in 1713.234 The Frenchman’s erudition with MSS, coupled with the availability of new MS sources, suited him to the task, his work being far more than a reprinting of previously collated readings.235 Among these new sources were two of the great uncials, CODICES M and Q, along with many French MSS (e.g., 64, 550, etc.),236 all of which greatly expanded the collection of hexaplaric readings and scholia than was previously available. These new readings facilitated a comprehensive analysis contained in his extensive Praeliminaria237 as well as comments on particular hexaplaric phenomena ad loc.238 Montfaucon’s presentation of Greek Samaritan readings is perhaps one of the more remarkable elements of his edition. And while new MS sources permitted him to add to the number of σαμ΄ readings,239 it was his discovery and recognition of a second set of Greek Samaritan readings which allowed the study of the SP in Greek to move forward.

|| 233 Hody seems not to have known the Samaritan readings recorded by Masius in CS (→ §1.1), though these had been published but 7 years earlier. The former mentioned the latter only with respect to his work on SH Joshua (1705: 518–19). 234 Hexaplorum Origenis quae supersunt…, 2 vols. In this study, cited page references are from the first volume; the reprint in PG 15 is also listed for convenience. 235 For an overview of Montfaucon’s work and influence on later studies (especially Field’s), see Law 2007: 38–41. Law is, however, also careful to note Montfaucon’s dependence on previous work, particularly Drusius (2007: 39). 236 Rahlfs dutifully recorded these (“Von Montfaucon für die Hexapla benutzt ...”; 1914: passim). 237 1713: 7–77; PG 15.19–122. 238 These were provided at the end of each chapter, à la SIXTINE. Note that the reprint in PG rearranged the readings in accordance with a columned layout (as Montfaucon had done for Gen 1) and for that reason can be awkward to follow. 239 Concerning το σαμ΄, Montfaucon added no real evidence in Gen, five readings in Exod, three in Lev, none in Num, and one in Deut (see ADDENDUM → APPENDIX).

The Samaritan Pentateuch in Greek | 49

With respect to the already known σαμ΄ readings, he observed 1) these were transmitted in the “oldest” MSS bearing hexaplaric remains, 2) that the Fathers of the 4th, 5th, and later centuries quoted these, and 3) that while the evidence is sparse, it seems reasonable to suppose Origen placed these readings in his hexapla.240 Montfaucon argued that this translation existed during Origen’s time,241 and that he probably quoted it—in addition to another translation of the Samaritan Hebrew he manufactured himself: Nec officit huic nostrae opinioni, nota quaedam Num. cap. 13. v. 1, quae ut arbitror, Origenis est, ubi cum quaedam praeferret Samaritanus Bibliorum textus ex Deuteronomio desumta, eadam ipsa se Graece transtulisse testificatur Origenes, & quidem modo ad Editionem LXX. accommodato, ἅ καὶ αὐτὰ ἐκ τοῦ τῶν Σαμαρειτῶν Ἑβραϊκοῦ μετεβάλομεν καταλλήλως τῇ τῶν Ο. ἑρμηνείᾳ τῇ ἐν τῷ Δευτερονομίῳ φερομένη. Non enim hic agitur de Samaritana aliqua Translatione, sed de ipso textu Bibliorum Samaritano libro Numerorum, ubi etiam hodie multa ex Deuteronomio decerpta reperiuntur : quae ut repraesentaret Origenes, eorum interpretationem ex versione των Ο. ut in Deuteronomio erat, mutuatus est. Nor does a certain note (at) Num 13.1—which I judge to be Origen’s—oppose our opinion [of the σαμ΄ readings]. In this note he quoted [in Num] certain things which the Samaritan Bible had taken from Deut; these same things Origen claimed to have “translated” into Greek [lit. transcribed as Greek], adapting the LXX: ἅ καὶ αὐτὰ ἐκ τοῦ τῶν Σαμαρειτῶν Ἑβραϊκοῦ μετεβάλομεν καταλλήλως τῇ τῶν Ο. ἑρμηνείᾳ τῇ ἐν τῷ Δευτερονομίῳ φερομένη. This was not accomplished by means of some Samaritan Greek Translation, but rather from the actual [Hebrew] SP of Num, where also today many passages are found having been taken from Deut. The translation of these passages Origen borrowed from was the LXX text of Deut so that he might make them available.242

Montfaucon brought a few important matters to the fore with respect to Greek Samaritan readings: 1) The direct involvement of Origen’s hexapla. While most other scholars had discussed the possibility (or assumed the certainty) of Origen’s having dealt with SP in his “hexapla,” strictly speaking, Montfaucon was the first to contend Origen was himself responsible and, while so arguing, actually pro-

|| 240 Preliminaria, Chap. 1, §VIII (pp. 18–19; PG 15.35–36). He was, however, careful to point out that very little evidence had survived (1713: 19). 241 An observation recently pointed out by Joosten (2014: 347). See Montfaucon’s Preliminaria, Chap. 1, §IX (1713: 19–20; PG 15.36–37): “… Si quis alias in Pentateucho a nobis allatas Samaritani Interpretis lectiones accurate perpendat, ex Graeca, ni fallor, interpretatione desumtas [sic] esse deprehendet.” 242 1713: 19–20; PG 15.36–37. The Greek ligatures have been modernized.

50 | Prolegomena

duced and discussed apparent first-hand Greek evidence directly relevant to such a supposition—something all previous studies sorely lacked.243 2) Two separate sets of Samaritan readings. The most significant element for the present study is his interpretation of the scholion from Num 13.1‫→( ד–א‬ §3.3.3). In contrast with previous attempts at hexaplaric editions or discussions of the SP, Montfaucon came armed with a certain Vatican MS, one Codex Basiliensis (= MS 85, Vat. gr. 2058, 10th cent.).244 This MS, whose scholion he quoted, would later be recognized as a member of the s-group, uniquely transmitting six “expansions” in Num within its margins, two of which were explicitly described as (τοῦ) τῶν Σαμαρειτῶν (Ἑβραϊκοῦ),245—not τὸ σαμαρειτικόν. Based on MS 85,246 Montfaucon hypothesized that in addition to readings taken from a pre-existing Samaritan Greek edition (i.e., τὸ σαμ΄), Origen also adapted247 his own G(Num/Deut) text, adding it to the margins of the respective locations to represent SP’s expansions. Thus, Montfaucon reasoned, there were two distinct sets of “Samaritan” readings found in the MS evidence: a) those taken from a previous translation: τὸ σαμ΄; and b) those manufactured, probably by Origen, for the “hexapla,” based on the Hebrew SP. 3) The presence of septuagintism in the τῶν Σαμαρειτῶν readings. Another important component, one which would play a major part in future discussion of the two sets of readings, was the observation that these readings denoted as (τοῦ) τῶν Σαμαρειτῶν (Ἑβραϊκοῦ) betray considerable influence from the parallel GPent passage. In fact, they seem to be more or less cribbed from G’s parallel, hence μετεβάλομεν. This aspect of the data would

|| 243 I say “first-hand Greek evidence” as both Masius (→ §1.1) and Hody referenced secondhand Syriac and third-hand Arabic evidence, respectively. 244 See his In Numerorum Librum Admonitio (1713: 150; PG 15.707–08). Montfaucon briefly described the MS earlier in his Diarium Italicum (1702: 212) though he did not mention the scholion there (see Rahlfs 1914: 270). 245 Montfaucon, to his credit, recognized those at Num 21.11‫( א‬1713: 163; PG 15.756–57), Num 31.20‫( ד–א‬1713: 171; PG 15.784–86), and Num 27.23‫( ב–א‬1713: 168; PG 15.775–76; at 28.1) even though 85 lacks attribution in those locations. He did not, however, acknowledge Num 14.45‫א‬: “Haec vero lectio cum Hebraïco non consonant, sed huc translata est ex Deuteronomii cap. 1.v.44” (1713: 159; PG 15.749–50). This last case is much better attested by SH (→ §3.3.3). 246 Montfaucon would later compare MS 85’s readings with the similar case in MS 15 at Num 21.22‫§§ →( ב–א‬3.1.2; 3.3.2; 5.3.3). 247 See also Montfaucon on Num 21.12‫–ג–א‬13a: “… quos Origenes secundum LXX. Interpretum versionem huic loco adaptavit : sunt autem excerpta ex Deuteronomii libro …” (1713: 163; PG 15.761–62).

The Samaritan Pentateuch in Greek | 51

be greatly reinforced with the emergence of evidence not then available (e.g., SH).248 Montfaucon’s thesis, however, is not without issue. As later critics pointed out (e.g., P. Kahle → §1.2.3.3), if Origen had both τὸ σαμ΄ and a Hebrew SP, why would he not have used the one to guide his “translation” of the other? In fact, if he had the former, why bother translating the latter at all?249

1.2.2 Frederick Field’s Origenis Hexaplorum … (1871) Frederick Field’s (1801–85) Origenis Hexaplorum…250 was—and for a number of Septuagint books still is—the publication of record for hexaplaric studies.251 The work considerably augmented Montfaucon’s, accomplished in large part by the addition of SH,252 much of which had not yet been published but was supplied to || 248 Montfaucon was surely unaware of SHM or the al-Ḥārith Preface discussed by Hody. Otherwise, he would have used them in support of his thesis, or at the very least incorporated them into his discussion. 249 The logic that Origen’s renderings of the Hebrew SP predated his encounter with τὸ σαμαρειτικόν cannot be sustained. Surely the latter would have displaced the former in a revision. 250 The usual date of the work is 1875; however, Norton found during the course of his research on Field’s bibliography one edition still extant (ex libris D. Barthélemy) bearing the date 1871 for the fascicle containing the Pentateuch (2005: 14). I was able to independently corroborate this date of publication when I found a copy in the library of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas (July 2015), which also had a title plate for the Pent bearing the date 1871. Also of interest is the title plate dating the second volume (T. II Fasc. I) containing Job–Cant, which is dated even earlier to 1867. This affirms Norton’s reconstruction: Field’s work was published in the order in which he worked through it, beginning with Job. According to the library’s notice, these volumes were purchased by SWBTS from the personal library of Edward R. Dalglish (d. 2001; sometime Professor of Religion at Baylor University) in the 1980s. 251 Field’s success was apparent upon publication, e.g., C. Taylor, “Hexapla, The,” DCB 3.23, as well as J.H. Burn 1897: 274–278, esp. p. 277. Note also the comments presaging such praise upon Field’s publishing both Proposals for Publishing by Subscription Origenis Hexaplorum… and Otium Norvicence, sive Tentamen de Reliquiis: “Mr. Field is one of our best Biblical scholars, if patience, learning, judgment, critical acumen, and a laudable enthusiasm are the qualities of a good scholar. … He will never be repaid for all his outlay of toil, and time, and money … ” (JSLBR 7 NS [1865]: 475–76). Of course, a new scholarly endeavor is presently underway to update and replace Field, on which see hexapla.org. 252 See Norton 2005: 10–12, and Law 2007: 42–45. Field cited J.G. Eichhorn’s (1752–1827) earlier suggestion regarding the use of the SH as a source (2005: 21–22; 1.iv–v).

52 | Prolegomena

him by the Italian Syriacist A.M. Ceriani (1828–1907) via correspondence.253 The importance of Field’s use of SH cannot be overstated, both for the hexaplaric fragments in general254 and the Samaritan readings in particular. Further, his provision of SH’s retroverted Greek Vorlagen broke down a lamentable—and still very much problematic—language barrier, opening up one of the principal sources of hexaplaric data to a wider audience.255 As such, Field’s edition was, and still is, particularly important for the Samaritan readings. Like Montfaucon’s,256 Field’s lengthy Prolegomena included, among others, a section devoted to the Samaritan readings extant in Greek.257 Therein, Field introduced his reader to two groups of readings: 1) “[those] on the part of the Hebraeo-Samaritan text” and 2) “a certain Samaritan translation whose Greek readings with the identification τοῦ Σαμαρειτικοῦ are transmitted in the Hexaplaric scholia.”258 With respect to the first group, Field 1) cited the Prefatory Epistle to the Arabic translation of SH by al-Ḥārith (→ §3.1.1) which, among other musings, indicated the marginal Samaritan passages were the result of collation against that “found in the hands of the Jews.”259 2) Field also observed that these readings occur in Exod, Num, and Deut, 3) that the Origenian sigla are applied variously to these passages by the different sources, and 4) that the Syriac translator(s)

|| 253 See Norton’s review of Field’s relationship with Ceriani (2005: 10–12). Field openly acknowledged his dependency upon (and deep appreciation for) Ceriani’s expertise in his edition: “We would have met with great difficulties in dealing with [SH] if the extraordinary man Antonius Maria Ceriani, Prefect of the College of the Ambrosian Library, had not opened to us a way that saved us” (2005: 22; 1.v). Similar statements of appreciation, and indeed affection, for Ceriani pepper Field’s work, to whom he, while being an Anglican vicar, even dedicated the edition (1.ii) despite Ceriani’s being 27 years his junior and a Roman Catholic. 254 As Law points out, his was not the first examination of SH (see Baars 1968: 2–4); nonetheless, Field’s was the first comprehensive study, covering the whole canon (2007: 42). 255 Norton calls Field’s retroversions his edition’s “principal novelty” (2007: 132). 256 As Law observed (2007: 38), Field’s Prolegomena was heavily influenced by the scope and organization of Montfaucon’s. For whatever reason (chronological?), the latter introduced his Samaritan discussion much earlier (i.e., before discussion of the Three) than the former. 257 “What might τὸ Σαμαρειτικόν mean?” (2005: 154–156; 1.lxxxii–lxxxiv). Norton’s 2005 ET of Field is cited throughout with the original pages in Field’s edition also supplied. 258 2005: 154; 1.lxxxii. Field did not explain why both groups of readings were included under this heading. This, unfortunately created confusion in subsequent literature as the present chapter shows. 259 2005: 154; 1.lxxxii. A few other observations were made by al-Ḥārith (see J. White 1779: 13– 14) on the Samaritan readings, none of which are necessarily helpful.

The Samaritan Pentateuch in Greek | 53

found them in “the margin of the Hexaplaric books … .”260 Lastly, 5) he believed Origen translated the Hebraeo-Samaritan readings into Greek, suggesting 5a) “his authorship should be claimed for the scholion”261 at Num 13.1‫ד–א‬.262 Regarding the second group, Field 1) compared their type to τὸν Ἑβραῖον and τὸν Σύρον, 2) listed a total of 43 such readings, to which he added four anonymous readings, and 3), following the (Walton-)Castell hypothesis, believed their origin to be found in ST.263 Insofar as MS sources are concerned, Field’s use of SH quintupled (!) the first group from Montfaucon’s mere six (in Num only) to 31 (16 in Exod, 13 for Num, and two in Deut).264 As for the second σαμ΄ group, SH transmits no such readings—something Field did not try to reconcile. It is also of interest that he offered no attempt to address the septuagintization of the first group vis-à-vis the second,265 mentioning the concept of septuagintism in an all-too-brief comment about the SH Exod colophon relegated to a mere footnote (→ §2.1.2). Furthermore, Field labelled one of the Samaritan readings (Deut 34.1b–1‫–א‬2) from SHM as from τὸ σαμαρειτικόν, but this attribution is unfounded (→ §§1.3.1.2, 3.3.1 at

|| 260 2005: 155, with n. 34; 1.lxxxiii, n. 34. Field’s opinion was taken from Ceriani’s then still unfinished edition of SH Exod (→ §§ 2.1.2; 2.2). For this, Field adhered to Ceriani’s opinion that SH was not responsible for the readings but took them over from their Greek exemplar (2005: 155; 1.lxxxiii, citing Ceriani 1863: 153). 261 2005: 155; 1.lxxxiii. 262 All of this was outlined by Field without any explicit, direct reference to Montfaucon’s work. This is not pointed out to accuse Field of plagiarism, rather to redress an historical infelicity. In fact, the whole of Field’s endeavor is indebted to Montfaucon as is attested in his work’s full title (Norton 2005: 12). However, given the peculiarity of the topic, and that he referenced Montfaucon by name in other parts of his Prolegomena (e.g., “Montfaucon, whose papers we shall not have any scruple about plundering …” [2005: 62; 1.xxxi, from the section on Symmachus]), he ought to have done so here, especially given Montfaucon’s discovery and analysis of the scholion in MS 85. On balance, this criticism is largely due to Field’s work having become the publication of record on the hexapla, something he could not have necessarily controlled. Given this, succeeding discussions on the Num 13.1‫ ד–א‬scholion and the problem of its authorship have cited Field and proper credit has eluded Montfaucon (e.g., Pummer 1998: 271, n. 9). 263 2005: 155–56, with n. 36; 1.lxxxiii–lxxxiv, with n. 36. 264 Those in Deut were from SHM (→ §§1.1; 4.3). For Num, Field had access to another s-group MS 130, but 130 does not transmit any SP passages beyond those in MS 85; the increase was due to SH. 265 Even the scholion was not cited as an explanation. Ironically, at times Field’s own retroversions over-septuagintize beyond that which the MS evidence permits (e.g., Field’s ειπον in Exod 7.29‫§ → א‬2.3.1). His retroversions are corrected and annotated in the below analysis.

54 | Prolegomena

Num 21.22‫ ב–א‬and Num 32.1+ and 29+; §4.3.2).266 Lastly, Field either did not know the details of the SH Exod colophon first-hand or simply failed to outline them.267 This is an important detail in relation to his work on the Samaritan readings, as the SH Exod subscription explicitly testifies to the origins of the “Hebraeo-Samaritan” group (→ §2.2).268 With respect to his sources for the σαμ΄ readings, increased MS availability allowed him to supplement the number of readings previously published. For example, MSS 25C,269 416mx (his “cod. Lips.”270), and 128z provided some new σαμ΄ renderings (e.g., Exod 38.26 [38.8], Num 31.18) or confirmed those previously transmitted anonymously or under different attribution (e.g., Gen 49.15, Lev 15.8). Still some readings are based only upon Nobilius (e.g., Gen 49.23–24; Exod 8.21[17]271). Perhaps his most significant new source of material was from the so-called Catena Nicephori (CatNic). Published well after Montfaucon’s time in 1772, Field often used this edition to confirm the unsourced notes in Nobilius (e.g., Num 4.25, 29.35, 31.16, et al). Rahlfs would later establish that Nicephorus had used catena MS 417cII (London, Arch. Libr. 1214, dated 1104 CE) for his text in Lev–Ruth.272 Despite significant gains, Field exhibited some inconsistency in recording the σαμ΄ evidence. For example, though CatNic was one of his chief resources, he failed to record the “σαμ΄” reading at Deut 27.4 (→ §4.3.3), though he dutifully documented the χολ scholion at Deut 27.26 (via Procopius’ in CatNic, → §4.3.4).

|| 266 This may have been why Field did not address the lack of the σαμ΄ readings in SH. Note that the reading at Num 20.13‫§ →( ט–א‬3.3.1) was also labeled as “τὸ Σαμαρειτικόν,” presumably by Field, in the Thesaurus Syriacus in 1901 (see PS 2.3189). Field was a collaborator in the project, and thus the identification probably reflects his judgment as opposed to any other of the principle editors. Either way, it seems Field was inconsistent on the matter. 267 On the issues surrounding the eventual publication of Ceriani’s discussion of the colophon in the final fascicle of his SH Exod edition, see below (→ §2.1.2). 268 It is very curious indeed that Field did not quote the subscription in his Prolegomena, especially as Wright was in correspondence with Field, at least for readings from Barhebraeus (→ §4.1.2). After all, he quoted Wright’s CSMBM in his “In Librum Numerorum Monitum” (1.224) for the sake of delineating the precise extent of SHL Num’s many lacunae directly citing CSMBM (1.31)—a mere one page after Wright’s transcription and ET of the SH Exod subscription! 269 See Field’s note at Gen 49.14 (1.71, n. 37) and the bibliographic supplement (2.3, in his Auctarium). 270 Monitum (1.79); see the reading at Exod 38.26(38.8) where it is the sole witness. See the cataloging in Rahlfs 1914: 98. 271 This reading is in MS 25; perhaps he simply cited Nobilius without bothering with further sources. 272 1914: 102.

The Samaritan Pentateuch in Greek | 55

Given that CatNic is the only evidence cited for the reading at Deut 10.22, one wonders how this occurred. Mysteriously, he registered a σαμ΄ reading in Num 32.35 but did not provide its source.273 Nevertheless, Field’s work represents an enormous leap forward for the study of both groups of readings, and his edition is in many ways still useful for the study of Samaritan readings found in Christian MS traditions.

1.2.3 Scholarship after Field Field’s edition continued to serve a role as the standard publication, thus having a profound effect on subsequent scholarship. This was, and in some ways still is, particularly so with respect to Field’s endorsement of (Walton-)Castell’s theory regarding τὸ σαμ΄ and ST. 1.2.3.1 Samuel Kohn’s “Samareitikon und Septuaginta” (1894) Hungarian Rabbi S. Kohn (1841–1920)274 was the next noteworthy voice in the intermittent and slowly evolving discussion regarding Greek Samaritan readings.275 Kohn argued the σαμ΄ readings—particularly the “indifferent readings” (“indifferente Stellen”) found in the “Hexapla”—were best interpreted as remnants of a continuous and complete translation (“eine fortlaufende, vollständige Übersetzung”) of ST in Greek.276 Following (Walton-)Castell and Field,277 Kohn sought to expand upon their efforts in a few ways: 1) He augmented the list of anonymously transmitted σαμ΄ readings originally proposed by Field.278 2) Kohn claimed that many readings were eventually transmitted marginally as ἄλλος or integrated into (often “having completely displaced”) the run-

|| 273 The reading appears without MS attribution (only ST’s rendering was provided in the footnote; see 1.265, n. 20) and was not listed in his Prolegomena or his Appendix (1.329–30). Successive studies and editions (save Kohn 1894: 49, with n. 2) record no such σαμ΄ reading. 274 See D. Talshir’s “Kohn, Samuel” (CSS, 146) for a brief, general survey of his works vis-à-vis Samaritanology. 275 This section is much indebted to Pummer’s useful summary (1998: 271–72 and 281–82). 276 1894: 51. Kohn never appeared to question Origen’s responsibility for the σαμ΄ readings in the “hexapla,” mentioning him by name throughout his study (see pp. 1, 58, 59, 60, 63, 64). 277 1894: 2–3. 278 1894: 52.

56 | Prolegomena

ning text of some G MSS (e.g., Exod 23.19‫ א‬/ Deut 14.20‫א‬, Deut 34.1b–1‫–א‬ 2).279 3) He further claimed that the Samareitikon existed in multiple copies since there are places where double translation obtains in the MS tradition.280 4) Perhaps more radically, he reasoned that in “most cases” the agreement between G and SP (“dem samarit. Bibeltexte”) could be traced back to interpolation of the Samareitikon.281 Relevant is Kohn’s treatment of the readings from “the Hebraeo-Samaritan text.” Kohn did not want to accept these as a separate set of readings (from a different provenance) as had Montfaucon (and apparently Field). Instead, he considered these “long-winded, silly (or: trivial, meaningless)282 additions” (“langathmigen, läppischen Zusätze”) as originally from the Samareitikon. He reasoned: These existed before Origen, who put them in his Hexapla. Yet because of their length, he could not find a place next to the other recentiores; thus, he put them below the columns, that is to say “under the lines” [unterhalb der Columnen, gleichsam, „unter dem Striche“], marked with obeli.283

Amidst his theorizing on how this material was incorporated into the MS tradition, he wondered whether “the writer of SH” had provided them.284 Such a consideration, however, tips Kohn’s hand, for Field (following Ceriani’s obser-

|| 279 1894: 59–60, cf. p. 67. 280 1894: 62. Kohn cited the readings at Exod 28.4, 26.5, Deut 32.8, Lev 8.15, and the problematic situation with Exod 23.19‫ א‬/ Deut 14.20‫§ →( א‬2.5.2). Note that some, based on Epiphanius’ testimony regarding Symmachus, would still hold that the Samaritans had more than one (Greek?) translation (→ §7.2). 281 1894: 67; see p. 63 where Gen 4.8 (and the scholion mentioning “Σαμαρειτικόν”) is produced as evidence. As the below analysis argues (→ §§1.3.1.2; EXCURSUS D), this is a misinterpretation of the data. 282 I would like to thank Martin Tscheu for his comments on the semantic range of “läppisch” in German at this point. However it might be best translated, Kohn clearly had a negative, demeaning view of the passages. 283 1894: 64. As Rahlfs and Glaue later pointed out, the asterisk is just as common (1911: 63, n. 1). 284 “Ob sie schon von Origenes, oder erst von dem Verfasser der Syr.-Hexapla mit dem Vermerke versehen worden sind, dass sie nur „in editione Samaritanorum“ zu finden sind (εν μονοις των Σαμαρειτων ευρομεν—‫)בהי דשמריא‬, lässt sich mit Sicherheit nicht mehr entscheiden” (1894: 64; Kohn’s square script has been reproduced).

The Samaritan Pentateuch in Greek | 57

vations) stated that the passages were not the work of the Syriac translators.285 While unknown circumstances delayed Ceriani’s publication of the SH Exod colophon (something Field never provided → §1.2.2), W. Wright issued the full text, with ET, in 1870 (→ §2.2).286 And while there are many interpretive difficulties with the colophon, the subscription indicates that the Samaritan materials were added to the MS tradition well before the “Verfasser der Syr.-Hexapla.” Thus, it would appear that Kohn paid insufficient attention to Field’s admittedly terse description or simply disagreed without explaining why. Kohn’s opinion of the “langathmigen, läppischen Zusätze” was hindered by still another issue: septuagintism. Here the consequences of Field’s place as the publication of record came into play. For while Montfaucon explicitly explained this septuagintism by means of the Num 13.1‫ ד–א‬scholion, coupled with short analyses for the readings he had, Field’s silence on the matter (vis-à-vis the obvious Samaritan exegesis of the σαμ΄ readings) permitted Kohn to speculate: These long additions may have originally came verbatim from the Σαμαρειτικόν. [Then] when their provenance was recognized … the additions were altered to conform to the LXX translation of the parallel. The similarity of language [die Gleichheit der Sprache] confirms this; [for example,] ‫ ֶה ָער ֹב‬in Exod 8.21(17) was read by [the] Σαμαρειτικόν as if from ‫הע ֵֹרב‬, though the same word in the addition at v 23 (19) was not translated with κόρακα, but, as in the corresponding LXX passage, with τὴν κυνόμυιαν.287

Thus Kohn, in his attempt to maintain the ST as the origin of the “Samareitikon,” was willing to propose that these large, infrequently attested passages were adapted towards the G parallels, and that such a process occurred before Origen’s time. Kohn hypothesized that Hellenistic Jews were responsible for this adaptation, without any corroborating evidence whatsoever, and it was their work which Origen used in his hexapla.288 Historical difficulties aside (viz., Why would Hellenistic Jews bother to do this? See further below.),289 his hypothesis ignored the Num 13.1‫ ד–א‬scholion and consequently encountered opposition.

|| 285 Presumably, Kohn wrongly assumed the translators used the Hexapla Maior which is incorrect (→ §1.1.1). 286 Both of de Lagarde’s SH editions (1880 in square script and 1892 in proper Syriac) supplied the colophon without translation (→ §2.1.3). 287 1894: 64–65, n. 2 (… Als man ihre Provenienz erkannte und die Parallelstellen, nach welchen sie gemacht wurden, auch in der LXX. fand, scheint man diese Zusätze mit der LXX.- Übersetzung der betreffenden Parallelstellen conform gemacht zu haben. …). 288 See Pummer 1998: 271–72; also Rahlfs/Glaue 1911: 62–63, referring to Kohn 1894: 62–63. 289 Note Pummer’s evaluation: “[… Kohn’s] assumptions are gratuitous” (1998: 272).

58 | Prolegomena

1.2.3.2 The Publication of the Gießen Fragments (1911) In 1911, Alfred Rahlfs (1865–1935) and Paul Glaue (1872–1944; sometime Privatdozent at the Universität Gießen) published pieces of parchment290 (Pap. Gieß. 13, 19, 22, and 26), dated to the 5th–6th cent. CE and probably from Antinoopolis (Antinopolis), Egypt,291 containing fragments from Deut 24, 25, 27, 28, and 29, which the editors believed to be “der griech. Übersetzung der Samaritaner.”292 Their conclusion was based principally on the reading Αργαριζιμ293 found in Deut 27.4 and 12 (→ §§1.2.3.7.A, 2.3.3 at Exod 20.17‫ ו–א‬and 4.3.3 at Deut 27.4),294 along with other, more sundry agreements with Samaritan interpretation (e.g., translating ‫ זקנים‬with συνετοι a la ST’s ‫)חכמים‬.295 Subsequent scholarship would extensively converse with and critique their conclusions. Importantly, at the end of their joint study, Rahlfs and Glaue compared their findings with the previously known Greek Samaritan readings, traditionally understood as the Samareitikon.296 Rahlfs and Glaue maintained that the Samareitikon was clearly subsequent to G/LXX, and that the former was influenced by the latter. For the terminus ad quem, they believed the translation must have preceded Origen because it “is identical [identisch] with the

|| 290 Pummer (1998: 283, n. 78) is careful to clarify that the fragments are parchment, not papyrus. 291 1911: 31; Rahlfs and Fraenkel 2004: 131. 292 1911: 71–72. The Deut fragments were those acquired by Gießen, while other fragments from Geneva contain pieces of Gen 37. See the original publication as well as both the cataloguing in Rahlfs (1914: 70–72) and Rahlfs and Fraenkel (2004: 130–33), the latter of which is significantly more thorough. Unfortunately the Gießen fragments were destroyed by water damage in 1945 (see Tov 1971: 356), though the Septuaginta Unternehmen recently digitized the original publication containing photographic plates of fragment 19 (https://adw-goe.de /forschung/abgeschlossene-forschungsprojekte/akademienprogramm/septuaginta-unterneh men/veroeffentlichungen/msu/). Brooke-McLean’s edition of Num–Deut, also issued in 1911, apparently did not have access to the fragments and thus did not collate Gie. Note that Wevers’ cited the fragments with the siglum “Gie,” which has since been reassigned the Rahlfs number 884 (Rahlfs and Fraenkel 2004: 130–33). Wevers’ siglum is used in the present study. 293 As Tov observed (1971: 360 and 373–74, n. 20; 1999: 472, n. 11), it cannot be determined whether transcription should be written as one word or two: αρ(?)γαρ[ι]ζιμ. Rahlfs and Glaue transcribed it was one word. Pummer rightly points out that a separated form would still represent a transliterated, as opposed to a translated, form (1987: 24, n. 46). 294 1911: Plate 1 (rechte Hälfte [3. Seite des Doppelblattes]), 37 (transcription), and 48–49 (commentary). 295 1911: 55–56. 296 The following is from Rahlfs and Glaue 1911: 60–64 (§7 of their Schlüsse).

The Samaritan Pentateuch in Greek | 59

Σαμαρειτικόν cited by Origen.”297 They instinctively believed the translation was from Egypt, the original home of GPent, where Greek-speaking Jews and Samaritans lived side-by-side; though, it was possible that the work was accomplished in another Greek-speaking Samaritan context and later imported to Egypt.298 They then summarized Field’s “Quid sibi velit τὸ Σαμαρειτικόν,” fully supporting the differentiation of two groups of readings. Following Field’s (really Montfaucon’s!) “most probable” understanding of the Num 13.1‫ ד–א‬scholion, Rahlfs and Glaue seconded the notion that Origen himself probably translated the “Überschüsse des hebräischen Textes der Samaritaner über den hebräischen Text der Juden.”299 Furthermore, the σαμ΄ group mostly agrees with ST (“… [ST], mit dem sie, … meistens übereinstimmen”), as (Walton-)Castell had noted earlier;300 they lastly remarked that Field did not attempt to identify the translator.301 In response to Kohn’s theory, that the Σαμαρειτικόν represented a complete, thoroughgoing translation of ST, Rahlfs and Glaue replied: Die Gießener Fragmente zeigen ähnlich enge Beziehungen zum sam. Targum, wie die Σαμαρειτικόν-Lesarten, und sie gehören zweifellos zu einer vollständigen Übersetzung des samaritanischen Pentateuchs. Daher darf man, obwohl aus den in den Gießener Fragmenten enthaltenen Abschnitten de Deuteronomium keine Σαμαρειτικόν-Lesart überliefert ist, mit gutem Grund annehmen, daß die Σαμαρειτικόν-Lesarten der hexaplarischen Überlieferung und die Gießener Fragmente zu einer und derselben Übersetzung gehören. Ob dieser Übersetzung aber geradezu aus dem sam. Targum geflossen ist, erscheint nach dem oben unter Nr. 2 Ausgeführten sehr zweifelhaft. The Gießen fragments show a similar correspondence to ST as the Σαμαρειτικόν readings, and they belong without doubt to a continuous translation of SP. From that one may accept on good grounds—though in the sections of Deut contained in the Gießen fragments no Σαμαρειτικόν readings are transmitted—that the Σαμαρειτικόν readings and the Gießen fragments belong to one and the same translation. As to whether this translation flowed directly from ST, [this] seems very unlikely … .302

Rahlfs and Glaue further responded to Kohn’s hypothesis regarding the origin and nature of the “surpluses” (Überschüsse), concluding his hypothesis was

|| 297 1911: 60. 298 1911: 60. 299 1911: 61. 300 1911: 61–62. 301 Rahlfs and Glaue observed the list of these readings had grown due to the collation of catena MS 135 (O then oII) in the Brooke-McLean editions of Gen and Exod. They also reinforced Field’s inclination that some readings had been transmitted anonymously (1911: 61, n. 2). 302 1911: 62 (see also p. 55 of their discussion).

60 | Prolegomena

baseless.303 Kohn insisted that the Hellenistic Jewish revisers, despite correcting κόρακα to τὴν κυνόμυιαν, somehow failed to emend the “Samaritan falsehoods” (“sam. Fälschungen,” i.e., εν ορει Γαριζειμ and εχομενον του Συχεμ) found in the STC passages (→ §§1.1 and 2.3.3 at Exod 20.17‫§ ;ו–א‬7.1.2).304 Rebutting, they contended that Gie rendered Kohn’s hypothesis “completely invalid,” for the translation transmitted in the “Hexapla” (viz., εν ορει Γαριζειμ) “wohl mit dem hebräischen Texte der Samaritaner, aber nicht mit ihrer griechischen Übersetzung übereinstimmt” which reads εν Αργαριζιμ according to Gie.305 Thus, they argued, Field (really Montfaucon) was perfectly justified to make a distinction between the readings from “the Hebraeo-Samaritan text” and the Σαμαρειτικόν. This reconstruction of Gie, Rahlfs and Glaue believed, was confirmed by the Num 13.1‫ ד–א‬scholion, which testifies to Origen having translated the Überschüsse, using the corresponding LXX passage resulting in septuagintism.306 1.2.3.3 Paul Kahle’s “Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Pentateuchtextes” (1915) and The Cairo Geniza, 1st ed. (1947) A) Less than five years passed before P. Kahle (1875–1964)307 would challenge Rahlfs and Glaue’s interpretation of the data. In his iconoclastic “Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Pentateuchtextes,”308 Kahle opposed Rahlfs’ and Glaue’s adoption of Field’s positions. Specifically, he questioned their understanding of the Num 13.1‫ ד–א‬scholion, describing their conclusions as “very suspect.”309 Rather, he insisted that connecting the scholion to Origen creates a logical problem: If Origen drew the σαμ΄ readings from a Samaritan Greek translation, why did he not also take the “surplus” readings from the same source?310

|| 303 “Diese ganze Theorie Kohns richtet sich schon dadurch, daß sie völlig aus der Luft gegriffen ist” (1911: 63). 304 1911: 63; Kohn 1894: 65. 305 1911: 63–64. 306 “… es ist nur natürlich, daß Origenes sich bei diesen Überschüssen in der Art der Wiedergabe an die ihm vertraute LXX angeschlossen hat, und er sagt dies auch selbst, falls ihm nach Fields sehr wahrscheinlicher Vermutung das bereits oben zitierte Scholion der Hss, 85 130 zu Num. 131 angehört; ... ” (1911: 64). One could argue that using the (presumably Jewish) LXX parallel to render a Samaritan text is not “natural” at all (→ §§1.2.3.9; 6.2.3). 307 See Margain’s “Kahle, Paul” CSS, 141. 308 (1915)1956: 3–37; I quote from the reprint. Section A has again been aided by the short summary in Pummer (1998: 271–72). 309 “Mir scheint das eine sehr bedenkliche Annahme zu sein” (1956: 23). 310 1956: 24.

The Samaritan Pentateuch in Greek | 61

Kahle’s approach to this problem was distinctive. While he acknowledged certain differences between the two categories, he questioned whether one should assume the Greek Samaritan translation was uniform.311 In accordance with his Vulgärtexte-Theorie, he supposed the Samaritan Greek translation endured an historical process akin to ST and the Samaritan Arabic (SA) translation—for the former lacked any textus receptus as such and the latter only reached a unified text form much later in its development.312 Following this, he critiqued Rahlfs’ and Glaue’s chief piece of evidence, the variation between Αργαριζιμ and ορει Γαριζειμ. He countered, again citing SA evidence, that both were equally cromulent.313 Thus, the Samaritan Greek translation underwent a process of revision, at times in dialogue with the Jewish Greek revisions; this process occasionally brought the translation into increasing conformity with their own MSS.314 Nevertheless, older texts continued to be used, hence “die doppelte Natur der Reste der samaritanisch-griechischen Übersetzung.”315 While Kahle’s application of this same theory to the origins of LXX would fail to achieve scholarly consensus,316 his discussion of the Samaritan Greek evidence is important due to his willingness to challenge the traditional interpretation of the Num 13.1‫ ד–א‬scholion. However, while so doing, he failed to provide an improved alternative: If Montfaucon’s understanding of the scholion (or some variant thereof) is incorrect, how should the scholion be construed (→ §§3.2; 3.3.3 at Num 13.1‫?)ד–א‬ B) Kahle also later discussed “Samaritan” Greek readings in the first edition of his The Cairo Geniza (1947). During his reflections on the complexities accompanying biblical quotations in the NT, Kahle focused on a couple of cases in Acts, specifically the citation of Exod 3.6 in 7.32 and Deut 18.15 in 7.37. Concerning the latter, he suggested the Lukan quotation was not from Deut 18.15 but possibly a version of Exod 20 akin to SP!317 For this Kahle provided no evi-

|| 311 1956: 24. 312 For a recent study endorsing and expanding upon Kahle’s understanding of ST and SA, see Schorch 2021. For an outline of the diverse nature of the SA MS tradition itself, see H. Shehadeh 1993. 313 1956: 24. He stated that he knew four old SA MSS which read harǧerīzīm, while another no less old MS read ǧebel ǧerīzīm, reflecting the eventual textus receptus. 314 1956: 25. 315 1956: 25. 316 See Fernández Marcos 2000: 53–57. 317 “We may suppose that Luke remembered at this place Deut. 18.15 without any help. But we have to reckon with the possibility that he found in his Greek Tora the passages from Deu-

62 | Prolegomena

dence.318 Deut 18.15 is, after all, not319 part of the florilegium comprising the passages regarding Moses’ prophetic office (SP Exod 20.19‫ ד–א‬and 20.21‫)ט–א‬. His discussion continued: Though Kahle admitted that no “Christian ‘Septuagint’” MS had these “insertions” (viz., those in Exod 20),320 he claimed that select G MSS did have similar types of readings elsewhere. Armed with the data from collations of the Cambridge LXX, he made brief mention of the readings in the s-group MSS (from Br.-M.: “s” = 130; “v” = 344; and “z” = 85) at Num 14.45‫א‬, 21.11‫א‬, 21.12‫–ג–א‬13a, 27.23‫ב–א‬, and 31.20‫§ →( ד–א‬3.3.3).321 To these he added the MSS which exhibit the “Samaritan Wilderness Itinerary” in Deut 10.6–6‫–א‬7–7‫–א‬ 6 (→ §4.3.2; 5.2), namely MSS d (= 44d), p (= 106d), t (= 134t), as well as 74t and 76t.322 In these MSS, the SP reading, including the “Samaritan” location of Aaron’s death (from Num 33.38), was also inserted.323 He further listed the Samaritan readings in certain G MSS at Exod 23.19‫ א‬and Deut 14.20(21)‫§ →( א‬2.5.1 ad loc).324 From this listing of the evidence, Kahle surmised that GPent MSS with such readings were used “by [Jews] up to the time when the authoritative text of the Tora was created and generally accepted.” He claimed these reflected then con-

|| teronomy inserted in Exod. 20 which we find to-day in the Samaritan Pentateuch only” (1947: 145). 318 He proffered this same hypothesis (without being specific) earlier ([1915] 1956: 18). 319 Recognizing this, Kahle tried to connect Deut 18.18 (= Exod 20.21‫ )ג‬to 18.15 given their similar phrasing (1947: 145). However, the citation is undoubtedly from v 15 (i.e., ὡς ἐμέ), and scribes understood this as the Western Text’s addition shows (see Metzger 1994: 307). 320 Despite this claim, Kahle briefly noted (without further discussion) that SH transmitted these (1947: 145). He also commented that Field’s retroversions were inappropriately based on the G parallel (p. 145, n. 1). However, as was discussed above, and will be further confirmed below, Field’s adoption of Montfaucon’s septuagintization approach (→ §§1.2.1.2; 1.3.2.3) is certainly correct. Kahle seems to have failed to appreciate the nature of the SH readings—a confusion made all the more striking when compared with his acknowledgment of the Num 13.1‫ ד–א‬scholion in his earlier 1915 article. He made no mention of the same scholion (purposefully?) in this discussion, which is only one of its problems. 321 1947: 145. He listed these as Num 14.45, 21.8, 21.14, “after” 28.1, and 31.20, respectively. 322 1947: 145. Note that the latter two of these were cited in Br.-M. on the authority of H-P. 323 Kahle 1947: 145. The issue of the location of Aaron’s death is cogently discussed by McCarthy in BHQap (→ §4.3.2). 324 Specifically, he claimed MS “k” (= Rahlfs 58) reads ος γαρ ποιει τουτο ωσει ασφαλακα θυσει οτι μηνιμα εστι τω θεω ιακωβ at the former location and these “same words are to be found in Deut. 14.21 in quite a number of ‘Septuagint’ MSS., although they are not contained in the Samaritan Pentateuch at the place” (1947: 145). However, the reading he provided for 58 is actually from Deut (where 58 has no such reading); he confused and misattributed the readings. He described this same evidence correctly in his 1915 article.

The Samaritan Pentateuch in Greek | 63

temporary Hebrew MSS, and were thus adopted by Christians, an adoption reflected in Luke’s writings.325 Then, once G had attained official status as the “standard text” of the Christian church, the “larger inserted parallel texts” disappeared while the “smaller insertions” somehow survived. All of this argumentation, he made in service to his Vulgärtexte theory: “In spite of this standard text many other forms of the Greek Tora were used by the Jews and early Christians, as we have seen.”326 Whatever one might make for his claims in Acts,327 his treatment of the Samaritan passages is entirely fallacious.328 Kahle misinterpreted these data (except at Deut 14.20[21]‫)א‬, something for which both Field’s overly terse description in his Prolegomena and the SH Exod colophon’s relative obscurity may be partially responsible (→ §§1.2.2; 2.2). Nevertheless, the passages Kahle quoted are not remnants of any kind of Vulgärtext. Instead, they represent the “translation” created in connection with the old hexaplaric, Samaritan collation (→ §§1.3.2; 2.5; 3.4; 6). 1.2.3.4 Robert Devreesse’s Remarks in his Introduction à L’Étude des Manuscrits Grecs (1954) R. Devreesse’s (1894–1978) manual on Greek MSS, despite its special focus on the history of the Greek Bible as transmitted by the church, provided a few very brief remarks regarding the Greek Samaritan readings transmitted in Christian MSS. Amongst the other known versions transmitted in “the Bible of the [church] Fathers” (e.g., ὁ Σύρος, τῶν Ἑβραίων ἔκδοσις), he included “la samaritaine” which he accepted could be found in the Gießen-Geneva fragments.329 Following

|| 325 1947: 146. 326 1947: 149–50. 327 See Pummer who, in 1976, argued against C. H. H. Scobie’s contention that Stephen’s speech reflected SP at points, including this specific case in Acts 7.37 (contra G. Bouwman, as opposed to Kahle). In response to Kahle specifically, E. Richard, who somewhat follows him in that he views the matter as related to the proto-history of GPent, believes Luke’s citation is more likely from Deut, not a pre-Samaritan form of Exod (1977: 206). Note that he was sure to flag up his opposition to Kahle’s Vulgärtexte theory (p. 207, n. 70). 328 Compare Fernández Marcos: “… although Kahle’s [Vulgärtexte theory is] so rich in ideas, the textual links required to make it true, or at least likely, are missing” (2000: 55). 329 1954: 130.

64 | Prolegomena

Rahlfs and Glaue, and to lesser extent G. Mercati (→ §2.2),330 he held that “Il importe de distinguer cette “édition” grecque de l’Hébreu-Samaritain d’avec quelques citations de versets ou de passages isoles faites par Origène et Eusèbe.”331 It was Origen, Devreesse claimed, who put some of these citations into “ses Hexaplas,” while Eusebius later took them over (“reprît”) into his copy. This set of readings was found in the SH described as τοῦ τῶν Σαμαρειτῶν Ἑβραϊκοῦ. Further he held the Num 13.1‫ ד–א‬scholion and attending terminology probably go back to Origen himself.332 Interestingly, Devreesse also claimed these excerpts were related to the κατά Σαμαρειτῶν annotations from CODEX M, but this last claim is highly unlikely (→ 1.2.3.10).333 1.2.3.5 Emanuel Tov’s Studies Next in the history of research are the views of the highly-regarded textual critic E. Tov (1941–). In a couple of articles, Tov expressed views divergent from the opinion of Rahlfs and Glaue (→ §1.2.3.2) in that he questioned and ultimately disagreed with their identification of Gie as a piece of the Samareitikon.334 His view was that Gie was not a Samaritan Greek translation but a text of LXX revised towards MT akin to the recentiores. Further, he also applied this same line of interpretation to an inscription, discovered in 1953 and dated to the 4th–6th cent. CE,335 from a Samaritan synagogue in Thessaloniki (hereafter designated

|| 330 It must be pointed out that Mercati’s influence on Devreesse (both of the Vatican), led to the latter to incorporate the SH Exod colophon into his analysis. Amongst the other scholars who discussed this issue before Pummer, both Mercati and Devreesse stand out in this regard. 331 1954: 130, n. 6. 332 1954: 130, n. 6. 333 Devreesse also mentioned the Samaritan readings found in Eusebius’ Chron., which he held Eusebius translated himself (→ §§6.2; EXCURSUS D). 334 N.B.: Tov’s original article “Pap. Giessen 13, 19, 22, 26: A Revision of the LXX?” (1971: 355– 83, with plates X–XI) was reissued in revised form in 1999 (The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint, pp. 459–75) under the same title. Later, A. Schenker (→ §1.2.3.8) pointed out a number of discrepancies between the original and reissued versions of the article (2010: 107, n. 12), noting also the obvious influence of Pummer’s works published during the intervening period. For the present section, his views are primarily outlined as expressed in his original 1971 version. 335 First published in 1968. For literature, see Pummer 1998: 285 and 2016: 95–96, with notes; also Baillet, DBSup 11.860–61, #8 (where it is labeled specifically as the Samareitikon).

The Samaritan Pentateuch in Greek | 65

“Thess” as in Wevers’ edition) which transmits a Greek version of the Aaronic/Priestly Blessing from Num 6.22–27.336 With respect to Gie, Tov reanalyzed the fragments (or what was left of them337) disputing the conclusions of Rahlfs and Glaue. For Tov, the correspondence between the Samaritan textual tradition, specifically ST, and Gie was not close enough to establish the witness as a piece of the Samareitikon as it is represented by the later, attributed marginal readings in Christian MSS. Tov’s chief objections were: 1) No σαμ΄ readings survive for the portions Gie is extant, disallowing confirmation of their hypothesis.338 2) Gie uses κυριος—the Jewish Qere—to translate the Tetragrammaton, while the Samaritans use either the Qere šēmå (‫שמא‬, Aramaic for “the Name”) or pronounced the Name outright as Ιαβε (so Theodoret Quaest. on Exod 15).339 3) Gie often uses ανηρ for ‫ איש‬a stereotyped, more precise rendition typical of “the LXX revisions [sc. the Jewish recentiores].”340 4) The translation of ‫ זקנים‬with οι συνετοι is insufficient to demonstrate Samaritan exegesis since the Jewish Targums, e.g., TgPJ, also translate ‫זקנים‬ with ‫חכמים‬.341 These Jewish traditions “necessarily neutralize its alleged Samaritan background.”342 5) The reading αρ(?)γαρ[ι]ζιμ should not be considered “Samaritan” since the OL shows this was “an ancient, not yet sectarian, variant reading.”343 Thus, while Tov does not entirely exclude the possibility that Gie could be a Samaritan product, Gie’s overall textual nature shows too significant an agreement with LXX.344 Rahlfs’ and Glaue’s presumption that the Samaritans’ Greek translation would borrow from LXX is insufficient to explain the data.345 This, Tov argues, comports with Kohn’s conclusion that the Samareitikon fragments represent a translation of ST.346 Thus, if Gie cannot be confidently connected to

|| 336 Tov 1974: 43–48; also reissued in 1999: 513–17. 337 1971: 356, with n. 4. 338 1971: 372. 339 1971: 363 and 375, with n. 35. 340 1971: 367. 341 1971: 369–70, with nn. 12–13; see also p. 382 on Geneva 99. 342 1971: 370. 343 1971: 374–75, with nn. 21–22, and 376. 344 “Typologically [Gie] must therefore be compared with Symmachus or Lucian” (1971: 382). 345 1971: 365. 346 1971: 375–76.

66 | Prolegomena

ST,347 then Gie most likely should be reckoned as a revision of LXX towards MT and not an example of the Σαμαρειτικόν.348 Along similar lines, Tov analyzed Thess in 1974. In the article, he comparatively presented the Greek portion of the inscription along with LXX (based on Br.-M.) and, surprisingly, MT.349 Tov argued Thess was a part of the LXX tradition,350 observing a number of similarities between the two, while also acknowledging revisions which represented the Hebrew more precisely351 or reflected variant Hebrew or differing vocalizations of the consonantal Hebrew text.352 Similar to his earlier analysis of Gie, he noted that the inscription uses κυριος, the Jewish Qere, several times; however, such still “could not have been the original” Samaritan practice.353 Furthermore, he acknowledged some revisions which did not seem to align precisely with the Hebrew but were made, presumably, by the reviser for his own reasons.354 At the end, Tov very briefly, in a footnote, considered what relationship there could be between Thess and σαμ΄: he concludes, again following Kohn’s theory of τὸ σαμ΄ (→ §1.2.3.1), that Thess is not to be considered “parallel to” the Samareitikon since Thess differs too much from ST.355 Tov’s view of both Gie and Thess, namely that neither can nor ought to be considered as witnesses to the Samareitikon, would go on to be highly influen-

|| 347 Tov specifically lists eight readings in which he believes Gie cannot be connected with ST (1971: 375–76, n. 38; the list was reduced to five in the later publication; cp. 1999: 473, n. 16). 348 1971: 371–72 and esp. 376–77. He mustered similar arguments against identifying Geneva 99 as Samaritan (pp. 382–83). 349 Presumably, it would have been more appropriate methodologically to compare a Samaritan inscription with SP. Whatever the case, although MT and SP are nearly identical for the passage, this comparison mislead Tov’s analysis vis-à-vis SP which reads ‫ ושימו‬in v 27, as later noted by Joosten (→ §1.2.3.9). 350 He described Thess and LXX as having a “common base” (1974: 396). While he acknowledged that the inscription’s Greek is rather short, he argued for Thess being akin to Gie, which he had (then) previously argued was a revision of LXX (pp. 396, n. 7 and 397). 351 E.g., v 23: Ἀαρών] pr τω Thess; v 27(24)] om. κυριος; changing the verse order in LXX (22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 24) to MT (1974: 396–98). He also included here Thess’ replacement of ἐλεήσαι with αγαπησει, stating that the former does not convey the Hebrew very well (p. 307, with n. 13). 352 E.g., ειπατε in v 23 perhaps from a variant impv. ‫( ֱאמוֹר‬contra MT ‫ ָאמוֹר‬inf. abs); θησεται in v 27(24) reflecting an hophal ‫( יֻ שם‬1974: 397–98). 353 1974: 396. 354 He listed three: μετά for πρός in v 22; προς σε for ἐπὶ σέ in v 25(26); and ποιησει for δῴη in v 26(27) (1974: 398–99). Wevers marked the second as “= M”; perhaps this ought to have been classified as a revision towards ‫אליך‬. 355 1974: 399, n. 18.

The Samaritan Pentateuch in Greek | 67

tial in later literature, especially as taken up, even if somewhat modified, by Pummer (→ §1.2.3.7).356 Nevertheless, meaningful critiques of Tov’s views would eventually surface with the publications of J. Joosten (→ §1.2.3.9). 1.2.3.6 Detlef Fraenkel’s Contribution to John W. Wevers’ Leviticus (1986) In 1986, J. W. Wevers (1919–2010)357 published the fourth358 fascicle of the Göttingen Septuagint Pentateuch. While the distinguished Septuagintist was normally silent359 on the matter of Samaritan Greek remains, his Einleitung for Lev proved to be an exception to his general tendency.360 Therein Wevers, basing himself on collations undertaken by D. Fraenkel,361 described the place of the Σαμαρειτικόν within the context of the history of non-LXX readings extant for Lev:362 1) Of the approximately 1400 non-LXX readings extant in Lev, 66% are transmitted anonymously. 2) 10% (i.e., 139) provide a “summarischen Quellenhinweis” (“joint source attribution”); others are as follows: 96 = α΄, 94 = σ΄, 69 = ο΄, 61 = θ΄, and 18 = τὸ σαμ΄.

|| 356 See, e.g., Pummer 1998: 286 and 310; (Rahlfs-)Fraenkel (2004: 368–69); and Zsengellér 2016: 171, n. 85 (vid.). 357 See the obituary “John William Wevers (1919–2010): A Biographical Note” by A. Pietersma and P.J. Gentry (https://septuaginta.uni-goettingen.de/ioscs/journal/volumes/bioscs43.pdf). 358 Wevers (assisted by U. Quast) proceeded with the editions as follows: Gen (1974), Exod (1991), Lev (1986), Num (1982), Deut (1977, 20062). The issue dates for the accompanying Text Histories (respectively, 1974, 1992, 1986, 1982, and 1978) and Notes (respectively, 1993, 1990, 1997, 1998, and 1995) were similarly published out of canonical order. 359 His Text Histories mostly omitted discussion on the Greek Samaritan evidence; comments concerning SP largely concerned the relationship between the Vorlage of GPent (e.g., THGG, 201–02). However, scattered remarks crept into NGTE, for which see below (→ §§2.1.4; 2.5; etc.). 360 Lev 30–31. Before his death, he provided (somewhat imperfect) ETs for each of the Einleitungen originally found in his Göttingen editions. The translations were in turn prepared (and in some cases revised) by R. Kraft and others in 2006–07 and added to the resources of the CATSS Project (hosted by the University of Pennsylvania). Gen-Num are here: http://ccat. sas.upenn.edu/gopher/text/religion/biblical/lxxvar/1Pentateuch/; that for Deut is found at http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/gopher/text/religion/biblical/lxxvar/active/. Pummer, to whom this section is also indebted, outlined the matter with great detail in his thoroughgoing response (1998: 287–95; 333–54). 361 Lev 31, n. 1, were credit was also given to Field’s Appendix ad Pentateuchum (1.329–30). 362 As summarized by Pummer 1998: 288.

68 | Prolegomena

3) Of the latter, 11 of the 13 σαμ΄ readings recorded in C MSS were also found to have been transmitted in the margins of CODEX M, but without attribution. 4) Therefore, similarly anonymously recorded readings in M, which did not correspond to the Three or MT, were compared by Fraenkel with the ST edition published by J. H. Petermann (1872–91). This resulted in 74 instances of apparent correlation between the two which were recorded in AppII as either “= SamAram” or “cf SamAram.” 5) Lastly, Wevers noted that the agreement between ST and these readings was exhibited almost exclusively for those transmitted in C MSS and M; whereas only one reading (at 14.3) from the s-group MSS produced this relationship (but see below → Table 3.4.2). Wevers’ and Fraenkel’s observations were later sifted by Pummer (→ §1.2.3.7 B) roughly a decade later. Among his chief criticisms is that Fraenkel used Petermann’s edition of ST: “Unfortunately, [Petermann’s] ‘is based on a non-existent manuscript, a copy devoid of any philological value whatsoever.’ ”363 Pummer then provides an example of how such a poorly based edition had affected the Wevers-Fraenkel analysis: What is called “Apographon” by Petermann is a copy made by Jacob b. Aaron (lived 1840– 1916) from three manuscripts, i.e., A, B and C, in the Samaritan synagogue of Nablus. In Lev. 14:3 the “Apographon” reads ‫אתסי‬. Apparently, Petermann regarded it as Itpaal or Itafal, with assimilated n, of ‫“ נסי‬to lift.” In reality, the Samaritan Targum reads ‫( אתהסי‬J) and ‫( אתחסי‬A), “has been healed” (‫ = חסי‬Aram. ‫)אסי‬, just like the Septuagint. ἦρται of 85΄ (“was taken up, lifted”; perf. pass. 3 p.s. of αἴρω) is thus not equivalent to the Samaritan Targum ‫אתחסי‬.364

As for the readings’ alleged agreement with ST, Pummer argued differently, insisting that his comparison with the M΄(= M + 416) readings from Lev with Tal’s edition resulted in very few agreements which were exclusively found in ST; rather most were also found in Jewish Targum traditions.365 Thus he con-

|| 363 Pummer 1998: 288 (quoting A. Tal’s evaluation of Petermann). 364 1998: 288–89. Apparently as a result of this analysis, Pummer removed Lev 14.3 from the listing he provided in his “Appendix 3: Leviticus Passages in Codex M compared with the Samaritan Targum” (pp. 333–54), where he outlines all of those cases indicated in Wevers’ AppII. His Appendix is helpful as it lists the ST readings alongside the respective M readings. 365 Pummer 1998: 289, 295. He also explains that Tal’s research into the ST has revealed three text types. Of these, Pummer believes that only those σαμ΄ (or the anonymous marginal M΄) readings which reflect the first type, from MS J, are “potentially significant”; as a result “a number of cases” from earlier analyses are to be “eliminate[d]” (1998: 306).

The Samaritan Pentateuch in Greek | 69

cluded: “It is therefore no longer certain that the [anonymous marginal M΄] readings come from ST.”366 It should be underscored at this point that not all scholars have followed Pummer’s evaluation, notably Joosten (→ §1.2.3.9).367 For the latter, Pummer’s “relativiz[ing]” of the data overlooks a systematic alignment of the readings with ST, something missing when making comparison with Jewish Targums.368 1.2.3.7 Reinhard Pummer’s Studies Noted Samaritanologist R. Pummer (1938–) produced, amongst many other diverse works on Samaritan Studies, two articles particularly pertinent to both sets of readings historically connected to the Samaritan Bible in Greek. A) In a short paper published in 1987 entitled “ΑΡΓΑΡΙΖΙΝ: A Criterion for Samaritan Provenance?,” Pummer challenges the widely held presupposition that the Greek form αργαριζιν (-ζειν), as seen in Gie, exclusively reflects the Samaritan orthographic practice whereby their holy locale is represented as one (transliterated) word ‫הרגר)י(זים‬. By extension, he challenges the corollary presumption that if an obviously non-Samaritan text (e.g., 2 Macc 5.23) contains αργαριζιν (or a variant thereof), the provenance of the author’s source must then have been Samaritan.369 After reviewing Samaritan Hebrew and Greek inscriptions displaying this practice (i.e., Delos, Decalogue inscriptions, etc.), he then outlines various nonSamaritan, largely Christian sources (e.g., Pliny, the Pilgrim of Bordeaux, Photius, the Madaba map [→ §4.3.3 at Deut 11.30+], et al) also attesting370 the phenomenon. In the final analysis, Pummer determines these instances are inconclusive.371 Following Tov’s earlier study, which argued against Rahlfs’ and Glaue’s analysis of Gie (→ §1.2.3.5),372 he further points out instances in G MSS where ‫ הר‬has been transliterated (and presumably contracted) with the accompanying place name (e.g., Num 33.23, 24 [CODICES A and F], Josh 15.10 [CODEX B*], etc.). Specifically, the OL of 2 Macc (5.23 and 6.2) transmitted transliterations

|| 366 Pummer 1998: 309. 367 See also A. Teeter’s relatively positive reference to the Wevers-Fraenkel findings (2009: 50, n. 35). 368 Joosten 2014: 354. 369 1987: 18–19. 370 Or reflecting(?) the practice, as might be argued in the case of the Madaba map. 371 1987: 23. 372 1987: 23, n. 35.

70 | Prolegomena

reflecting αργαριζιν.373 Thus, he concludes: “Rather than assume that 2 Macc. 5:23 and 6:2 go back to a Samaritan source or tradition, it can be argued that there existed Greek versions which transliterated and contracted ‫ … הר גרזים‬.”374 This conclusion, then being applied to Gie, leads Pummer to support Tov’s conclusion: that αρ(?)γαρ[ι]ζιμ was most likely “an old non-sectarian [i.e., nonSamaritan] variant.”375 Thus, αργαριζιν cannot “at all times and in all writings” serve as proof of Samaritan provenance; instead, it can only be viewed as “one indicator among others.”376 B) Pummer later published a long, important article in which he manages the most thoroughgoing comparative textual analysis of the σαμ΄ readings produced to date.377 While his main purpose was to address the historical issues surrounding the σαμ΄ set, he also made mention, very briefly,378 of the “surpluses” (Zusätze or Überschüsse). Concerning the “expansions,” he observes (based on Field) that there are 31 such readings, in Exod, Num, and Deut, found in the margins of s-group and SH MSS. After brief comments concerning their attributions, he notes that the Num 13.1‫ ד–א‬scholion led many scholars to conclude that the passages were translated by Origen.379 Then he continues enumerating and dismissing the theories of Kohn and Kahle,380 only the latter’s objection to the traditional interpretation of the Num 13.1‫ ד–א‬scholion is held as viable.381 Pummer then offers cursory comments regarding the readings found in G and SH MSS.382 Despite the brevity with which he treated the “expansions,” he includes A. Vööbus’ ETs383 of the SH Exod and Num colophons (→ §§2.2; 3.2)—something very few scholars have done

|| 373 See W. Kappler’s 2 Macc App, ad loc. 374 1987: 24. 375 1987: 23. Also Tov, TCHB3, 88, n. 140. 376 1987: 25. 377 1998: 269–358. As he himself notes, the piece was originally published in New Samaritan Studies of the Société d’Étudies Samaritaines (1996) but suffered from editorial issues. The corrected version of the paper was published in RÉJ and is the one utilized presently. 378 Pummer spends significantly more time analyzing those sub σαμ΄ (1998: 276–312; 314–354, including the anonymous M΄ readings in Lev; → §1.2.3.6) than the so-called “surpluses” (pp. 270–76, 304–05, and 313–14). 379 1998: 271. Pummer’s suggestion (p. 271, n. 9) that A.M. Ceriani was the first to suggest this is incorrect (→ §1.2.1.1). 380 Pummer does not review Kahle’s discussion in his first edition of The Cairo Geniza (→ §1.2.3.3, B). 381 1998: 271–73. 382 1998: 273–74. These will be discussed where applicable below. 383 1998: 274–75.

The Samaritan Pentateuch in Greek | 71

when discussing these passages.384 Nevertheless, Pummer seems either suspicious or distrustful of them: While it is plausible that the expansions in the Syh were translated from Greek into Syriac, the available evidence does not support the conclusion that it was Origen who translated the passages. In any event, it should be noted that Origen spent most of his adult life, i.e. from 230 to ca. 254 [CE], in Caesarea which, at this time, had a sizeable Samaritan community. … No doubt Origen had ample opportunity to consult with Samaritans and even use some of their books.385

Concerning σαμ΄, Pummer addresses all the applicable issues discussed in earlier literature, particularly with respect to the relationship between τὸ σαμ΄ and ST and the identity of the Gießen fragments.386 This analysis is accomplished by examining all the evidence culled from Wevers’ Göttingen editions, to which Pummer added MT, SP, and ST in order to facilitate comparison (see his “Appendix 2” pp. 314–33). Many of the readings are commented upon examining both textual peculiarities and, especially, their relationship to specifically Samaritan traditions or understandings.387 Pummer divides the extant σαμ΄ data into the following categories:388 1) readings wrongly attributed, e.g., Gen 5.25–26 (→ EXCURSUS D); Exod 10.7(b); 26.5; 2) σαμ΄ readings which were based on the Hebrew SP, e.g., Gen 46.28; Num 32.29, 31, 33 (→ §3.3.2); Deut 27.4 (→ §4.3.3), 26+ (→ §4.3.4 at the χολ scholion); 34.12 (sic = 5.21‫§§ → ח–א‬1.1; 2.3.3 at Exod 20.17(13)‫ ;ו–א‬4.2); 3) those exhibiting interpretation(s) “common to Samaritans and Jews,” e.g., Gen 4.8 (→ EXCURSUS D); 44.5, 15; 50.19; Exod 14.20; 32.18; the rendering ‫ זקנים‬as if ‫§§ →( חכמים‬1.2.3.9, 1.2.3.10); and 4) those “seem[ing] to go back to the ST,” including Gen 49.24, Exod 8.17(21), 9.4, 10.7(a), 13.13, 16.31, 28.11, Lev 25.5, 26.24, Num 29.1, and 31.16.389

|| 384 As has been underscored throughout this survey, these have, with very few exceptions (e.g., Devreesse 1954: 130, n. 6; Mercati 1941), been improperly omitted from discussion. 385 1998: 276 (italics mine). 386 Pummer largely follows Tov’s position on Gie against Rahlfs and Glaue (1998: 285–86). 387 1998: 295–303. 388 1998: 303 (for the summary). 389 Pummer cautions, however, that Exod 13.13 and Lev 25.5 are found in late ST MSS (i.e., MS B not J).

72 | Prolegomena

He describes the Samaritan-specific evidence as “very small” when compared to more “indifferent” readings (cp. Kohn’s phrasing above), thus concluding: “The ST as Vorlage of the Σαμ readings is certainly not evident.”390 Pummer’s view is that “it can no longer be taken for granted that the Samareitikon passages have a close affinity to the Samaritan Targum.”391 Furthermore, to Pummer, there are but two readings transmitted sub τὸ σαμ΄ which “contain what became distinctively Samaritan readings,” Deut 27.4 and 34.12 (= 5.21‫)ח–א‬. In holding to the theory of Tov, Pummer proffers that Samaritans probably used revised Septuagint MSS “without bringing them into complete conformity with their own traditions.”392 Both the Gießen fragments and the Thessaloniki synagogue inscription bear witness to this process. It need not be reckoned that the Samaritans adopted a “Jewish text”; rather the (proto)Samaritans, like any other Jewish group of this early period, were simply using a given revised text; it was only “gradually [that] a certain Greek text may have been identified with the Samaritans.” It was this version which found its way into extant MSS in much the same manner the Three did.393 Then Pummer returns to the relationship between the “expansions” and σαμ΄ readings. Still holding that both were transmitted through Origen’s “Hexapla,” despite the apparent differences between the two groups, he hypothesizes that “both kinds … can be seen as coming from the same (type of) Samaritan Greek Pentateuch.”394 1.2.3.8 Adrian Schenker’s “Textgeschichtliches zum Samaritanischen Pentateuch und Samareitikon” (2010) Another study germane to the present topic is A. Schenker’s (1939–) research into the nature of Gie within the matrix of early revisions of GPent. For Schenker, Tov (and to a degree Pummer) had too easily dismissed the probability that Gie had come from a Samaritan context. Rather he argued the text represented by Gie ought to be viewed more as a Samaritan recension than a strict translation: “[The translator] would after all be as much a reviser as a translator, much

|| 390 1998: 303. 391 1998: 310. 392 1998: 310; cp. Kahle. 393 1998: 310. 394 1998: 310 (cf. p. 276). That Pummer does not see the provenance of these readings as important is all the more odd given his inclusion of the SH colophons in his study (→ §1.3.2).

The Samaritan Pentateuch in Greek | 73

like Symmachus or Theodotion.”395 Schenker then holds that one need not adhere to an “either/or” perspective on Gie’s relationship with GPent vis-à-vis a possible Samaritan origin. The text can—and indeed should be expected to reflect—a specifically Samaritan revision of GPent: The many points of contact between the text of Gie and GPent can be explained by analogy between the many points of contact between Theodotion and GPent. Back then, a translator of the Bible was a reviser—one who already had the existing text of GPent before him to use as the basis for his new rendering, and he only intervened to modify it (in those places) where the old translation appeared inadequate to him; at the same time, retaining those other [acceptable] readings in his new “translation.”396

For Schenker, the key instance where in Gie the reviser’s text “appeared inadequate,” and was thus revised,397 was (following Rahlfs and Glaue) evinced by the use of Αργαριζιμ.398 He felt that the very act of transliterating this specific location (as opposed to other places), something which is never evinced in G,399 betrayed a Samaritan reviser’s hand. Other evidence,400 such as the OL of Deut 27.4 (→ §4.3.3), is then irrelevant because ‫ הר‬was still translated (via Greek) with mons. Schenker’s emphasis was on whether readings with “Gerizim” were transcribed Αρ—, not translated, in accordance with Samaritan practice.401

|| 395 “[Der Übersetzer] wäre nach alledem wie Symmachus oder Theodotion gleichzeitig ein Rezensent as auch ein Übersetzer” (2010: 111). 396 “Die vielen Berührungen zwischen dem Text des Papyrus Giessen und der Septuaginta erklären sich in analoger Weise wie die vielen Berührungen zwischen Theodotion und der Septuaginta. Ein Übersetzer der Bibel war damals ein Rezensent, der die schon bestehende Übersetzung der Septuaginta seiner Neuübertragung zugrunde legte und nur dort verändernd in sie eingriff, wo ihm die alten [sic] Übersetzung unzulänglich erschien, während er das andere unverändert in seine neue Übersetzung aufnahm.” (p. 119, scare quotes mine). 397 Schenker (p. 112) was open to a number of avenues leading to the transcription Αργαριζιμ, be it from a Hebrew or Greek source (the latter having either “ορει Gerizim” or “ορει Ebal,” though he favored the former). 398 With respect to the matter of whether it should be construed as one or two words, Schenker echoed Tov’s earlier uncertainty (p. 109); however, he holds that even a separated form would ultimately reflect the single toponym, thus alleviating any difficulty (p. 110, with n. 23, and p. 112). 399 As for the instances in 2 Macc, Schenker holds that the book was composed in Greek and not translated from Hebrew (p. 110). 400 To address Pummer’s contention that the reading γαργαριζειν for Deut 27.12 in MS 127n (10th cent. CE) further supported his thesis that αργαριζιν need not necessitate a Samaritan provenance (1987: 25), Schenker countered that this is but a dittography, and the MS actually reads εν ορει γαργαριζειν, thus still maintaining ορει (2010: 110, n. 21). 401 Pp. 110–12.

74 | Prolegomena

1.2.3.9 Jan Joosten’s Studies Most recently, J. Joosten (1959–) published a series of articles addressing issues regarding the so-called Samareitikon402 and the other traditionally connected data, such as Gie (with Geneva 99), Thess, and the anonymous, marginal readings in CODEX M.403 These works set forth a number of interesting observations, often openly challenging previous opinions and proffering astute reexaminations of the data. The first of Joosten’s thought-provoking remarks concerns the relationship of the readings themselves to the MS sources in which they are found. Joosten credits Montfaucon404 as the first to hypothesize that Origen included these readings in his “Hexapla,” a supposition many others followed. Joosten, however, resolutely rejects this, characterizing the support of this view as “flimsy, not to say inexistent.”405 Continuing, he points out that the catena MSS are the primary vehicle through which the σαμ΄ readings were disseminated; and while the catena also transmits hexaplaric readings, “[t]he company they keep … says very little about the origin of the Samareitikon readings.”406 Moreover, he reasons that Jerome and Eusebius, both of whom had direct access to the Hexapla Maior, never referred to the Samareitikon.407 Thus, it cannot be proven that Origen “knew and excerpted a Samaritan Greek version.”408 Second, he comments on the relationship between those traditionally grouped with the σαμ΄ readings vis-à-vis the Hebrew Samaritan text. Among other examples cited, he includes in this sub-group Deut 27.26+ (the χολ scholion → §4.3.4) and the marginalia found at Gen 4.8 (→ EXCURSUS D).409

|| 402 N.B.: His studies deal exclusively with the σαμ΄ readings, without discussion of the “expansions” group (though cp. → §1.3). Joosten does not comment on any proposed relationship between the two. 403 2014: 346–59; 2015: 1–15; THB.1A (2016): 235–38; 2019: 313–25. 404 Compare, however, Voss above (→ §1.2.1.1). 405 2014: 347; 2015: 2 (here phrased “flimsy, not to say nonexistent”); THB.1A (2016): 236. 406 2014: 348; 2015: 3. The comment was made with reference to both catena and non-catena Septuagintal sources. 407 Also 2015: 3. Jerome’s access to the Hexapla Maior has been disputed (see B. Neuschäfer 1987/1: 87, with nn. 14 and 16; also Gentry 2021: 566, with literature). 408 2014: 348. He also describes Montfaucon’s hypothesis as “imaginative but difficult to sustain” (p. 358). See again, THB.1A (2016): 236. 409 2014: 349; he includes Deut 10.22; 27.4, 32.8, and 34.12 (= 5.21‫§§ → ח–א‬2.3.3; 4.2) as “[o]ther possible cases” (p. 350, n. 16) of this sub-category. Later, he would describe cases such as Gen 4.8 and Deut 27.26 as “ad hoc references to the Samaritan Hebrew” (THB.1A [2016]: 235,

The Samaritan Pentateuch in Greek | 75

Joosten holds that these readings were meant to represent the Hebrew SP vis-àvis the same of the (proto-)MT.410 However, he cautions that the “great majority of readings designated as σαμ have a different profile,” one which demonstrates “a coherent linguistic and interpretive character,”411 one which aligns itself with Samaritan exegesis. Third, he surveys the correlation of the σαμ΄ group to the Samaritan reading tradition. Examples such as Gen 46.28412 and Exod 8.17(21), Joosten insists, “hardly leave room for doubt as to there being a direct connection”413 between these readings and Samaritan understandings. However, he also notes that complete agreement with “Samaritan” exegetical traditions need not be realistically expected (e.g., that at Gen 49.23–24), because “Samaritan traditions, like Jewish ones, are multiple, and sometimes contradictory.”414 Fourth is the matter of the σαμ΄ readings’ connection to ST specifically: Unlike Pummer, who held that only those readings agreeing with ST’s earliest stratum (MS J) are “potentially significant,”415 Joosten contends that those which concur with other MSS, merely indicate that later ST MSS “independently transmit[ted] early interpretations.”416 Further evidence (e.g., Gen 49.23) could be mustered which suggest that ST was in circulation when the Samareitikon was created.417 However, this does not mean that the latter was a translation of the former; rather ST was but “one of the inputs which went into the production of the Samareitikon.”418 Thus, when τὸ σαμ΄ and ST disagree, the former may || with n. 7; also 2019: 315). All save Deut 10.22 and 32.8 are to be added to the hexaplaric collation studied here (→ §1.3.2). 410 2014: 350; also 2015: 2, n. 6. He appears to classify Num 32.29+ and 31+ as genuine σαμ΄ readings (THB.1A [2016]: 237). Again, compare below (→ §1.3.2). 411 2014: 350; THB.1A (2016): 236. Note that, following A. Geiger, he holds that at Gen 5.25, 26 were mistakenly attributed (2016: 236, with n. 6). This evaluation is maintained below (→ EXCURSUS D). 412 2015: 3–4, with n. 13. 413 2014: 350. 414 2014: 350 (p. 351, with n. 21 on Gen 49.23–24, specifically the rendering μερίδων). 415 1998: 306. 416 2014: 353. On the “not entirely unified” character of the Samaritan tradition, i.e., the consonantal SP, the reading tradition, and ST MSS, see Joosten 2019: 323. Note that Schorch’s Kahlean view of ST’s origins (2021) is more compatible with Joosten’s view on this point than that of Tal’s (whom Pummer follows in viewing ST’s origins as Lagardian). 417 See 2014: 353 on ἐν βάθει vis-à-vis ST’s ‫בעמקה‬. Joosten: “The date of the Samareitikon cannot be determined with certainty. Nevertheless, several lines of reasoning point to the second century C.E. as the most probable time of origin” (THB.1A [2016]: 238, n. 18; cp. p. 235). 418 2014: 353–54; THB.1A (2016): 237. Note that this conclusion is very similar, if not identical, to Richard Simon’s (→ §1.2.1.1).

76 | Prolegomena

transmit a reading no longer preserved by the latter (e.g., Exod 3.22419). Joosten criticized Pummer’s tendency to see agreement with wider Jewish interpretations as militating against a special relationship between the σαμ΄ group and ST. To the contrary, some agreement with other (Jewish) Targumic interpretations is expected.420 It is the systematic alignment between the two, in addition to those readings which occur exclusively in both, which indicates the link between τὸ σαμ΄ and ST.421 In light of his take on the relationship between τὸ σαμ΄ and Samaritan exegesis, he also supports reevaluating the anonymous readings in CODEX M (→ §1.2.3.6).422 These he describes as having the “same profile as the marked Samareitikon readings,” being “transmitted in the same sources,” and sometimes even confirmed as τὸ σαμ΄ in other sources; therefore, “it seems that the marked and unmarked readings all originate from the same textual source.”423 Before his 2019 pilot study on this topic, he offered two such examples from Mmg which were marked by Fraenkel in Wevers’ Lev AppII, namely the transliteration of the Aramaic rendering for locust in Lev 11.22 (γοβα for ‫ גובה‬:: βρουχον in LXX) and another clause from Lev 4.5 (ου τετελειωται ο τοπος), missing from MT altogether, but in agreement with ST’s rendition (‫ )דאשלם ית אתרה‬of SP ( ‫אשר מלא‬ ‫ )את ידו‬while at the same time differing from GLev (ο τετελειωμενος τας χειρας).424 Previously, Pummer relativized the former as it also occurs in the Jewish Targums, while conceding the latter.425 However, in 2019 Joosten published a study on anonymous readings from the margins of M′ (= CODEX M and 416mx, where extant) which were not flagged as “= SamAram” or “cf SamAram” in

|| 419 On that at Exod 3.22 specifically, he points out that while no Samaritan tradition confirms reading the consonantal text as a niphal, this reading is “typologically similar to many Samaritan readings in that it implies taking the nota accusativi as a preposition meaning “with” (interpreted as “from with” in the context)” (2015: 5, n. 20). All ST MSS (here and at Exod 12.36) follow TgO reading with some form of ‫ רקן‬/ ‫“ רוקן‬empty out” (see Tal DSA, s.v.) = “plunder”; the Samaritan vocalization of the Hebrew is piel (Ben-Ḥayyim 1977: 185). 420 2015: 4. 421 2014: 351–54, esp. pp. 353–54; 2015: 4–5 (on Gen 44.5). 422 2015: 6–7; THB.1A (2016): 236; 2019: 318–25. 423 2015: 8. By this, he clearly means “those unmarked readings which can be connected with the Samaritan tradition.” There are many readings in Mmg which though unmarked are to be connected with other, non-Samaritan sources. 424 2015: 7. 425 1998: 291 and 289, respectively. Pummer observes that the latter case does not agree with MS J ad loc though both J and A agree with Mmg at Lev 16.32 for this same phrasing.

The Samaritan Pentateuch in Greek | 77

AppII. These included Lev 6.3(10)426 ἐπενδύτην λευκόν and σκέπας λευκάς, 14.37 δυσειδής, 16.26 ὁ ἐξαποστελλόμενος ἅμα τῷ χιμάρῳ εἰς ἀζαζήλ, 19.18 οὐ στήσῃ οὐδὲ παρατηρήσῃ, 26.9 εὐιλατεύσω ὑμῖν, 26.13 ῥάβδους, 26.16 ὀργιζόμενος, and 26.19 τοὺς ὑπερφερεῖς τῆς ἰσχύος. For each of these, he argues for a correspondence between the anonymously recorded reading and the Samaritan exegesis, namely ST (6.3[10], 14.37, 16.26, 19.18,427 26.9, 26.13, 16, 19 [tentatively]) and, at times, the reading tradition (19.18, 26.13).428 Based on these analyses, Joosten holds that “[SP], the reading tradition, [ST], and the remains of the Samareitikon form a tightly-knit family, each of whose members helps to interpret the others.”429 Fifth, Joosten reevaluates the disputed first-hand Samaritan Greek evidence, namely Gie, Geneva 99, and Thess.430 In this he disagrees with Tov’s earlier analysis regarding Gie (→ §1.2.3.5) and by extension the others. From his perspective, as with Schenker (→ §1.2.3.8), if the Samareitikon was based on, or recensionally developed from GPent, this does not question the inherent “Samaritan” quality of the work.431 Rather the profile of the Samareitikon “seems to indicate that [it] was a recension of the Septuagint, bringing the Old Greek in

|| 426 Note that Joosten adds, based on this case, others in M′, namely Lev 16.4 and 16.23 (2019: 319, with n. 23). 427 While Joosten states that the connection between the reading at Lev 19.18 and ST “cannot be established” (2019: 323)—he instead relies upon the reading tradition and the overall association between the readings and Samaritan exegesis—it would seem that his evaluation of this case is incorrect. On the one hand, he acknowledges the connection between the reading tradition (tiqqom, from ‫)קום‬, ST (‫)תקום‬, and στήσῃ (see pp. 321–21 and literature cited there). Yet on the other hand, for the second verb παρατηρήσῃ, he sees no correspondence with ST ‫( תטור‬see esp. p. 320, n. 27). However, ‫ תטור‬is not the majority reading in ST MSS but is found only in A and V (the latter as ‫ ;תטר‬see Tal’s ed. ad loc). MS J reads ‫“ תסדר‬you shall (not) array (for battle)”; whereas MSS NMECB read ‫ תנטר‬clearly interpreting as from ‫“ נטר‬you shall (not) watch/keep watch” (see DSA, s.v.; cp. entries ‫טור‬2 and ‫)נטר‬. This last reading surely equates παρατηρήσῃ. While this understanding agrees with the interpretation in the Jewish Targumim (TgO ‫ ;תיטר‬TgPJ ‫ נטרין‬TgN ‫)נוטרנין‬, this does not militate against the present analysis as is suggested by the wider Greek evidence in AppII: (οὐ) μηνιεῖς] οὐ μνησικακήσεις· οὐ μανεῖς 58O; τηρήσεις M′ 85′-321′-344s. M′ itself (followed by MSS 85′-321′-344s) further separately records ad loc τηρήσεις (s nom) which is certainly from one of the Three, perhaps Theodotion or Aquila. MS 58’s μανεῖς would then reflect the other; the more elaborate μνησικακήσεις would perhaps be Symmachus. Based on these data, it may be confidently posited that each of the Jewish recentiores and the Samareitikon used different equivalencies in translating the same Hebrew. 428 2019: 318–24. 429 2019: 324. 430 2014: 359; 2015: 9–12; THB.1A (2016): 236–37; 2019: 316. 431 2015: 10 (on Gie).

78 | Prolegomena

line with the Samaritan text and interpretation of the Pentateuch.”432 Thus, he holds that both Gie and Geneva 99 show clear specifically Samaritan origins.433 Most interesting are his comments on Thess.434 Rather than conceding the above analysis of Tov (→ §1.2.3.5) unchecked, he believes that heretofore unacknowledged Samaritan exegesis can be found in the Samaritan synagogue inscription recording an extract from the Priestly Blessing in Num 6. Thus he argues that the verbal form in Num 6.27(24), for which Thess reads (καὶ) θήσεται (≠ ἐπιθήσουσιν LXX = MT), does not reflect a fut. pass. 3 sing. (i.e., a variant hophal for ‫ )שים‬but rather should be understood as a fut. act. 2 pl. (= θήσετε due to iotacism) which accords with the imp. m. pl. found in both ST (‫)ושוו‬435 and the Samaritan reading tradition.436 Furthermore, he believes the spelling of Moses’ name recorded in Thess, Μουση (Num 6.22), goes back to the Samaritan pronunciation mūši.437 Thus he concludes that “the general profile of [Thess] conforms rather well to that of the Samareitikon ….”438 Based on these researches, Joosten holds that the Samaritans viewed GPent as much their own as “Jerusalem-based Judaism,”439 going as far to suggest that the Samaritans themselves (!) were part of the “Jews” who participated in the original LXX translation.440 Thus, the later Samareitikon is then “like the Samaritan pendant of Theodotion or Aquila,”441 “a somewhat radical rewriting of the Septuagint,”442 which compares well to the Jewish recentiores vis-à-vis each communities’ Targumim:

|| 432 THB.1A (2016): 237. 433 “[T]he similar profile of the material does make it likely that the two witnesses [sc. Gie and τὸ σαμ΄] ultimately attest the same Greek version produced by and transmitted among the Samaritan community” (2015: 10). As for Geneva 99, he holds that the “wise men” translation in Gen 37.4 indicates the fragment’s “character” is “compatible with Rahlfs’ suggestion” (p. 12). 434 2015: 10–11, with nn. 36–37. 435 See BHSap note ‘b’; the reading ‫ ושימו‬is found in the majority of SP MSS (some of which supply the yodh interlinearly; see von Gall’s app). 436 Vocalized wšīmu (Ben-Ḥayyim 1977: 271, 483); note Samaritan Hebrew does not have ‫שׂ‬. 437 Ben-Ḥayyim 1977: 336–337. 438 2015: 11. 439 2014: 358. Similarly, in another place, he describes the OG as part of the “heritage of the group that later became the Samaritans” (THB.1A [2016]: 238). 440 Instead of “Samaritans,” he describes them in this context as “… “Jews” who looked to Mount Gerizim—and perhaps paid their temple tax there—rather than Jerusalem as their spiritual center” (2015: 1–2). 441 THB.1A (2016): 238. 442 2015: 6.

The Samaritan Pentateuch in Greek | 79

Like their Jewish colleagues, the Samaritan revisers sought to adapt the Greek version to the Hebrew text that had come to be adapted by their community. … And just as the Jewish recensions are close to the Jewish targums in regard to their theology and exegetical basis, so the Samareitikon is close to Samaritan exegesis as expressed in the Samaritan Targum.443

Lastly, Joosten ponders an historical context for the Samareitikon. Certainly, the text must pre-date the data in Septuagint MSS of the 7th cent. CE. At one point, he holds that the translation may date from “any point in time between, roughly, the 1st century B.C.E. and the 5th century C.E.”444 If Symmachus was a Samaritan (which he seems to grant while being suspicious of Epiphanius’ testimony) the Samareitikon must predate 200 CE (see below → §7.2).445 Further, with Kohn, the translation was “a full Greek version” created for the use of Greek-speaking Samaritans.446 Of course, the means by which Christians learned of τὸ σαμ΄ in the 7th cent. is unknown, though it was certainly not via the “Hexapla.”447 1.2.3.10 Bradley Marsh (1983–): Carl 49 is the Samareitikon (2020) In the course of the early stages of my doctoral research, I began to survey the textual alignment of Greek and Syriac witnesses vis-à-vis SP in Exod. At that time,448 a particular witness designated “Carl 49” in Wevers’ edition, containing mere fragments of Exod 3,449 caught my eye as it had been labeled in AppI as agreeing with MT and SP a number of times despite being so fragmentary. After further consideration, I subjected the witness to additional scrutiny, collating its readings against not only SP, which Wevers also had done (albeit unevenly according to AppI), but also the wider Samaritan tradition, specifically ST. In the end, certain, firm connections were found between Carl 49 and the Samaritan tradition, namely SP and ST, which also disagreed with MT and the Jewish || 443 2015: 14. 444 2015: 13. Similarly: “The roots of the Samaritan tradition as represented by the reading tradition, the Targum, and the Greek version are to be sought for in the Roman or Late Hellenistic period” (2019: 325). 445 2015: 13. 446 2015: 8 (consciously contra Geiger; see his n. 28, and Pummer 1998: 280, with literature). 447 “It is better … to admit that the source of the marginal Samareitikon readings [viz., those in Christian sources] is unknown” (THB.1A [2016]: 236). 448 In the unpublished DPhil thesis version of this study, my analysis of Carl 49 was presented in EXCURSUS B (2016: 148–53). 449 For the cataloguing, see Rahlfs and Fraenkel 2004: 183–84 (since assigned the siglum 886) and Wevers, Exod, 16.

80 | Prolegomena

Targumim. These findings, first presented at the 2016 IOSCS meeting at SBL in San Antonio,450 were eventually published in an article in 2020.451 An outline of these findings are sketched here along with a few additional notes. Thereafter, I will conclude this section with some methodological reflections on the Samareitikon, especially as it has been pursued in the history of research. Carl 49, dated to the 5th cent. CE and coming from Egypt, was collated by Wevers in his edition of Exod.452 Despite flagging approximately 10 agreements (both quantitative and qualitative) between Carl 49 and SP in AppI (marked “= Sam”), he concluded that the witness was simply a text of LXX which had been revised towards MT;453 after all, he also denoted Carl 49’s agreement with MT in AppI (with “= M” or “=ML”) 10 times as well.454 However, six further agreements between Carl 49 and SP remained unmarked, presumably as each of these also agreed with MT; and of these six, four were marked “= M.” This breakdown of Wevers’ AppI suggests that his analysis did not take the Samaritan tradition seriously from the outset. Differently, I reexamined Carl 49’s textual affiliation taking both MT and SP into account equally, in addition to both Jewish and Samaritan Targumim. When all of the evidence is weighed in relation to one another, as opposed to simply against LXX, analysis of these agreements shows a different picture: Carl 49 = SP ≠ MT four times, whereas Carl 49 = MT ≠ SP only once. Further, the force of the latter case is mitigated by the fact that for that reading Carl 49 = STJ ≠ SP. Thus, the fragments agree substantially more with SP than MT despite the general (consonantal) concord of MT and SP in Exod 3. However, the argument for Carl 49 being the Samareitikon is not established only from the above analysis, but from the character of the former’s qualitative readings. In particular, two readings support this hypothesis, namely, the revision of LXX’s η γερουσια to [οι] συναιτοι in v 18, and, most especially, the rather bizarre revision of μη εγγισης ωδε to μη ενγισης [συ]ναρπαγηι in v 5. The first reading’s association with Samaritan exegesis was argued long ago in connection with Gie (→ §1.2.3.2) although scholars differed as to whether or not this link was convincing (→§§1.2.3.5; 1.2.3.7 vs. 1.2.3.9). Nevertheless, the second case’s translation “do not approach hastily” for the consonantal ‫אל תקרב הלם‬ || 450 My identification of Carl 49 as a piece of the Samareitikon, as presented in the IOSCS paper, was cited approvingly by Joosten (2019: 316, with n. 12) before its publication. 451 “The Samareitikon, the “κατά Σαμαρειτῶν” Marginalia in Codex M, and P. Carl 49” (2020: 285–97). A brief summary of the contents of the article can be found in Marsh 2021: 497. 452 For more information on Carl 49, its provenance, and character, see Marsh 2020: 293–94, with notes and literature cited there. 453 Exod, 16. 454 For a table of the data from his edition, see Marsh 2020: 294.

The Samaritan Pentateuch in Greek | 81

(as in both MT and SP) can only be connected to ST’s exegesis ‫“ אל תקרב עטף‬do not come right away.”455 This last, highly idiosyncratic rendering, for a seemingly “indifferent” phrase lacking any apparent ideological Tendenz, confirms that the fragment was revised, not based on Jewish exegesis but rather the Samaritan interpretive tradition, specifically as represented in ST.456 Based on this analysis, I concluded that Carl 49 is indeed a piece of the Samareitikon and this bears implications for future research into the Samaritan Greek recension. Methodological Reflections on the Samareitikon in the History of Research In concluding the foregoing survey of scholarship a few brief comments vis-àvis the Samareitikon seem appropriate. These relate to 1) what exactly this “Samareitikon” is, 2) its relationship to ST and LXX, and 3) the effects of broader scholarly assumptions on research. 1) The moniker Samareitikon, τὸ Σαμαρειτικόν as it is labeled, fully spelledout, in (at the earliest) 10th cent. CE MSS, is an appellation without a definition. In reality, our sources never define what this name means nor do they identify the source(s) of its readings. It should be remembered that the Christian scribes who copied the earliest readings (i.e., those in the 7th cent. CE, CODEX M) may not have been sure what it was they were citing; the abbreviated terminology for this presumed source (or translator’s moniker?) cited in CODEX M was inconsistent and only much later standardized.457 Nevertheless, the term was—and is still— undefined: Unlike the Three, or even Quinta and Sexta, no indication in extant scholia clarifies what τὸ Σαμαρειτικόν meant or from where its readings were derived. (As the below analysis shows, what Procopius labels as Σαμαρειτικόν is not this version; → §1.3.1.1.) As such, while this label seems to refer to a distinct,

|| 455 The rendering is Tal’s (DSA, sub ‫ ;)חטף‬see Marsh 2020: 296, with n. 57. 456 Although I had not noticed at that time, one further occurrence of this exact exegesis in ST confirms this is a specifically Samaritan interpretation. Note that at Gen 16.13 where MT/SP reads ... ‫ כי אמרה הגם הלם ראיתי‬... in which case both MT and the Samaritan reading tradition understand ‫ הלם‬as ‫“ ֲהֹלם‬here” (vocalized ēlåm; see Ben-Ḥayyim 1977: 82 and 365). The Jewish Targumim and the majority of ST MSS also understand the form as “here” (using varying Aramaic equivalencies), save for STJ which reads ‫הלא אמרת אף עטף חזית‬. This second example, I owe to the entry in CALex where these data were comparatively cited (see the entry, “ḥṭp,” 3; see also Tal, DSA, sub ‫[ חטף‬there translated “suddenly”]). That MS J, widely considered the earlier (or perhaps more conservative?) of the witnesses to ST, twice bears this exegesis makes the connection between ST and the Samareitikon (via Carl 49) more sure. It is difficult to know how this exegesis came about. In the Pent, ‫ ֲהֹלם‬occurs in only these two places, both theophanies. 457 See my previous discussion on the variation of labels found in CODEX M vis-à-vis later tradents (2020: 291–92).

82 | Prolegomena

single Samaritan Greek translation, akin to one of the Jewish recentiores—this is, after all, a reasonable starting point—there is in fact no reason to assume that, whatever the source(s) of these highly selective (and often unlabeled) readings was(were), its development and history parallel those of α΄ σ΄ θ΄ ε΄ ζ΄, whether collectively or individually. But even if a more simplistic analogue is sought via the Three, it has been suspected that Aquila had more than one edition of his translation, as remarks from Jerome seem to indicate:458 Is it not then possible to suggest that τὸ σαμ΄ also underwent such a development? Did more than one Samaritan translation of the Pent (whether of the whole or individual books) exist and circulate in the early centuries CE? Is it not possible that, as has been suggested from time to time in the history of the literature (e.g., Kahle → §1.2.3.3; also §7.2 regarding Symmachus), the Samareitikon may well have been manifold in its manifestation(s), or represented more of a spectrum, a la “Theodotion,”459 than a single, concrete entity? Furthermore, one might also probe the nature of even a single edition represented by τὸ Σαμαρειτικόν. Perhaps, the Samaritan authorities (but then who?) tasked five translators to complete the Pent, each of whom took their own approach to the wider Samaritan exegetical tradition. One thinks of comparing, say the LXX translator of Exod with the same of Num both in regard to translation style and their interpretive relationship with the Targumim. If one follows this line of thought, then the correspondence of such a Samaritan translation to ST and LXX might vary from book to book: viz. σαμ΄-Gen and σαμ΄-Exod might differ considerably in this regard.460 The same logic would also apply to the reading tradition, which itself may have been more diverse in Antiquity than that recorded by Ben-Ḥayyim in the modern period might suggest.461 || 458 For those of Aquila and (possibly?) Symmachus, see Field’s discussion of the data (2005: 52–56 and 71–73, respectively; 1.xxiv–xxvii and xxxvi–xxxvii). Field doubted that Symmachus had a second edition, which may well be correct (but cp. those at SH Ezek 20.6). On Aquila’s relationship to the so-called καιγε movement, see Fernández Marcos 2000: 119–20. For a recent assessment of the history of Aquila’s “Second Edition,” see K. Young, forthcoming. 459 “Theodotion” is now understood as more of a spectrum than a distinct translation from an individual per se, which involves a process of continued revision. For recent literature on “(proto-)Theodotion,” see above nn. 36 and 40. For a study arguing in favor for multiple Samareitikons, see Schorch’s article in the upcoming Festschrift for Emanuel Tov. 460 Following this, one notes the many variants in ST MSS recorded in Tal’s edition equate readings from Jewish Targumim (see, e.g., Marsh 2020: 295, Table 2, n. ‘b’, and 296, n. 57). 461 Prof. Schorch has told me in private conversation that the modern Samaritan community now use Ben-Ḥayyim’s edition as a control for their own reading of the Pentateuch, this despite the fact that Ben-Ḥayyim also supplied variations in the reading tradition he recorded (see

The Samaritan Pentateuch in Greek | 83

And when the possibility of this text’s (or the texts’?) revision(s?) enters the question, the matter becomes even more complex. Was the Samareitikon differently developed, or even completely “retranslated,” in say Egypt by the Samaritan community there, differently than, or independently of, the community in Thessaloniki, or even Shechem? Each of these considerations bears greatly on one’s methodological approach in assessing data allegedly representing (or derived from) this Σαμαρειτικόν, be it Gie or Carl 49 or any other such related text or reading. 2) Next is the presumed relationship between τὸ σαμ΄ and ST/LXX. Clearly, there is a correspondence between what is known of τὸ σαμ΄ and both ST and LXX—Tov’s “either/or” approach is to be rejected (→ §§1.2.3.8; 1.2.3.9)—it is a mere matter of the degree to which the former, assuming it was a single text, relates to the latter two. But even then, assumptions abound regarding ST which also affect interpretation of the data. If ST is, following Tal’s approach, held as a single distinct Aramaic translation (a la de Lagarde) which devolved (often badly) over time and resulted in “defective” translations and/or readings in much later MSS (e.g., A, C, M, etc.), then Pummer might well be correct in asserting that MS J is the only proper, or safe, indicator representative of Samaritan exegesis before the community switched to Arabic. However, if Joosten’s claim that Samaritan traditions are multiple and even contradictory, which Schorch implicitly supports in his reassertion of a Kahlean (→ §1.2.3.3) view of ST’s origins,462 then MSS other than J are just as valid when establishing “Samaritan” exegesis and any demonstrated connections between readings sub τὸ σαμ΄ (or even anonymously recorded) and MS A et al should be reckoned as potentially Samaritan. As for the correspondence between τὸ σαμ΄ and LXX, Schenker (→ §1.2.3.8) is surely correct. There was, in Antiquity, no such thing as truly independent translation of the/a Hebrew Pent into Greek for which the translator-reviser did not also avail himself to earlier translation, namely LXX. Aquila and Symmachus, rightly described as representing two ends of the Jewish translational spectrum in this very era, and who enacted differing approaches and exegesis, both clearly used the LXX. (As a parallel example, even the translator of “Theodotion” Daniel utilized, at least in part, the earlier, much different LXX/OG

|| 1977: 555–56, for this last point I thank Martin Tscheu). See also the comments below on Schorch’s work on ST. 462 For which, see Schorch 2021. He holds that SA also bears a similarly early witness to SP variants and exegesis.

84 | Prolegomena

Daniel.463) If these revisers could be said to have consciously used earlier material, it seems historically implausible to maintain that the Samaritans were somehow the exception to this general rule and did not also use LXX, especially if the Samareitikon predates 200 CE (→ §7.2). 3) Lastly, a few remarks on the presuppositions under which many scholars appear to operate when examining the data. It should be clear from the aboveoutlined analysis of Carl 49 that scholars have unduly privileged MT when examining “revised LXX” texts. This hegemonic viewpoint similarly manifests itself in other aspects of analysis, namely the notion that if a point of exegesis, e.g., translating ‫ זקנים‬as if it were ‫חכמים‬, is also reflected in specifically Jewish sources, it cannot therefore be used to argue for Samaritan provenance. This process of “source-neutralization” is inappropriate and, in some ways, highly anachronistic. By way of example, compare the position of Tov on Gie, namely his notion that κυριος is somehow the exclusively “Jewish” Qere. Laying aside Joosten’s above suggestion that adherents to Gerizim may have even participated in the original LXX translation, one need not frame the issue in this way: First, at least one explicitly labeled σαμ΄ reading uses κυριος (see AppII at Exod 12.42, abbreviated τω κω). Second, Carl 49 is certainly Samaritan and uses κυριος,464 as does Thess—an inscription bearing the Aaronic Blessing, chiseled into the wall of a Samaritan synagogue. Third, claiming κυριος as “not Samaritan” is a bit like asserting that the Rabbis’ use of ‫“ השׁם‬the Name” (in Hebrew) is not really Jewish465 since the Samaritans are known for using the parallel Aramaic replacement ‫“ שמא‬the Name.” My point is that a given divine replacement became the property of each distinctive Yahwistic group when said replacement gained currency in the community in question. (Was/Is not the use of κυριος Christian as well?) In this sense, it is preferable to view the divine Qere as more dependent on the language each respective community used, as opposed to being the exclusively property of a community itself. In other words, even if the LXX was originally a wholly Jewish and not Samaritan product, the moment the latter group adopted LXX as the basis for its Greek revision, whatever was carried over with it, e.g., κυριος,466 then became “Samaritan.” (A similar religio-linguistic || 463 On which see the recent studies by D. Olariu 2019a and b. 464 See the editio princeps, A. Bülow-Jacobsen and J. Strange 1986: 19 (ln. 27, at Exod 3.18). 465 For a convenient outline of this usage among the early Rabbis, see J. D. Eisenstein, “Names of God,” JE 9.162–63. 466 I set aside for the moment the debate over whether or not κυριος was the original Qere in LXX. See on this Tov, TCHB3, 132, with n. 218 and literature cited there. Among other factors, the early Christian obsession with the names of God (→ EXCURSUS C) suggest it is highly im-

The Samaritan Pentateuch in Greek | 85

phenomenon transpires, itself bearing a number of difficulties, with the use of Allah for “God” in Arabic.467) Put differently, why should κυριος be considered exclusively Jewish, as opposed to Samaritan, in Greek language contexts? Why is this not reckoned as the common property of both, much like the Pentateuch itself, even if one community used it before the other? At most then, if a given exegesis or translational equivalency is found amongst two distinct communities, it should only be said that both communities adhered to said exegesis or translational equivalency: This does not result in the neutralization of supposed Samaritan exegesis in alleged pieces of the Samareitikon (pace Tov and, to a certain degree, Pummer468) but rather the expansion of said equivalencies and/or exegesis to both Jews and Samaritans. If an impasse on the translational or exegetical levels is encountered when examining an unknown fragment, then other factors must be taken into account in order to establish, if possible, the background of the text in question. One of the factors which ought to be taken as seriously as possible is the provenance. Compare, for example, Tov’s treatment of Thess. In his 1974 article, he argued vigorously that Thess cannot represent the Samareitikon, because he did not see a strong enough association between Thess and ST (following Kohn’s version of the Walton-Castell hypothesis, which is, in my opinion, at best improbable). Indeed, Tov’s very procedure suggests he did not consider the Samaritan tradition seriously enough—Thess was even compared to MT in the article, not SP!—despite the fact that Thess is indubitably a Samaritan inscrip-

|| probable, and indeed gratuitous, to assert that the early Christian community somehow replaced all representations of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton ‫יהוה‬, or its instantiation in Greek Ιαω (as in 4Q120 at Lev 4.27), with κυριος in LXX MSS. But even if the early Christians had done so, κυριος was not a manufactured construct but the Qere itself translated, whether specifically “Jewish” or more broadly Judeo-Israelite (the latter including Samaritans insofar as Greek is concerned). 467 On this complex issue, see D. Soesilo 2001: passim, and esp. pp. 415–16 (on the situation in Malaysia where Muslim authorities banned Christian use of the term in Bible translation). While Soesilo rightly points out that Arabic-speaking Christians used Allah for “God” well before the advent of Islam, as S. Griffin observes, Christian sponsored biblical translations into Arabic post-date Muhammed, likely emerging in the late 7th–early 8th cent. CE (2013: ch 3). As such, Allah was first “Christian” and then only subsequently became “Muslim”; however, the opposite obtained insofar as written scriptural texts were concerned. Irrespective of this sequence, however, it is wrong to say that Allah is the unique linguistic property of one community over against the other. 468 I say “to a certain degree” as Pummer does acknowledge, at least in his 1987 article, that the reading αργαριζιν (-ζειν) cannot be used exclusively to establish Samaritan provenance. Nevertheless, he seems more aligned with Tov with respect to the σαμ΄ readings vis-à-vis ST.

86 | Prolegomena

tion from a Samaritan synagogual context. The posture Tov took is abundantly clear: Thess must bear the burden of proof in order to be considered a true Samaritan Greek translation. This approach, however, unduly skewed interpretation of the Greek. Instead, following the line of the critiques offered by Joosten (→ §1.2.3.9), the assumption should be that Thess bears specifically Samaritan qualities. As such, still other connections between Thess and the Samaritan tradition should be sought. For example, when trying to understand why Thess has ποιησει for LXX’s δῴη in v 26(27),469 Tov simply remarks that both equivalencies occur in LXX for ‫שים‬: no specifically Samaritan explanation is sought, since this does not obviously reflect ST. Yet, this may well be incorrect. ST, in connection with the wider Samaritan exegetical tradition, can be related to Thess’ revision. That ποιησει should not be viewed as a simple, unmotivated variation470 in translating (‫( וישם )לך שלום‬an unusual collocation to be sure471) is suggested by the passage’s great importance for Samaritan religious life; indeed this very passage is often well-worn and smudged in extant SP MSS due to the Samaritan devotional practice in which supplicants physically kiss the page.472 A certain amount of meditation on this passage then may be assumed amongst the Samaritan community (e.g., TM III:38).473 At this point, ST unanimously translated || 469 1974: 398–99. 470 See AppI where no significant variants are found. The unclear connotation of ‫ שים‬in the verse seemingly allows for interpretation, and indeed, LXX’s rendering is followed by many EVV, e.g., AV/KJV, NRSV, NJPS (“grant”), and even B. Tsedaka’s ET of SP. For an important critical review of Tsedaka’s work, see M. Florentin’s 2015 review. While Tsedaka’s translation is from time to time cited in this study, such should not be viewed as an endorsement. 471 See HALOT, s.v., 19 (citing an Aramaic letter with similar phraseology). B. Levine notes that the idiom is “rare” (1993: 228) and “virtually unknown in biblical diction” (p. 237) even if the sense is obvious. See also his extended discussion vis-à-vis the Keteph Hinnom burial plaques which, while containing this line, may yet potentially represent an earlier version of the Priestly Blessing (pp. 238–44). 472 See Montgomery 1907: 30, with n. 16. The results of such can be seen on CAM UL ADD 1846 (12 cent. CE; Schorch’s C1); see fol. 147a, online: https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-ADD01846/301. 473 See also the anonymous Samaritan piyyutim no. 4 (lns. 53–58, quoted from CALex whose transcription is taken from Ben-Ḥayyim’s edition):

‫ אהרון ואלעזר ואיתמר‬/ ‫ מן ברכת כהניה‬/ ‫ ישיב אלהנו עלינן ועליכון‬/ ‫ובצלות משה נביה דעלמה‬ [‫ בהם כן ירתי חייכון ]יהוה‬/ ‫ אמן אהיה אשר אהיה‬/ ‫ופינחס‬ And through the prayer of Moses, Prophet of (this) world / our God (re)turned upon us and upon you / some of the Blessing of the Priests / Aaron and Eliezer and Ithamar and Phineas / (refrain) Amen: I AM WHO I AM / By them then ⟨the Lord⟩ favors your lives!

The Samaritan Pentateuch in Greek | 87

‫ וישם‬with ‫וישבי‬. Tal interprets ST as from ‫שוי‬1 meaning “to set” in most contexts, a seemingly literal translation of ‫ ;שים‬however, the root ‫שוי‬1, which itself connects with wider, extensions of meaning (e.g., ‘to be full’, ‘to be joined’, ‘to be made equal’)474, also underlies the noun ‫שואי‬, an hapax legomenon Tal defines as ‘maker’.475 This suggests a Samaritan could have read ST here as “he makes,” an hypothesis reinforced by the only known occurrence of ‫ שואי‬from one of Marqe’s hymns praising the qualities of God: ‫ שבאה דשלמה‬/ ‫“ שראה דטובה‬the doer of good, the pacifier [lit. maker of peace]” (Stanza 11.81–82).476 This specific collocation of “maker” and “peace” can hardly be a coincidence; all the more so when it occurs in a liturgical context as expressed by the great Samaritan theologian and poet Marqe who thrived ca. 3rd/4th cent. CE (→ §7). It is therefore, linguistically and historically justifiable to suggest that Thess’ translation ποιησει was reflective of, actively alluding to, or in conversation with, Samaritan theological poetry. Either way, Thess ought to be reckoned as representing the (or “a”?) Samareitikon since its connection with wider Samaritan exegesis, namely ST and the reading tradition (already convincingly argued for by Joosten → §1.2.3.9), can be clearly established over against Tov’s earlier analysis. In the end, the best way of approaching the question of the Samareitikon is to take seriously the wider Samaritan theological and exegetical tradition when assessing potential fragments. Restricting “Samaritan exegesis” to ST—what was essentially the Walton-Castell hypothesis (→ §1.2.1.1)—is inappropriate. Walton, Castell, and even Field may be excused for having done so, because ST was the only known source of Samaritan exegesis in the West during the 17th– 18th/19th centuries. However, now Western scholarship has a wider base from

|| While the prayer is anonymous, Marqe applied the title ‫“ נביה דעלמה‬prophet of the world” (thus Tal’s ET, “eternal prophet” is also linguistically possible?) to Moses specifically in TM I:18. See further Tal’s note (2019: 58, n. 2 at ‫)נביאה דעלמה‬. 474 See Tal, DSA, s.v.; cp. also the same root at Dan 2.5. 475 Tal, DSA, s.v. The word is an hapax according to CALex (who adopt Tal’s gloss). 476 Text and ET from Tal (DSA, s.v., note the ‫ו‬/‫ ב‬switching). L. Lieber renders these lines “O dwelling place of goodness, / O source of peace,” (2022: 165); however, it is unclear to me how the translation “source” is derived (other than from parallelism). Note that CALex renders the first stich “one who installs his good” which can still anticipate “maker of peace.” The hymn begins as follows (quoted from CALex):

... ‫ בראיה דברא‬/ ‫ בצדקה קבל מנן‬/ ‫ אנן צבעין לך‬/ ‫ דלית עמה חבר‬/ ‫ אלהים יחידאי‬/ ‫אי‬ 11. / God is (God) alone / With whom there is no companion / We (are those) crying out to you / With righteousness, he heeds (or: receives) us / The Creator who creates … Observe especially the second line, presumably aimed at Christianity’s doctrine of the Trinity.

88 | Prolegomena

which to construct the Samaritan exegetical outlook.477 The Samaritan textual tradition, namely SP, ST, and the reading tradition, has, unfortunately in this sense, not formed any real part of the traditional (western) Judeo-Christian theological education. And the thesis of Gesenius (→ §1.1.2.2) still casts a long, dark, hegemonic shadow. Nevertheless, the Samaritan tradition is, thanks to the labors of Z. Ben-Ḥayyim, R. Bóid, R. Pummer, A. Tal, S. Schorch, and others, more accessible now than was previously the case. Therefore, when investigating the character and provenance of unknown Greek fragments and unmarked readings in the Pent, the wider Samaritan tradition should be carefully considered. Analyses which fail to do so run the risk of skewing the data and formulating misleading conclusions upon which future scholarship will be based.

1.3 The σαμ΄ and μόνον-Group Readings: A Typological Comparison Since the SIXTINE, Greek Samaritan readings found in Christian MSS sub τὸ σαμ΄ formed a special sub-collection of text-critical and exegetical curios. As a result, previous study (→ §1.2) has mostly focused on this set of readings, giving little or no close analysis of the other group of passages traditionally called “expansions” or readings from “the Hebraeo-Samaritan text.”478 The present study means to redress this imbalance, focusing almost entirely on the latter group. Before addressing in detail the Samaritan readings extant in hexaplaric sources, it is beneficial to outline the features of the two groups, establishing a framework for more precise historical analysis.479 In diametrical opposition to the fairly feeble attempts to connect these two sets of texts (e.g., Kohn’s, Kahle’s, Gaster’s,480 etc.), the present study contends, consciously following Montfaucon, and, albeit differently, Joosten’s recent studies, that there were in fact two groups of Samaritan Greek readings which eventually found their way

|| 477 Constructing Samaritan theology without drawing from Marqe and other early Samaritan sources is akin to documenting early Syriac Christian theology based only on the Peshitta absent recourse to Ephrem (d. 373 CE) and Aphrahat (early 4th cent.). While the scriptural foundations of each community remain SP and P, respectively, anyone who ignores Marqe or Ephrem (and/or Aphrahat) will comprehend only a partial picture of the (admittedly) fragmentary, extant evidence. 478 Perhaps Field (and Ceriani for Exod) could be held as an exception to this statement. 479 A shorter summary of §1.3 can be had in Marsh 2021b. 480 1925: 112, 128, and 186. Gaster’s claims at the latter two locations show he badly misread Field’s edition.

The σαμ΄ and μόνον-Group Readings: A Typological Comparison | 89

into Christian MS sources. These groups are distinguished not so much by their designation (i.e., τὸ σαμ΄[αρειτικον] vs. τοῦ τῶν Σαμαρειτῶν Ἑβραϊκοῦ)481 or solely by the specific “Samaritan-ness” of a given reading but rather by their overall typology. When the typology of each group is considered—in close combination with the character of the MSS in which the groups were transmitted, i.e., provenance—two unmistakably distinct types emerge: 1) those adhering to the σαμ΄-type, and 2) those which follow the μόνον-type. Typologically, the groups can be consistently differentiated in four key areas: i. codicological provenance, ii. textual nature, iii. relationship to Samaritan exegesis, and iv. discernible historical context. As the below analysis will argue, these two sets not only exhibit distinct typologies, or, to use Joosten’s terminology, “profiles,”—but are utterly detached historically.

1.3.1 The σαμ΄-Type 1.3.1.1 Codicological Provenance Following Joosten’s observations, the present study maintains that the readings marked sub τὸ σαμ΄ cannot be connected in any way with the hexaplaric tradition; rather the MS evidence very strongly shows that the principal vehicle through which the σαμ΄-type spread was the catena literature.482 While it is likely that τὸ σαμαρειτικόν483—most certainly a real Samaritan Greek version (or versions?), whatever this precisely entailed (→ §§1.2.3.10; 6.2.3; 7.2)—existed previous to and independent of the catena, little to no evidence confirms Christian

|| 481 As, e.g., Montgomery described it (1907: 285). 482 Evidence ostensibly against this supposition is superficial. For instance, the attributed reading at Gen 5.25 in MS 17O is not an exception to this rule; it is far likelier that the scribe was influenced by Jerome (Geiger 1876: 122; also Field 1.329). See discussion below (→ EXCURSUS D). 483 The terminology (τὸ σαμ΄; τὸ σαμαρ΄; κατα σαμαρειτων, etc.) found in the MS evidence are not always easy to place historically. See the discussion of this problem with respect to the κατα Σαμαρειτων notes discussed in Marsh 2020 and literature cited there.

90 | Prolegomena

sources were aware of it prior to the 7th cent. CE.484 Remarkably, one of the catena literature’s chief proponents, Procopius of Gaza (ca. 475–ca. 538 CE),485 was unaware of it; his “Samaritan” annotations were hexaplarically-derived (→ §§2.3.2 at Exod 18.25‫ג–א‬, attribution; 3.3.2 at Num 10.10‫)ג–א‬. Furthermore, one cannot help but notice the silence of Theodoret of Cyrrhus (ca. 393–ca. 460 CE).486 Surely, patristic silence in those places of exegetical interest (e.g., Exod 3.22, 16.31) is due to ignorance rather than neglect. It is historically possible that Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444 CE) may have cited τὸ σαμ΄ at Num 29.35 and Deut 10.22 (see AppII ad loca). These were transmitted in the catena, though the former’s presumed Samaritan character has been questioned, as has the latter’s attribution to Cyril.487 While modern critical work on the catena of Lev–Deut is forthcoming, if the text transmitted in the fragments of Gie (→ §1.2.3.2) and Carl 49 (→ §1.2.3.10) can be identified with the σαμαρειτικόν, it should then at least be allowed that it is possible that the 5th cent. Egyptian church Father could have at some point encountered these readings. For both Gie and Carl 49 are believed || 484 Joosten bases this date on those readings in CODEX M (7th cent. CE), namely Exod 28.9, Lev 15.3, and 15.8 (both in Lev with MS 416mx). Lev 1.15, 8.15, 25.25, 26.24, 41, 43, and 27.23 are unattributed (all save 26.43 again shared with 416); Num 32.12 is sub οι λ΄. Next oldest is Fb, a minuscule corrector and annotator of CODEX F (5th cent. CE), which is considered a “medieval” hand (Wevers, Exod, 7–8). Fb’s readings are unattributed (Gen 44.15, Exod 8.16[12], 38.2 [37.2], and Num 23.1; only the latter two are listed by Pummer). Fb’s source materials are considered “postHexaplaric and come from Jewish translations that circulated in the Byzantine period” (Fernández Marcos 2000: 175–76). Whether Fb’s unattributed readings reflect the Samareitikon (exclusively or otherwise) is uncertain, especially if they represent overlapping Samaritan and Jewish exegesis (see Pummer 1998: 299 and 301). For further on Fb and the alleged Samareitikon readings, see M. Fincati 2016: 64, 112, 255, and 314. Her analysis is that Fb is from a Christian reviser (ca. 11th cent.), likely from southern Italy, interested in Judeo-Greek exegesis (2016: 426–30). Pace Fincati, however, I would posit that Fb’s “Samaritan” readings—assuming there was ever any conscious borrowing (cf. her p. 38)—would have been from catenae, not hexaplaric sources. 485 For a review of Procopius’ relationship to the catena tradition, see K. Metzler 2015: xxi– xxiii (see also P. van der Horst’s 2015 review of Metzler, as well as ter Haar Romeny 2007: 179– 83). L. Bossina briefly summarizes: “The birth of the catenae is unquestionably related to Procopius of Gaza in Palestine in the sixth century, with the Egyptian and Antiochian traditions on the fringes. From the first half of the eighth century, the focus of production and innovation moved to Constantinople” (2021: 154). It is easy in light of this early history to see that many layers and streams of textual data could be added over time. 486 On this issue, see below on the origin of the Samareitikon (→ §7.2). 487 See Wevers AppII; also Field 1.261, n. 8, and 289, n. 24 (also CatNic 1/3.1375–76 and 1474). Pummer denies the first is truly from τὸ σαμ΄; the second he views as inconclusive (1998: 301– 02; cp. Joosten 2014: 350, n. 16). Nicephorus doubted the attribution in Deut 10.22 (1/3.1474, n. 3), and Field concurred (1.289, n. 24).

The σαμ΄ and μόνον-Group Readings: A Typological Comparison | 91

to have come from 5th cent. Egypt. Nevertheless, the majority of instances are from catena witnesses dated from the 10th cent. CE onwards. Because of this, σαμ΄-readings occurring in late hexaplaric MSS (e.g., MS 376, from the 15th cent.)488 can be easily dismissed as random instances where floating readings had influence on individual scribes (e.g., MSS 135, et al in Gen, → EXCURSUS D; cp. the sgroup MSS in Num, → §3.4 with Tables 3.4.1 and 3.4.2). 1.3.1.2 Textual Nature Also germane is the operational nature of the group in question. It is of interest that the σαμ΄-readings are exclusively qualitative rather than quantitative variants.489 This is why the σαμ΄-group encompasses many “indifferent” (so Kohn, Pummer) readings and readings which agree with one of the Three (e.g., Exod 10.7[a], 28.9[?]; Deut 10.22, 32.8). Note that ostensible exceptions to this tenet are actually superficial. The quantitative “half tribe of Manasseh” readings (Num 32.1+ et al) are false hits.490 Better is the hypothesis developed below (→ §3.3.2 at Num 32.1+ and 29+) which, in taking Joosten’s suspicions to their natural end, proposes that the/a catenist—a known adopter of hexaplaric materials— took over several readings “of the Samaritans” from hexaplaric sources. During this process, the catenist assumed that the source of the hexaplaric Samaritan readings (e.g., Gerizim at Deut 27.4 → §4.3.3 and “all” in Deut 27.26 → §4.3.4) was the same as his source of τὸ σαμ΄. Therefore, the category of σαμ΄ readings which are thought to reflect the Hebrew SP does not really exist, at least for those from extant, non-hexaplaric MSS, because the readings commonly placed in this sub-category were not taken from the same source as τὸ σαμ΄ (→ §1.3.2). Note further, that the Masian reading for “Deut 34.12” (= 5.21[17]‫§§ → ח–א‬1.1; 2.3.3; 4.2) is not a σαμ΄ passage but was mislabeled (without explanation) in Wevers’ edition. Field committed a similar, slightly more understandable, slip in his analysis of Deut 34.1b–1‫–א‬2 (→ §§3.3.2 at Num 21.(21+)22‫ ;ב–א‬4.3.2).491

|| 488 Ms 376 has merely three (see Exod 14.15; 16.31; Num 13.33), each unattributed but confirmed as σαμʹ in other MSS. 489 See Norton 1991 for a discussion of the nuances of these categories vis-à-vis hexaplaric studies. Exceptions to this statement do not amount to more than a word (→ Table 3.4.2). 490 Gen 4.8 has a different explanation with the same result (→ EXCURSUS D). 491 Rahlfs and Glaue noticed this some time ago (1911: 61, n. 2).

92 | Prolegomena

1.3.1.3 Relationship to Samaritan Exegesis As has been underscored since the time of the London Polyglot, with varying levels of nuance, the σαμ΄ group does exhibit some level of accordance with extant Samaritan exegetical traditions (i.e., ST492 and the Samaritan493 reading tradition). Thus, the σαμαρειτικόν, irrespective of its precise Sitz im Leben or the historical catalysts which led to its inclusion in catena literature, can and should be directly related to some verifiably Samaritan biblical understanding (→ §1.2.3.10, Methodological Reflections). This cannot be said of the hexaplaric μόνον-type group (→ §1.3.2.3). 1.3.1.4 Discernable Historical Background In general, it is possible that witnesses to the σαμ΄-type readings may also include μόνον-type readings (e.g., the s-group MSS in Num → §3.4); however, the principal witnesses for the latter (e.g., SH) never exhibit the former.494 Otherwise, the origins of this ἔκδοσις (assuming a single composition) and the catalysts(s) leading to its inclusion in Christian MSS is the subject of guesswork (→ §7.2). This stands in stark contrast to the origin stories of the recentiores which often accompanied Greek and Syriac hexaplaric works, even if provided in contradicting (or specious) accounts. It also contrasts greatly with the discernible historical background of the μόνον-type group (→ §1.3.2.4).

|| 492 Pummer notes that the Samaritans’ adopted Arabic as their primary spoken language in the late 10th and early 11th centuries (2016: 209). 493 For literature dating the Samaritan reading tradition to the Second Temple period, based on the research of Z. Ben-Ḥayyim, see Pummer 2016: 250, and Schorch 2008. 494 Contra Pummer’s suspicions (1998: 276). Particularly notable locations where SH’s exemplar(s) listed some or all of the recentiores without τὸ σαμ΄ include: Exod 8.14(10), 8.21(17), 12.42, 13.13, 14.15, and 16.31. The s-group MSS, which are a type of their own, represent purposeful, post-hexaplaric collation work gathered from various sources. As such, these MSS, whose witnesses date from the 10th cent. CE at the earliest, do not contradict the present point. Note the s-MSS transmitted the precise terminology of their sources (where attested), suggesting they too held these two groups as separate.

The σαμ΄ and μόνον-Group Readings: A Typological Comparison | 93

1.3.2 The μόνον-Type The second group of readings, the very subject of the present study, is rebranded here as “the μόνον-type group.” The descriptive appellation μόνον ‘only’ (adv. = ‫ ܰܒ ܽ ܕ‬ba-lḥud in SH495) is consciously selected and ubiquitously used, in opposition to previous scholarly terminology, for two reasons: 1) It emphasizes the chief textual feature as described in these readings’ attribution annotations: that SP only contains a given passage/reading. 2) The μόνον-group is better appreciated historically, if terminology commonly viewed as textually demeaning (“expansion,” “interpolation,” etc.) is avoided. Irrespective of any modern appraisal of the μόνον-passages, (textual or otherwise → §1.1.2), many later Christian tradents of the hexaplaric tradition thought highly enough of these readings to adopt them as their own (e.g., Jacob of Edessa). And while any such phenomenon is atypical, at least insofar as wider Greek MSS are concerned, it occurs in various hexaplaric witnesses from different contexts and eras, suggesting there was a perceived value to SP, at least in the eyes of some (→ §2.5; §5). Indeed, the original, extraordinary, Caesarea-based μόνον-collation is itself suggestive of such value, as underscored by the colophons to SH Exod (→ §2.2) and Num (→ §3.2).496 1.3.2.1 Codicological Provenance While the earlier theories of Voss, Montfaucon, et al understandably misattributed the σαμ΄-type group to Origen (→ §6.2), and by extension, the hexaplaric endeavor, the passages comprising the μόνον-group are, without exception, exclusively derived from hexaplaric sources. And while it is true that some μόνον-type readings and notes are found in catena-related literature (e.g., Procopius’ Comm., catena MSS at Num 32.33+, Deut 27.4, and 27.26), based upon the extant MS evidence, and the fact that the μόνον-type group has a discernible historical background chronologically preceding the catena, it is clear that the latter subsumed readings from the former.

|| 495 On SH’s translation practice, see Perkins 1980: 152; note also BDF §243. SH attached no pronominal suffixes to ‫ ܒ ܕ‬in its translation of the μόνον-attribution notes suggesting the neuter adj./adverbial μόνον was in their Vorlagen. (Compare those in SH Gen 34.22–23 and Exod 12.16 with the suffixed forms at Exod 18.18, 18.24‫א‬, and Deut 1.9; but see Exod 22.26[27] and Deut 22.25 which seem to contradict this.) 496 Deut’s colophon may be added by way of SHM (→ §§1.1; 4.2).

94 | Prolegomena

1.3.2.2 Textual Nature Again, in contradistinction to the σαμ΄-type group, the μόνον-type readings are quantitative rather than qualitative. Hence, the passages are consistently attributed as “only” (μόνον / ‫ܕ‬ ‫ )ܒ‬in the “Hebrew497 SP.” It is also appropriate to further delineate this quantitative collation in contrast to GPent—not MT.498 The long-held misconception that the μόνον-passages were provided in comparison to MT was perhaps first promoted by Field (via Rahlfs and Glaue), who in his Prolegomena made reference to the musings of al-Ḥārith (→ §§1.2.2; 3.1.1) concerning the matter.499 However, the SH Exod and Num colophons (→ §§2.2; 3.2) do not necessitate this interpretation nor does the μόνον-type data align with the supposition. Thus, the SP = G ≠ MT category was not marked (→ §4.4.1) save one exceptional case (→ §2.4.2). This explains why no μόνον-type data exists for Lev, where G’s consonantal base, for the most part, aligns quantitatively with SP’s “plusses” (e.g., Lev 17.4).500 Observe a sampling of such variants from Lev 1–5: Table 1.3.2.2: A possible μόνον-collation in Lev? Lev 1.10

SP

G

‫ אל פתח אהל מועד יקריב‬και επιθησει την χειρα ‫אתו‬ επι την κεφαλην αυτου

MT

Notes

>

≠ G; μόνονeligible

>

SP = G

‫מנחה היא‬

θυσια εστιν

3.5

‫אשר על המזבח‬

+ επι του θυσιαστηριου A B x 55

>

= MSS A B x 55mx ≠ G; μόνονeligible?

3.13

‫הכהנים‬

οι ιερεις

>

SP = G

2.1

|| 497 For the quantitative overtones of this terminology, see the analysis of the SH Exod colophon below (→ §2.2). Of course, the pre-SP text-type was unknown in this period, thus “only.” 498 Quantitative variants of a single word appear to have not been marked or at least not consistently (→ Tables 1.3.2.2 and 3.4.2). 499 The “Jewish” text al-Ḥārith mentioned could have been GPent, not MT (→ §1.2.2; cp. Rahlfs and Glaue 1911: 61). Either way, al-Ḥārith cannot sustain MT as the comparative base. 500 Thus the pondering of Pummer (1998: 270, n. 1) may be addressed. Kim holds that MT suffers haplography at Lev 17.4 as opposed to G and SP (1994: 10, with n. 27, also p. 153). Compare the same textual circumstances at SP Num 4.14‫א‬, which is similarly unmarked because, quantitatively, SP = GNum ≠ MT. The apparent absence of the μόνον-collation in Gen is a mystery. No hexaplaric MS evidence survives for it (→ EXCURSUS D).

The σαμ΄ and μόνον-Group Readings: A Typological Comparison | 95

Lev

SP

G

MT

Notes

3.16

‫ ליהוה‬1°

τω κυριω

>

SP = G

4.5

‫אשר מלא את ידו‬

ο τετελειωμενος τας χειρας

>

SP = G

4.7

‫באצבעו‬

>

>

quant. ≠ G

4.17

‫מן הדם‬

>

>

quant. ≠ G

‫הקדש‬

του αγιου

>

SP = G

‫הכהן‬

ο ιερευς

>

SP = G

>

SP = G

‫ממצות‬

SP = G

εν αυτη

>

SP = G

ου σφαζουσιν

>

SP = G

‫המזבח‬

SP = G

>

SP (< η αμ.) ≈ G

4.18

‫קטרת הסמים‬ 4.27

‫מכל מצות‬

4.28

‫עליה‬

4.29

‫אשר ישחטו את‬

των θυμιαματων της συνθεσεως απο πασων των εντολων

του θυσιαστηριου της ολοκ. ης ημαρτεν, και αφεθησεται αυτω η αμαρτια

4.34

‫מזבח העלה‬

5.6

‫על חטאתו אשר חטא‬ ‫ונסלח לו‬

5.8

‫הכהן‬

ο ιερευς

>

SP = G

5.24 (6.5)

‫דבר‬

πραγματος

>

SP = G

5.25 (6.6)

>

SP = non-hexaplaric G

‫אל‬ ‫הכהן‬

cp. sub ※ (see AppI)

Had the hexaplaric collation of SP been intended to contrast SP with MT, many such notes ought to have occurred. This was clearly not the case. Furthermore, the μόνον-evidence transmits several collation notes. The annotations, found in Exod and Deut, are of three kinds: a) notes demarking certain “omissions” found in the SP exemplar(s) used (Exod and [SHV] Deut), b) one remark on transposition (→ §2.4.1, Exod only), and c) a number of cross-references found in SH Deut 1–3 (cp. Procopius and CatNic → §§3.3.1 at Num 13.33‫§ ;ו–א‬3.3.3 at Num 14.45‫ )]א‬referencing the μόνονpassages found in SP Num.

96 | Prolegomena

The linguistic and functional character of these notes confirms their origin was with the Caesarean, hexaplaric collator(s). While the evidence strongly supports the quantitative nature of the μόνονpassages, there is one501 critical exception to this otherwise steadfast rule: SP Deut 27.4, reading Gerizim for Ebal (→ §§2.3.3; 4.3.3). This reading has been previously classified a σαμ΄ reading because of the anonymous scholion contained in catena sources.502 However, this assessment is incorrect: the reading contained therein (as opposed to the further information supplied in the scholion proper) should be restored to SH by means of the corresponding evidence in Jacob of Edessa’s recension, Isho’dad of Merv’s Comm., and Barhebraeus’ Scholia (→ §4.3.3). These three bearers of SH’s tradition collectively (but independently of one another) support the reading’s having fallen out of SH Deut—particularly Jacob, whose recension has no known relationship with the catena and can be utilized to restore a number of other μόνον-passages in Deut which suffered much during transmission (→ §4.3.1). As such, it is here restored to the μόνον-group. Another very likely exception is the χολ scholion (→ §4.3.4 at Deut 27.26). The origins of this particular scholion are somewhat complex; nevertheless, it may be restored to the μόνον-collation with near certainty. Most probably, it was specially selected by the Caesarean collator(s) from Origen’s exegetical work (on Gal 3.10, not Deut) due to its textual relationship to the verse in question. That the hexaplaric editor(s) opted to do so is not exceptional as the colophons to Prov (SH) and Ezek (CODEX Q) readily attest (→ APPENDIX). 1.3.2.3 Relationship to Samaritan Exegesis The μόνον-translation exhibits the following characteristics vis-à-vis the unvocalized Hebrew SP: 1) The individual readings show no textual affinity with the so-called preSamaritan MSS.503

|| 501 Note that both the Samaritan Itinerary, i.e., Deut 10.6–6‫–א‬7–7‫–א‬6 and the reading at Deut 34.1b–1‫–א‬2 ought to be described as both quantitative and qualitative (→ §4.3.2). Num 21.22+, 22‫ב–א‬, though codicologically difficult, may be another such case (→ §3.3.2). 502 See, e.g., Joosten (2015: 4) having recently done so. 503 Previous statements to this effect primarily resulted from 4Q22’s “lack” of Exod 20.17‫ו–א‬, the STC (e.g., Dexinger 1981: 108–09), or comparing such with the σαμ΄ group (e.g., Crown 1994: 29). However, comparison of the readings within the shared “expansions” reveals the μόνον-

The σαμ΄ and μόνον-Group Readings: A Typological Comparison | 97

2)

The delimitations of the excerpted passages are precise (disallowing a loose excerpting or epitomizing). 3) The μόνον-translation conveys no demonstrable knowledge of Samaritan vocalization or exegetical traditions (as in ST and the Samaritan reading tradition). 4) Rather, as Montfaucon astutely perceived, septuagintism is the principal interpretive characteristic of these Greek “translations.” Thus, the translator(s), working from a real, physical Samaritan Hebrew Pentateuch, used the corresponding GPent passages as a guide for his renderings. That this process led to the extant passages is supported from both the translations themselves (obviously cribbed from the G parallels) as well as accompanying notes and scholia, specifically the Num 13.1‫ ד–א‬scholion and, most especially, the SH Deut 1.6–8 cross-reference note (→ §3.3.1 at Num 13.33‫ ו–א‬and §3.3.3 at Num 13.1‫)ד–א‬, the latter heretofore unacknowledged504 by scholars. These notes confirm the μόνον-translation was the work of the Christian, Caesarean collator(s). His process resulted in essentially bastardized Greek renderings which, while translating a Samaritan Hebrew source, are obviously not “Samaritan” in the same sense as the σαμ΄-type readings. For an hypothesis on how the μόνον-texts may have been manufactured—requiring nothing more than a rather basic knowledge of Hebrew—see below (→ §4.4.1). 1.3.2.4 Discernable Historical Background: Eusebius of Caesarea, the Principal Investigator of the μόνον-Collation Unlike the σαμ΄-group, whose date and provenance are unclear, the μόνον-data permits more precise historical reconstruction. This is due not only to the above-mentioned scholia but also, above all, to the SH colophons. Unlike previous studies, the present endeavor will allot a great deal of weight to these colophons, which themselves will be discussed, at length, before examination of their respective readings. While these are not without interpretive difficulties and ambiguities, the SH subscriptions place the μόνον-type readings’ terminus ad quem, with no hesitation, at Eusebius’ death (ca. 340 CE). This predates the

|| type’s Vorlage was indeed textually closer to the extant medieval codices of SP itself than the pre-Samaritan group (i.e., 4Q22 or 4Q27, → §7.1). 504 To my knowledge, I was the first to draw attention to this cross-reference note in my 2021b article, based on the unpublished dissertation version (2016) of this study.

98 | Prolegomena

creation of the catena as well as any explicit σαμ΄-type evidence, i.e., Gie or Carl 49, by approximately 150–200 or more years.505 These hexaplaric colophons explicitly state that it was Eusebius who “set” the SP passages “in the margins” of his ἀντίγραφον (thus the SH Num subscription → §3.2) of the hexaplaric ἔκδοσις, which he “edited” himself (so SH Exod’s colophon → §2.2). The present study maintains that Eusebius did not use or otherwise build upon any work on SP, textual or otherwise, undertaken by Origen. Rather, the Caesarean bishop alone was responsible for the μόνον-collation from beginning to end (→ §6.2). Furthermore, occasionally, later hexaplaric witnesses (or sources definitively connected to hexaplaric MSS), for whatever reason, integrated μόνον-passages into their running texts. These readings are not evidence of Kahle’s Vulgärtexte (→ §1.2.3.3), but rather bear the markers of the μόνον-typology. The integrations are of two kinds: 1) those which only supplement or blend their running text with μόνον-readings; and 2) those which, when necessary, replace their running text with μόνον-readings. Indeed, many of these passages survived solely due to their integration. This is important as the integrated passages at times include texts not represented by SH’s branch of the tradition (→ §§2.5; 3.3.2 at Num 32.1+ and 29+), suggesting the original μόνον-collation, as described in the colophons, was perhaps more comprehensive than the SH’s translated exemplars indicate (→ §2.6).

1.4 The Impetus, Character, and Utility of the Present Study 1.4.1 The (Syro)Hexaplaric Witness to the Samaritan Pentateuch Given the subject matter, the present study has dual purpose. On the one hand, this is an hexaplaric study, focusing primarily on the Christian, hexaplaric witness to SP. As such, it has implications for the hexaplaric tradition, the wider Septuagint MS tradition, and early Christian interaction with Scripture as demonstrated by scribal-editorial practice (→ §§3.4; 6). On the other hand, is imperative to underscore the fact that the μόνον-data transmitted in hexaplaric sources bear importance for Samaritan studies (→ §7). Aside from the meagre evidence found in citations in the work of the Samaritan poet Marqe,506 Eusebi-

|| 505 This latter time period presumes the Cyril readings are false hits (→ §§1.3.1.1; 7.2). 506 The Samaritan midrashic composition Tībåt Mårqe (3rd / 4th cent. CE) frequently quotes SP and ST (→ §7.1), even at times mixing both (ed. Tal 2019: 8–9; see his index on pp. 625–36 for the citations). Note that there are also complications in the MS tradition (see Tal, “Tībåt Mårqe,”

The Impetus, Character, and Utility of the Present Study | 99

us’ μόνον-collation, as represented in hexaplaric sources, serves as the oldest witness507 to the textual and literary shape of SP. Thus, the following examination of these readings fully reconstructs the process whereby the passages where identified, collated, translated, and transmitted in the hexaplaric recension, not only for the purposes of elucidating the hexaplaric Textgeschichte, but also to provide proper historical context for assessing the oldest textual evidence for the Samaritans’ Holy Writ. This dual purpose is the prime impetus underpinning the study’s attention to minutiae. When correctly interpreted, the testimony of these μόνον-data predates the oldest extant SP codices by approximately 700 years.508 A study of this sort is a desideratum, especially in connection with the new editio maior of SP, currently ongoing under the editorial leadership of Prof. Dr. Stefan Schorch.509 Using the μόνον-data as textual evidence for SP requires a study of this kind, even if the results play a very modest role in the editions.510 Correspondingly, with respect to hexaplaric studies specifically, and Greek Bible generally, if the present study’s interpretations are approved, || CSS, 235–36; and also his edition’s Introduction and 2020: §§2–3). The earliest witness to the text dates to the 14th cent. (Tal’s MS K in the edition; see his ed. 2019: 9–10). 507 This study adheres to the dating Magen gives for the Samaritan Decalogue Inscriptions (→ EXCURSUS A and §7.1.2), each of which he assigns to the (early) Byzantine period or later (2008: 231), including the Beit al-Mā inscription, traditionally assigned a very early date (1st–3rd cent. CE; see, e.g., Baillet, DBSup 11.867; Dexinger 1977: 117, 132). For Magen’s assessment assigning a much later date, see his treatment (2008: 234–35; approved by Pummer 2016: 214). Note also, that even assuming an earlier date, some would contest or heavily qualify the Decalogue Inscriptions’ textual value (e.g., Dexinger 1977). 508 Even if the passages could not be dated earlier than SH, those in Exod would still physically precede SP MSS by 400 years. 509 At the time of this writing, thus far the volumes for Lev (2018) and Gen (2021) have been issued. The edition of Exod is presently in process. On the need to replace von Gall’s “unsatisfactory” edition (thus McCarthy 2004: 119), see, e.g., Schorch (ed.) 2021: xxxix, and Knoppers 2017: 173–74, among others. See the appraisal of Tov (2015: 250): “[von Gall’s edition] is detailed and accurate, but the reconstructed text is artificially close to MT because von Gall often chose readings that were identical to MT.” With respect to the present study, Schorch’s edition and apparatuses obviously cannot have been completely accounted for. 510 The readings from this study would be set in Schorch’s AppIV “par.ex.” that supplying textual parallels external to the native Samaritan tradition (for explanation, see ed. Schorch 2021: lii–liv). While the source of the hexaplaric collation was “native” in the sense that a true Samaritan Hebrew exemplar was used, the means by which its readings from the collation were created (i.e., septuagintism) and disseminated (i.e., in Christian hexaplaric sources) are external to the Samaritan tradition itself. As such, the readings do not completely comply with the function of Schorch’s AppIV (ed. 2021: lii, “record … non-Samaritan textual witnesses”). Additionally, the advantages of the register for “… reconstruct[ing] aspects of the growth of the Pentateuch …” expected by Knoppers (2017: 181) are also somewhat obscured.

100 | Prolegomena

hypotheses such as those by Kohn or Kahle (→ §§1.2.3.1; 1.2.3.3), or those who take their theories as their starting point, need not be repeated.

1.4.2 Remarks on the Format and Character of the Present Study The format of what follows is that of a textual-historical commentary. Every aspect of the data in question (e.g., codicological, mise-en-page, textual, later reception, etc.) has been probed in order to illuminate the historical context in which these readings were created and then subsequently developed, transmitted, and even adopted. The outline is as follows: CHAPTERS 2, 3, and 4 each take up the challenges present in the whole of the recoverable μόνον-data for Exod, Num, and Deut, respectively. Special attention is paid to both philological and text-historical issues, particularly as the bulk of the evidence is extant only in Syriac. Therefore, much energy is expended in an effort to retrovert (i.e., back-translate) accurately the Syriac into its putative Greek original stemming from Eusebius’ work; thus Field’s earlier retroversions have been corrected, supplemented, and annotated. Further, where reconstructed Greek readings proved exceptional vis-à-vis the extant SP, possible early Samaritan Hebrew variants are discussed. Parallel texts with the original languages and other comparative notes are supplied whenever possible in the immediate vicinity of the relevant analysis. The annotated transcriptions are given with accompanying ETs. The goal of this approach is to obviate any potential language barrier. As a result, those without training in Syriac should be able to access the main points of the study without much difficultly. On the text-historical side, a great deal of time is allocated to analyzing the colophons for SH Exod (→ §2.2) and SH Num (→ §3.2) as well as their accompanying collation and attribution/cross-reference annotations. These data reveal the process whereby the μόνον-passages were added to the hexaplaric tradition and transmitted by subsequent scribal hands. Most importantly, as mentioned earlier, the SH Num colophon identifies Eusebius of Caesarea as the one who was responsible for adding these Samaritan data into the margins of the hexaplaric ἔκδοσις he edited (viz., his ἀντίγραφον). CHAPTER 4 presents, for the first time, all of the hexaplaric μόνον-evidence which can be recovered in Deut, thanks in large part to the textual witness of Jacob of Edessa (d. 708 CE) and MS 767. Furthermore, prominence is given to the cross-reference scholia extant in SH(V) Deut (→ §3.3.1 at Num 13.33‫)ו–א‬. These shed further light on the purpose and procedure of Eusebius, in his role as the “principal investigator” of the Caesarean hexaplaric collation of SP.

The Impetus, Character, and Utility of the Present Study | 101

After the earliest recoverable strata of the μόνον-evidence has been examined, CHAPTER 5 specially examines those MSS evincing subsequent scribal integration. This phenomenon, whereby certain scribe(s) and/or biblical editor(s) added the originally marginal, Samaritan passages directly into their running text is much more common than the paucity of evidence for the earliest stratum would suggest. Generally speaking the analysis centers on those witnesses which have not been the central focus of passages in CHH 2–4. Chief of these is Jacob of Edessa’s recension of the Pentateuch (hereafter JPent, BnF Syr. 27B, unpublished); for throughout his revised Syriac text, specifically in the books of Exod (JExod), Num (JNum), and most importantly Deut (JDeut → §4.3), the Syriac Orthodox polymath threaded a great many of these passages from SH into his running text (see → Table 5.2.3.1). His witness is important, not only for SH Deut, for which JDeut can be used to reconstruct the extant of the original collation (→ §4.3.1), but also as his is the earliest known attestation to the integration phenomenon itself. JPent therefore represents an example of a late antique Christian appreciation of SP which is otherwise unattested. Other such witnesses postdate 1000 CE and transmit far fewer readings (e.g., s-group MS 343). CHAPTER 6 focuses on the historical implications of the data for early Christian scribal culture as follows: §6.1 – Was there a Samaritan column in the Hexapla Maior? §6.2 – Was Eusebius solely responsible for the μόνον-translation/-collation or was his work based on earlier (potentially Origen’s) materials? §6.3 – Implications for Early Christian Biblical Scholarship and Manuscript Culture. Considerations of Eusebius’ motive for investigating SP and publishing the collation for wider circulation are primarily deliberated in CHAPTER 7 (→ §7.3). CHAPTER 7 then considers the data’s historical implications for Samaritan studies. Unfortunately, very little direct evidence survives, and thus great caution is requisite as confirmation from contemporary Samaritan sources is not extant. Nonetheless, it is this very paucity of evidence which ought to encourage careful reconstructions. Historical topics considered are as follows: §7.1 – The (textual and literary shape of) SP in the age of Eusebius. §7.2 – The existence (or lack thereof?) of the Samareitikon. §7.3 – The state of Christian-Samaritan relations. How to navigate this study Given the textual-historical commentary design of the present work, there is a certain (at times very) tedious attention to detail. My inclination was to err on

102 | Prolegomena

the side of too much discussion than too little. There is also a good deal of repetition. The work is designed to be of use for those who perhaps are only interested in the textual history of a given book or passage. (Naturally, the chapters vary widely in length reflecting the extant data.) Therefore, in an attempt to serve as a reference work, a great amount of internal cross-referencing, signaled by the symbol → §, is used to point readers towards section(s) related to a given passage. Thus, if further information on a related item of interest is required, one need only consult the cross-referenced section(s) therein indicated. Note, however, that the information in this Prolegomena chapter is assumed. Furthermore, within the opening sections of CHH II–IV, short but detailed introductions to the major previous editions and studies relevant to each biblical book are provided. Generally only critical editions which researchers still use are discussed.511 Lastly, the APPENDIX, contains texts and ETs of all hexaplaric colophons, a supplementary table on the σαμ΄ readings in major editions, as well as plates of some of the MSS discussed throughout this study. Given that the physical presentation of the readings in the MSS often factors into the analysis, these are intended as more than mere illustrations. A special note on MSS referenced and sigla used All G MSS are referred to by their Rahlfs/Göttingen numbers save when Wevers used something different in his editions (e.g., Gie, Thess, etc.). All MSS are provided with their respective group in superscript: 58O, i.e., MS 58 from the O group. MSS cited from any other ancient source are referred to either by a predetermined abbreviation or the respective siglum as provided in their relevant editions. (For which, see ABBREVIATIONS and BIBLIOGRAPHY.) Where a MS is referenced by folio number, unless otherwise noted, I have checked them directly even if they are available in a modern edition. For these, if the MS’ images have been posted online, the URL is supplied, usually at the first instance. 

|| 511 Thus, the critical judgments of Wevers and Field are consulted habitually, while BrookeMcLean (Br.-M.) is not regularly referenced. The remarks of superseded editions (i.e., the London Polyglot) are not discussed, even if they provided useful comments omitted by modern editions (e.g., Walton’s mention of Procopius of Gaza’s cross-referencing remarks in his Comm. on Deut. → §§3.3.2).

Excursus A: The Samaritan Script Known to Eusebius | 103

EXCURSUS A: The Samaritan Script Known to Eusebius Before commencing examination of the hexaplaric witness to SP, a brief outline of recent research on the date of Samaritan script ought to be sketched. Traditionally, scholars have operated under the assumption that the Samaritan script, as an evolution of “paleo-Hebrew”512 script, is to be dated sometime around the later Second Temple period, specifically the (late) Hasmonean period, at least according to J. Purvis’ seminal paleographical study.513 Yet, recent excavations of the sacred precinct on Gerizim evince early inscriptions only in paleo-Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic/square script; any in the Samaritan script are dated to the medieval period.514 Furthermore, the earliest known examples of the traditional Samaritan script come from oil lamps, the earliest of which dates to the 4th cent. CE.515 As a result of these data, in combination with a remark from the Babylonian Talmud (Sanh. 21b) by Rav Hisda (died 308/9 CE) interpreted as indicating that the Samaritans used old Hebrew script for their Torah, some scholars hold that SP was probably transmitted in paleo-Hebrew script until the time before the oil lamps.516 Presumably, the Samaritans developed their own particular script, based on the paleo-Hebrew script used by the priests on Mt. Gerizim,517 sometime during the Samaritan flourishing resulting from, as some would have it, the Samaritan revival/renaissance associated with “Baba Rabba” ca. 3rd/4th cent CE.518 As a further wrinkle for this issue, Dayfani || 512 Note Magen uses the term “Neo-Hebrew” for what is more commonly called “paleoHebrew,” at least in traditional English-speaking scholarship (2008: 231). 513 1968: 50–52. Purvis: If the Samaritan had branched off from the palaeo-Hebrew prior to the Hasmonaean period, the forms of the Samaritan letters would be very different from what they are, and they would probably exhibit as great a disparity from the Hasmonaean forms as they presently do from the forms of the Roman coin script, if not a greater one (p. 52). Some scholars preferred later dates, for which see Pummer’s survey (2016: 213–16) and Dayfani 2018: 4–6. 514 Magen 2008: 231–40; D. Barag 2009: 303–04; Pummer 2016: 82, 215. 515 Magen 2008: 235–36, with fig. 7. Magen specifies that the lamps are “late” 4th or 5th cent. CE. See also Barag 2009: 304–11, with figures. The latter notes that V. Sussman, who originally published these findings in 1978, dated this class of lamp, found in the hill country of Samaria among other places, to the late 3rd/early 4th cent. CE (p. 305). 516 Magen 2008: 236–37; Barag 2009: 318; Pummer 2016: 215. 517 Magen 2008: 233–34; Pummer 2016: 214; Kartveit 2019: §7. 518 Thus Magen 2008: 236. Barag is more circumspect and credits this development as a “defensive reactio[n]” meant to preserve the Samaritan religious and cultural identity vis-à-vis

104 | Prolegomena

has recently argued that graphic variants between MT and SP suggest that the latter was transmitted, at least in its early stages, in both paleo-Hebrew and square script, akin to the epigraphic evidence from the Gerizim excavations.519 Based on the reconstruction in the present study, it is hypothesized that Eusebius did indeed physically use a Hebrew exemplar of SP (→ §§2.2; 6.1; 6.2). Furthermore, the Caesarean bishop mentioned in his Chronicon, dated to 311 CE (→ §§6.2.1; 7.1.3), that the Samaritan script differed from Jewish script, the latter of which he also physically encountered when using the Hexapla Maior (→ §4.4.1; also §6.2.1). However, Eusebius did not actually describe any of the Samaritans’ letters; he only explained that they are “different” from those of the Jews and “not even … the Jews would probably refuse to consider [the Samaritan letters] the true and original ones.”520 Thus, in his recent survey of these data, Pummer thoughtfully asks: “Did [Eusebius] in fact mean the palaeoHebrew script rather than the Samaritan derivative?”521 Pummer’s question is germane. Aside from the historical question itself, for the present study the answer matters in that determining whether or not Eusebius’ SP was in traditional Samaritan uncial or paleo-Hebrew affects textual analysis and arguments based on graphic confusion (e.g., Exod 23.19‫§ → א‬2.5.1). Certainly Dayfani’s suggestion that SP was transmitted also in square script, while interesting on its own account, bears no relevance here. Again, Eusebius interacted with square script in the first column of the Hexapla Maior and used || Judaism and the rise of Christianity (2009: 321). Differently, M. Langlois argues the emergence of the script was not abrupt, as Barag would have it, asserting that certain of the scrolls (i.e., 6Q2 and Mas1o, the latter of which may be Samaritan!) evince the type of paleo-Hebrew which eventually developed into the Samaritan script beginning in the 2nd cent. BCE (2019: 278–82, based on his tracing of the development of the ductus of yodh in paleo-Hebrew). Langlois’ charting of the wider emergence of square script amongst Jews, and the Samaritans’ adoption of a form of paleo-Hebrew, may find support in the work of B. Zissau and O. Adabi (2015). The latter scholars posit that paleo-script was not considered holy by the Jewish community but used principally for mundane purposes. They suggest that this may help explain why the Samaritans decided to adopt this script: the Jews had more or less rejected it (2015: 662, with n. 12; but cp. differently Hendel 2016: 218–19, with n. 71, following F.M. Cross). 519 2018: passim. See also Magen (2008: 238–40) for a description of the Samaritans’ use of Aramaic “Jewish” square script, although mostly for Aramaic not Hebrew (p. 239). As Langlois points out, only one Hebrew inscription on Gerizim was written in Aramaic script (2019: 277). Compare also Barag’s comments on the use of Jewish square script for Aramaic by Samaritans in daily life (2009: 319). 520 See below (→ §6.2.1) for bibliographic references and the fuller excerpt. 521 2016: 216–17. Pummer phrased the question more broadly in terms of the “church fathers.” However, the present study contends that only Eusebius physically interacted with a Hebrew SP.

Excursus A: The Samaritan Script Known to Eusebius | 105

said column in his research (→ §6.2.1). However, it is not impossible that the Caesarean SP could have been in paleo-Hebrew.522 However, it is most improbable that Eusebius’ copy was in paleo-Hebrew. Whether one presumes a more gradual development with Langlois or an abrupt promulgation of a new script as a cultural marker with Barag—Are these positions entirely mutually exclusive?—the simple fact remains that the Caesarean SP physically predated 310 CE. By extrapolation of the data presented below, it is posited that the exemplar may well have been connected with the “reforms” (or “revivals” as Bóid construes it) of “Baba Rabba.” If then this script served a religio-cultural function, it is more likely that Eusebius’ copy was in this script than not. And the evidence from the oil lamps, dated by most accounts to the 4th cent. CE, putatively supports this supposition. After all, two of these lamps were found in Caesarea,523 Eusebius’ home and personal ecclesiastical jurisdiction. If the development of the script was prompted by the Samaritan religious authorities, then presumably the presence of the script on common items such as lamps illustrates that the script had fully permeated Samaritan society. There is then no reason to assume Eusebius’ SP was in paleo-Hebrew. Finally, in terms of the scripts employed by the present study, Samaritan is used sparingly, most often in connection with a textual discussion. Put quite simply, most students and scholars in biblical studies do not learn it. Therefore, square script is used throughout. While this is problematic,524 it is a necessary practical measure. Where Samaritan script does occur, the square equivalent is also supplied.

|| 522 As Pummer points out, Jerome’s comment that the Samaritan ‫ ת‬resembles a cross, as in paleo-Hebrew, is not proof of this; certainly the Stridonite’s comment was not based on physical usage of SP (2016: 217). See further below (→ §6.2.1; EXCURSUS D). Jerome’s source for this information was likely a combination of Eusebius’ comments in his Chronicon, Origen’s Comm Ezek (ad loc), and his well-known familiarity with, and dependence on, Jewish traditions (e.g., Rav Hisda’s mentioned above; on Jerome’s use of Jewish traditions, see H. Newman 2013: 134– 35). 523 See Barag, lamps #3 and 4a (2009: 306–07), dated relatively, exhibiting “further development” from those dated squarely to the 4th cent. CE. 524 With Knoppers 2017: 178, with n. 56, and many others.

2 The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus: Passages with Attribution and Collation Notations 2.1 Introduction to Previous Scholarship The μόνον-collation in SH Exod has received some attention in secondary literature, chiefly due to the foundational work of A.M. Ceriani. In turn, Field’s adoption and propagation of Ceriani’s analysis within the broader hexaplaric tradition exposed the latter’s study to a much broader audience. The remainder of studies are more or less derived from the work of these two great scholars.

2.1.1 Antonio Maria Ceriani’s Editio Princeps of SH Exod (1863) A.M. Ceriani,1 prefect of the Biblioteca Ambrosiana (Milan), published the editio princeps of SH Exod in 1863, comprising the vast majority of vol. 2 in the Monumenta sacra et profana series.2 This work, based on an outstanding MS (BL ADD. 12134) dated to the year 697 CE,3 was part of an ongoing effort to issue editions of SH MSS then known in Europe. Ceriani’s has since been considered an immense achievement,4 especially in terms of the typesetting and presentation of the MS’s text and marginalia.5 These were accompanied by copious notes and critical commentary, including readings from the versions then available, comparative data (even if incomplete) culled from the still unpublished recension of Jacob of Edessa (→ §§4; 5.2; 5.2.1), and various other observations. These notes range in scope from merely outlining variants to giving complex and, at times, creative explanations for the Samaritan

|| 1 For Ceriani’s lasting effect on Syriac studies, see Van Rompay’s “Ceriani, Antonio Maria (1828–1907),” GEDSH. For a brief biographical sketch, see E. Vergani’s Introduction to the Gorgias reprint of 7a1 (2013: xi–xiii). 2 Containing fascicles 1–4 (1863: vii). For the details of fascicle 5, see below (→ §2.1.2). 3 Wright, CSMBM, 1.29–31. 4 So Baars’ evaluation (1968: 9). 5 Hence Vergani’s description: “Ever since the publication of his editions in Monumenta, Ceriani had taken care of the technical problems connected with the printing of Oriental scripts and spent long hours and entire days assisting the typographers working for the [Ambrosian] Library” (2013: xiii). Indeed, when considering the presentation of the MS and its attendant signs and symbols, Ceriani’s is far closer to the actual MS than that of de Lagarde (1880 or 1892). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110760798-002

108 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

phenomena extant in SH Exod. As such, even more modern works still cite his discussion (e.g., Wevers’ AppII at Exod 8.6–7 [10–11] → §2.4.2). His analysis was penetrating and incisive, as the below interaction with his work shows. It is a great loss that Ceriani did not publish a similar study on SH Num, although his irreplaceable contributions to Field’s work permitted at least some of his insights to surface nonetheless. Unfortunately, for reasons unknown, the final fascicule was much delayed (see below).

2.1.2 Frederick Field’s Origenis Hexaplorum (1871) In Exod, Field’s work was exemplary with respect to the μόνον-readings. For while Ceriani had earlier issued the Syriac text of these readings (with LT), Field provided retroverted Greek, in smaller type, at times with Syriac terms in footnotes or parentheses intended to qualify (or excuse) his retroversions.6 He was also careful to provide, even if in LT, the attributions. Field’s μόνονretroversions are, however, imperfect, at times ironically too reliant upon the text of the G parallel (e.g., Exod 7.29‫א‬, 20.17‫ ד‬, 20.21‫]?[ ד‬, etc.). He also omitted any reference to the “SP Omits” Notation at Exod 29.20 (→ §2.4.2), an odd oversight given his inclusion of the same such notice at 8.6–7 (10–11). One important potential hexaplaric source of Samaritan readings then available to Field, though not discussed by him, was MS 58O (→ §§2.5; 3.3.2; 5.3.2). While it may not have been reasonable to assume he would have anticipated the original provenance of this MS’s integrated μόνον-readings as stemming from the same as those in SH, Field did record (from H-P) the differing presentation of certain Samaritan passages exhibited in two MSS of al-Ḥārith’s Arabic translation of the SH; for often, one would keep the Samaritan reading marginal while the other integrated it into its running text (e.g., Exod 6.9‫א‬, 7.18‫ג–א‬, etc.).7 Certainly, the passages in MS 58 at Exod 23.19‫א‬,8 27.19‫א‬, and

|| 6 His decision to provide retroversions was of course a practical decision as then many educated persons would have known Greek but not necessarily Syriac. Norton’s assessment of his retroversions is worth repeating: “… in some cases more recent discoveries have confirmed Field’s retroversions, and increased confidence in the retroversions which remain unconfirmed. Familiarity with Field’s work breeds only awe” (1991: 132, n. 17; also Law 2007: 44). 7 Field: “… Arab. 1 (in mar.), 2 (in textu)” (1.90, n. 10, and 92, n. 18); see also his entry for the reading in Exod 11 (→ §2.3.1 ad loc). 8 For Field’s comments on the reading in MS 58 for this passage (1.121, n. 17 and 295, n. 23), see §2.5.1 below. He did not mention or otherwise indicate he suspected it could have been a Samaritan text.

Introduction to Previous Scholarship | 109

32.10‫ א‬are unique enough to have piqued Field’s interest if he imagined the possibility that, like the second of the two al-Ḥārith MSS, scribes could or would have integrated this material.9 This line of questioning is supported by Field’s use of MS 15oI (→ §3.3.2 at Num 32.1+ and 9+) at Deut 34.1b–1‫–א‬2 (→ §4.3.2); there 15’s Greek was employed for part of SH’s retroversion in his edition, despite H-P saying nothing of 15’s partial concord with SP. Nevertheless, if Field suspected a connection between MS 58 and the hexaplaric μόνον-passages, he never explicitly stated as much. Special Bibliographic Note on Ceriani’s Fifth Fascicule Field specifically mentions in his prefatory “In Librum Exodi Monitum” that he used Ceriani’s edition of SH Exod, which at that point covered only up through 33.2. He added further: “…we are indeed indebted to the eminent [Ceriani]’s benevolence towards us for the profitable use of a small part of his work [on SH Exod] not yet published.”10 He then proceeded to directly quote Ceriani six times in his edition after 33.2; of these six occurrences, only two reproduce verbatim what was eventually published in the final part of Ceriani’s Monumenta vol. 2.11 Thus, Field clearly had access to some kind of draft of the remainder of Ceriani’s work. It is often repeated, even in more contemporary scholarship,12 that Ceriani’s edition was published in four fascicules, being pp. 1–344 in the second volume of Monumenta sacra et profana, and covered only, as Field stated, up to and including Exod 33.2.13 However, this is incorrect. A fifth fascicule14 was in

|| 9 Perhaps Field was simply following the precedent set by R. Holmes (1798). All four of 58’s integrated μόνον-passages (→ §2.5) were listed without comment in his edition (see, ad loc; cp. however at Num 21.22‫ב–א‬, 21.24+, and 32.1+ & 9+ below → §§3.3.2). 10 … cujus [sc. Ceriani] insigni erga nos benevolentiae etiam particulae operis nondum editae usumfructum debemus (1.79). 11 The verbatim citations are in Field at Exod 39.16(23) (1.158, n. 6 = Ceriani 1863: 394) and 39.38(10) (1.158, n. 11 = 1863: 397). Those at Exod 37.17(16) (1.154, n. 27 = 1863: 378) and 37.26 (1.153, n. 13 = 1863: 380) are nearly exact, differing in a word or two. Those citations at 39.28(36) (1.158, n. 8 = 1863: 395) and 40.29–32(26) (1.162, n. 25 = 1863: 402) are much less exact. Field’s reference to Ceriani’s interpretation of the Exod colophon (1.90, n. 10) is ambiguous but probably refers principally to 1863: 153 (at Exod 6.9‫ )א‬rather than Ceriani’s actual discussion (→ §2.2). 12 E.g., Baars 1968: 9; see also CBS, 1973: 192. Similar bibliographic notices are uniform throughout secondary literature. 13 Vergani’s listing of the Monumenta volumes is an exception (2013: xii, with n. 52), though he does not explain the delay in Ceriani’s publications nor supply the date of the final section. 14 Determining the date of the fifth fascicule (pp. 345–408) is difficult given that the copy of the edition I was able to procure (via Google Books©, bearing stamps from Oxford’s Bodleian Library) had been rebound without the title plate of fascicule 5. Most copies I was able to find,

110 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

fact published by Ceriani covering the remainder of Exod including the colophon.15 It seems Field had access to Ceriani’s prepublished discussion of the colophon, although he made very little mention of it.16 Insofar as the current study is concerned, Ceriani’s fifth fascicule of Monumenta is important for his LT and (comparatively) limited comments on the problematic SH Exod colophon (→ §2.2). In this study, the entirety of the work is referenced by the date 1863.

2.1.3 The Editions of Paul A. de Lagarde (1892) and Brooke-McLean (1909) Two editions of SH Exod were issued by Paul Anton de Lagarde (1827–91). The first was published in 1880 where he edited the SH MSS extant in London and Paris, including the whole of BL ADD. 12134 which, at that point, had not been completed by Ceriani (→ §2.1.2).17 Thus, de Lagarde’s 1880 work, printed in Aramaic square script,18 was the first to publish the whole of SH Exod, the colophon

|| from major libraries participating in recent book scanning programs, appear to have editions which only contain the first four fascicules (pp. 1–344) dated to 1863 the first fascicule’s year of publication. However, a notice in Appendice al catalogo delle edizioni Hoepli (1905) clearly states that the fifth fascicule of Monumenta vol. 2, containing “Reliquum versionis SyroHexaplaris libri Exodi et praefatio” (bold original) was “in preparazione” (p. 18). Given that Ceriani died in 1907, presumably the work was released sometime around 1907 or thereabouts. 15 Ceriani even reproduced and explained the procurement notice written in English at the end of the MS (fol. 134b) by Sir Frederic Madden (d. 1873), then Keeper of Manuscripts in the British Museum (see M. Borrie, ‘Madden, Sir Frederic [1801–1873]’, ODNB (http://www. oxforddnb.com/view/article/17751). The volume also included a short transcription of SH Lev 19.10–19 (pp. 407–408) taken from lectionary MSS as well as Addenda to the edition (p. 406). 16 The sole mention of the SH Exod colophon I could find in Field is a very brief comment at Exod 6.9‫§ →( א‬2.3.1), as follows: E textu autem Graeco hexaplaribus codicibus apposito Nostrum lectiones suas Hebraeo-Samaritanas vertisse, diserte testator subscriptio in calce libri Exodi. Vid. Ceriani ad loc. “However our SP readings have been altered according to the Greek added (marginally) in the hexaplaric codices, as the SH Exod colophon at the end of the book clearly testifies; see Ceriani ad loc” (1.90, n. 10). It is unclear what exactly Field means, since the colophon does not in any way explain the process of septuagintization (→ §2.2). It seems from this remark that Field did not mean to explain this change but only to clarify that the Syriac translator(s) was not responsible for them and that said readings were altered. Ceriani did remark on the septuagintisms in the translation where they occurred (see below passim). 17 De Lagarde: “Antonius Ceriani mediolanensis quum edi ab se coeptam octateuchi hexaplaric versionem syriacam ultra Exodi 33,2 non continuasset, quae Genesi meae 22 praefatus promiseram, facere non gravatus sum” (1880: iii). 18 Baars described this 1880 edition as issued “in a typographically inadequate way” (1968: 9). See also de Lagarde 1892: 5.

Introduction to Previous Scholarship | 111

included. This edition was superseded by the posthumous collection of texts, issued (this time in proper Syriac script) and supplemented by A. Rahlfs in 1892 (SHL, → §1.1). In both editions, de Lagarde provided transcriptions of the Samaritan readings in SH Exod without any kind of assessment or translation. The so-called “Larger” Cambridge Septuagint (1906—; Exodus and Leviticus, 1909) edited by Alan E. Brooke (1863–1939) and Norman McLean (1865–1947) used de Lagarde’s 1892 edition for SH.19 The μόνον-readings and attributions are given in AppII (the bottom apparatus) in LT, accompanied by select Syriac terms, often proper names, e.g., (passim), ‫( ܓ‬Exod 8.19[23]‫ג‬, etc.). The specific wording of the attribution notes is nearly always sacrificed (e.g., 8.1[5]‫א‬, 9.5‫ )א‬or even paraphrased (e.g., 6.9‫)א‬. Being a diplomatic edition of CODEX B, Brooke-McLean made it clear that their purpose was not to reprint Field.20 Rather, they intended to give a full account of the relevant evidence in AppII from the MSS which they had actively collated, one of which was SHL.

2.1.4 The MIDYAT CODEX (1975) and John W. Wevers’ Göttingen Edition (1991) The field of syrohexaplaric studies was greatly aided by Arthur Vööbus’ (1909– 88) discovery in 1964 of a nearly complete SH Pent MS in Midyat (SHV = SyhT in Wevers’ editions).21 However, due to the fact that the SHL MS was already known, and without lacuna, the more recent witness to SH Exod in SHV (ca. 12th cent. CE)22 adds little to the present investigation although it is much more significant for SH Num (→ §§3.1.4; 3.2). The MIDYAT CODEX, however, does shed light on the history of the μόνον-passages in Exod, ironically, by subtraction. For the MS reveals a stage of transmission when scribes apparently cared less for such readings, omitting all the Exod Samaritan data after 9.5‫ →( ה–א‬EXCURSUS B). Nevertheless, SHV’s witness to the Exod colophon, though textually secondary, still bears some value for matters regarding interpretation (→ §2.2). The edition of Exodus (1991) prepared by the lauded Septuagintist John William Wevers (1919–2010) was the final volume of the Göttingen Pent published. || 19 1906, 1/1.vi. 20 1906, 1/1.iv. 21 For the volume’s chain of ownership up until its publication, see Vööbus 1975: 28–29. The codex is now part of Princeton University’s Scheide Library designated MS 150. On which, see https://dpul.princeton.edu/scheide/about/scheide-library. I would like to thank both Prof. P. Gentry (see ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS) and Dr. Paul Needham (email communication, April 2020), the former Scheide Librarian, for the most recent information about this treasure. 22 Vööbus 1975: 34.

112 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

Accordingly, the underlying THGE volume (1992) was also the last published; conversely, however, NGTE (1990) was the first issued of his commentaries. This sequence is relevant in that only in NGTE did he attempt to proffer any kind of comment on the μόνον-readings extant in G MSS (→ §2.5). Unfortunately, his remarks were little more than quizzical observations noting certain MSS’ occasional agreement with SP. Wevers, in continuity with Brooke-McLean, provided SH’s μόνον-passages in LT23 yet obscured the SH’s attribution notations further still, regularly offering the truncated form: “ex Sam secundum Syh: cf [relevant parallel(s)].” He also ignored the fact the μόνον-passages were transmitted sub ※ in SH Exod.24 Most unfortunately, in contrast to some Göttingen editors (e.g. J. Ziegler’s editions), no mention was made of the SH Exod colophon. These decisions have led to some confusion in even more recent scholarship as to how these passages came to be in the hexaplaric tradition.25 Wevers stated he used

|| 23 Wevers made clear that the use of LT in AppII for this purpose was not his decision and that such was both a source of annoyance to him and confusion for the users of his editions. On this, see A. Salvesen’s recollection of his comments on the matter from the IOSCS meeting at the 2002 SBL conference (2016: 296, n. 42). 24 This was a departure from Br.-M. Most were, however, marked as an addition with “+.” 25 E.g., See Ulrich’s discussion of these passages based solely (?) on their presentation in Wevers’ edition: In editing [4Q22] and further studies I have found a number of other putative “Samaritan” readings preserved in LXX MSS which strongly support Pummer’s argument [from his 1987 study] on a broader scale: that Greek readings initially considered “Samaritan” may well have derived from broader Jewish sources. [He cites examples.] Many other “Samaritan” readings are attested in the Syro-Hexapla without LXX MSS, e.g.: Exod 6:9b; 7:18b; [he lists many others and then continues:] These ancient Greek readings, often attributed to “Samaritan” influence[*], indicate that other Greek textual witnesses with expanded readings which used to be labeled “Samaritan” should be more accurately seen as “general Jewish” (2012: 362–63). In his footnote “*,” Ulrich clarified: “Note, e.g., Wevers’ annotation “ex Sam secundum Syh” after many of the Syh readings cited above. “Sam” is accurate insofar as the readings are in the SP, but it is difficult to see how LXX MSS and the Syro-Hexapla would have derived them from (“ex”) the SP specifically” (2012: 363, n. 9, emphasis mine). While Ulrich’s point is well taken insofar as the textual history of the pre-Samaritan texttype is concerned (→ §1.1.2.3), the SH Exod colophon—and the full form of the attribution notes—both make it clear that these texts were specifically taken from SP, and that they were purposefully transmitted as such by the hexaplaric stream. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the passages reflect a pre-Samaritan, “general Jewish,” text-type versus the standard SP (→ §2.3, et al). Potentially, this confusion could have been avoided had Wevers included a short discussion of the colophon in his Einleitung. Ulrich’s statement, however mistaken, aligns with

The Colophon to Syrohexapla Exodus | 113

the editions of de Lagarde and Vööbus, in addition to photographs possessed by the Unternehmen.26 With Field, he omitted the notation at Exod 29.20 while retaining that at 8.6–7 (10–11).

2.2 The Colophon to Syrohexapla Exodus Since William Wright’s (1830–89)27 transcription and ET of the SH Exod colophon was published in 1870,28 a fully-fledged SH subscription has been available to the wider scholarly community. Certainly, the Exod colophon is one of the more challenging examples, posing difficulties caused by both philological ambiguities and historical obscurities. Despite such troubles, the subscription specifically describes the addition of the Samaritan data to the hexaplaric tradition, and as such, the following will attempt to address these issues in an effort to clarify the subscription vis-à-vis the μόνον-collation. In the following, the transcription of SH Exod’s colophon will be accompanied by an hypothetical Greek retroversion, an ET, notes concerning philological issues and ambiguities, and an historical analysis (with hypothetical MS stemma). In the discussion, extant Greek and Syriac colophons are frequently referenced, for which one may consult the transcriptions and ETs provided in the → APPENDIX.29 The Syriac text of the SH Exod colophon reads as follows: SH Exodus Colophon: Text, retroversion, and translation SHL (fols. 132b–133a → PLATE II); SHV (fol. 65a)

‫ ܨ ܐ ܕ ̇ܗܘ ܕ‬2 ‫܀܀܀‬

‫ܬܐ ܕ ܒ‬

‫ܐܐ‬

‫ܒܐ ܕ‬ ̣

1

|| Kahle’s earlier erroneous interpretation (→ §1.2.3.3) and an analogous mistake made by Gaster (1925: 128–29; see W. Meeks 1967: 250, n. 3). 26 Exod, 37–38. 27 On whom, see S.P. Brock’s “Wright, William,” GEDSH. 28 CSMBM, 1.30. De Lagarde’s 1880 edition was the first presentation of the colophon (pp. 162–63) in the context of the whole MS but lacked any translation. 29 (Syro)hexaplaric colophons have received only a small amount of frequently incomplete treatment in secondary literature, Mercati’s 1941 study being the only attempt at a thorough treatment of the subscriptions then known (see also Devreesse 1954: 123–24). Zuntz’s comparative study (1945: 13–33) of the Hark colophons is also useful, as is Jenkins’ study (1991). A forthcoming monograph on the hexaplaric colophons is presently in preparation by P. Gentry and J. Meade. I would like to thank Andrew Drenas (UMass, Lowell) who provided me with a translation of Mercati’s section on Exod. Any misunderstandings are of course my own.

114 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

̇ ‫ܐܬ‬ ̣ ‫ ܐܬ‬3 .‫ ܪܘ ܐ ܐ ܗܘܐ ܒ ܗ ܐ‬.‫ܐ ܪ ܐ‬ ̇ ̈ ̈ ‫̇ܗܘ ܕܐܦ‬ ‫܀܀‬ ‫ܬܐ ܐܬܬ‬ ‫ ܘܐܬ‬3a .‫ܬܐ‬ ‫̈ ܐ ܕܐ‬ ̇ ‫ ܐܬ‬4 ‫܀‬ ‫ܐ ܕܗ ܐ ܪܘ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܬܨ ܐ‬ ‫ܕ ܬܘܒ ̣ܗܘ‬ ̇ ̇ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ ܐ ܕܗܝ ܒ ܐ‬.‫ܐ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܬܐ ܕ ܒ‬ ‫ܐܬ ܒ‬ 5 ̣ ̇ ̇ ‫ ܘ ̣ ܪܨ ܗܘܐ ܒܐ ̣ ܐ ܕܐܘ ܒ ܗܘ‬6 .‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ ܗܝ ܒ ܐ ܕ‬.‫ܗܘܬ‬ ‫̇ܗܘ ܕܐܦ ܗ‬ 6b .‫ܕܥ ܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܕܗܘ ܪܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ̣ ‫ ܐ ܐ‬6a . ‫̇ܗܝ ܕ‬ ‫̣ܗܘ‬ ‫ ܒ ܕ ܬ‬6c ‫ܐ ̇ ܡ ܐܬܬ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ̣ ‫ܬܐ ܕܐܬ‬ ‫ܨ ܐ܀‬ ̈

‫ܝ‬

‫ܐ‬ ‫ܣ‬

‫]ܕ‬

‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ ܪܨ‬ ‫ ]ܕ‬ΠΑΜΦΥΛΟΣ SHLmg

‫ܐ‬

‫ܐܕ‬ ‫ ܕ‬SHV

‫ ܕܬܪ ܕ‬SHV

‫ ܕܐܘ ܒ ܣ ]ܕܐܘ ܒ‬SHV

Greek Retroversion30 1 The book of Exod according to the translation of the Seventy ends. 2 Now the exemplar {= E1} from which [this Exodus] was translated into the Syriac language had this subscription: 3 31μετεληφθη εκ (or: απο) των κατα τας εκδοσεις εξαπλων 3a και αντεβληθη εξ ου και αι εκδοσεις παρετεθησαν.31 4 αντεβληθη δε παλιν (or: ετι?) ουτος εξοδος προς τον αντιγραφον {= E2} ακριβες ⸂υποσημειωσιν εχον ταυτην⸃.32 5 « εγραφη η εκδοσις κατα τους εβδομηκοντα εκ των εξαπλων [poss: του εξαπλου or τα εξαπλα?] {= E3} που η εβραικη [?]33 αντιβεβλητο? [αντιβεβλημενη?] κατα την των Σαμαρειτων εβραικην [» ?] 6 και διωρθωτο [δεδιορθωμενον?] χειρι Ευσεβιου του Παμφ⟨ι⟩λ⟨ο⟩υ 6a καθως (η?)34 υποσημειωσις εσεσημαντο [εδεδηλωτο?]35 6b ⸂εξ ου και

|| 30 In the retroversion, here supplied without diacritics, English represents the words added by the Syriac translator(s). I would like to thank especially J. Coogan (Santa Clara University) for his kindly reviewing my Greek retroversions, offering suggestions and improvements. 31 So Mercati 1941: 36, n. 2, with ἀπό for ἐκ and ὤν for οὗ. On the latter, however, see below. 32 Compare the Dan colophon (SH and MS 88) where the word order is slightly different. 33 The implied Greek term, whether λεξις, αναγνωσις, or εκδοσις (here listed in order of preference), is discussed below. 34 This would appear most probable (cp. Hark Eph 5.24); perhaps ἐκείνη? 35 Perhaps a perf. ptc. is possible? See discussion below regarding διώρθωτο. Regarding the Syriac, see PS 1.1557. For δηλόω see SH Josh 4.8, Isa 42.9, Dan 2.5, etc.; cp. Exod 18.20, Num 10.9, Josh 6.8, etc. where σημαίνω is the base. The latter is preferred presuming ὑποσημείωσις.

The Colophon to Syrohexapla Exodus | 115

τα⸃36 ⸂εκ της⸃37 των Σαμαρειτων38 [εκδοσεως] προετεθη[σαν?]39 μονον προς ενδειξιν40 οτι επονηθη [?]41 το αντιγραφον. »

6c

English Translation Syriac “book ends” notice: 1 The book of Exod according to the translation of the Seventy ends. Composed Syriac introductory formula: 2 Now the exemplar {= E1} from which [this Exod] was translated into the Syriac language had this subscription: Translated Greek colophon of Exemplar1: 3 « [E1 was] Taken from the hexapla {Source1} (arranged [or: laid out])42 according to the versions 3a and collated (with the same, or with another exemplar? see below) from which also the versions were set out (in the margin). 4 Then this Exodus {E1} was collated further with an(other) accurate exemplar {E2} which had this colophon on it: Translated Greek col. of Exemplar2 (Partly rewritten by E1’s scribe or précised by E2’s?): 5 ‘The translation of the Seventy (of Exod) {E2} was written from the/a hexapla {E3 = Source2}, where the “Hebrew” (reading of the Seventy) was collated with the Samaritan “Hebrew” (ekdosis) {Source3}. 6 And it {Ε3} was edited by the hand of Eusebius Pamphili, 6a just as the {= E3’s} colophon made clear. 6b From which {E3} also the (elements) from the (Hebrew ekdosis) of the Samari-

|| 36 Mercati’s τά (sc. ῥήματα) is probably correct (cp. SH Gen 20.7, Exod 4.16; 24.10); ταῦτα is also possible (see Deut 6.6; Perkins 1980: 114). The same uncertainty is present in the attributions as noted below. 37 Mercati omits but cp. SH and GZech 6.10 (on τῆς [or ἐκείνης?] see Perkins 1980: 27). 38 Mercati’s reconstruction has been altered (1941: 38). 39 Mercati gave the plural (1941: 38). For a singular verb with a neut. pl. subject in Greek, see Smyth, Gram. §958 (also Wevers, NGTN, 515–16; but cp. Perkins 1980: 182–83). Compare the singular verbs in the attribution note at Num 10.10‫( ג–א‬where SHV emends) and the crossreference at Deut 2.31 (vid). 40 Field 2.166, n. 21; PS 1.1211. 41 Perhaps διεπονηθη, (επι?)πεπονηται, or επιπονον? See PS 2.2912–13. (ethpe.) apparently only occurs in Syriac translation in Titus Bostra’s (fl. 4th cent. CE) Contra Mani.: ‫ ܘ ܐܪ ܐ‬... ... ‫ܗ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘ‬ ‫ ܕ‬for εἰς δέ γῆν ἀρόσιμον τε καὶ ἐπίπονον ἀγαγοῦσα (3.18). (Sir 7.15). For πονέω (LSJ, s.v., B. However, the SH translator(s) translated ἐπίπονον with ‫ܐ‬ II, 2), compare Gen 49.15, Prov 16.26, and Lam 4.6; ‫ ܐܒ‬is often used. 42 The “Hexapla Maior”? See Wright (CSMBM 1.30) whose understanding is mostly correct. For the implications of this language, see the below historical reconstruction.

116 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

tans {S3} were set out [from προτίθημι, see below], 6c only as an indication that the exemplar {E3} was prepared with difficulty.’ » ► SHV’s ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ ܪܨ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ‬ ‫( ܕܬܪ ܕ‬ln. 1) “the second book of Moses called Exod which was carefully corrected”: The expanded form of ln. 1 present in the MIDYAT CODEX is obviously secondary.43 Principally, the failure of the other extant Syriac colophons to enumerate the books of Moses (i.e., ‫ܐ‬ ‫ )ܕܬܪ ܕ‬suggests this, as does the reference to correcting activity ( ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ) ܪܨ‬when mentioned before the complete ending designation of the book (i.e., ‫ܬܐ ܕ ܒ‬ ‫ ܐ‬... ̣ ), something not attested elsewhere in SH colophons. The additions in SHV’s reading doubtlessly refer to scribal correcting activity subsequent to the original translation. ► Formatting (SHL vs. SHV): The older witness (SHL) has no meaningful formatting other than the use of the punctuation sequence: ‫܀܀܀‬, ‫܀܀‬, and ‫܀‬.44 These grammatical-structural marks, called påsôqå (‫) ܳ ܽ ܳ ܐ‬, represent the Syriac full stop.45 Thus, the older MS specifies the following logical sections: ln. 1; lns. 2–3a; ln. 4; and lns. 5–6c. The latter witness differs slightly, using both indentation and different colored ink as follows: 1 (red46 ink); 2–3a (black ink, indented on both sides); and 4–6c (red ink, indented on the left only). Lines 4– 6c are also marked with ⟞ along the left-hand side of each line, meaning to designate 4–6c as a quotation within the quoted Greek colophon. ► Who composed what? Following discrepancies in formatting, it must be determined which parts of the colophon the Syriac translator(s) was responsible for having composed as opposed to that which he translated. Obviously, any reference to the act of producing the translation (see, e.g., SH Bel-Dragon, Twelve, etc.) or attendant information relating to subsequent book ownership (e.g., ‫ܗ ܕ ܘܕܐ‬ the “hanging of Judas” curse after Ruth → APPENDIX) 47 can be safely dismissed. The scribe’s use of ‫ܗܘܐ‬ ‫ ܪ‬+ ‫( ܗ ܐ‬or something similar) followed by what is presented as the translated exemplar’s subscription

|| 43 Vööbus describes the “fuller form” much more neutrally (1975: 41, n. 302). 44 With a final ‫ ܀‬at the very end. 45 On this, see J. Segal (1953: 75–76). Note especially the symbol’s shape and function as compared with the τελεία, ☩ (p. 75, n. 7). See also PS 2.3196. 46 For the coloring, compare the Num colophon (see PLATE III → APPENDIX). 47 Such considerations may seem obvious, however not all editors have been careful making such distinction. E.g., see Ziegler’s retroversion of the entirety of the SH Dan colophon into Greek! But this is incorrect; he ought to have translated ουτως 1° (read ὧδε)—εις συριστικον ουτως into Latin per the Göttingen policy (see his AppI subscriptio, and → APPENDIX); compare Jenkins’ Table 1 (1991: 262) and Zuntz (1945: 20–21).

The Colophon to Syrohexapla Exodus | 117

(e.g., SH Gen, Josh, Ruth, et al) clearly introduces the Greek citation. Still, determining the extent of the Greek basis for the Syriac translation, at times, can prove complex (i.e., Josh, 3 and 4 Kgdms).48 In the present case, difficulty in determining whether or not ln. 4 is taken from Greek creates problems in interpretation and affects the MS stemma (see below). ► ‫ܒܐ‬ (ln. 1) “βιβλίον (-λος)” and ‫( ܨ ܐ‬lns. 2, 4, 6c) “ἀντίγραφον”: The use of ‫ܒܐ‬ in composed sections of SH colophons represents: 1) an individual biblical book or text-unit (passim), 2) the biblical book translated into Syriac which was just “finished” (Gen, 3 Kgdms, Eccles), and 3) the Greek book (i.e., the exemplar) from which the Syriac book was translated (e.g., 4 Kgdms, Twelve, Dan). More restrictively, composed usage of ‫( ܨ ܐ‬ln. 2) aligns with the concept of the exemplar “ἀντίγραφον” (e.g., Gen, Num [ln. 2]?, Josh [twice], and Ezek [Q], et al). In translated portions, ‫( ܨ ܐ‬lns. 4, 6c) is dominant and conforms to their semantic usage of ἀντίγραφον in the surviving Greek examples (e.g., Dan, Isa, Ezek, 2 Ezra, Esther) as “copy,” “exemplar,” or “Vorlage.” ‫ܒܐ‬ only occurs in a discernibly translated part of a colophon in Num (lns. 5a–5b) and will be discussed below (→ §3.2). ̈ ‫ܝ‬ ̈ (ln. 3) and ‫( ܐ ܐ ܐ‬ln. 5): Both terms indicate “hexapla,” ►‫ܐ‬ expressed as ἑξαπλ-ᾶ/-οῦν or, more frequently, ἑξαπλῶν. The transliterated (‫ ܢ‬-)‫ ܐ )ܐ( ܐ‬occurs only in the colophons for SH Gen, Exod, 3 Kgdms, ̈ (‫ ̈ ) ܝ‬being otherwise dominant (→ Table 1.1.1.1). and Lam (‫ ܢ‬-), with ‫ܐ‬ Compare also the 3 Kgdms’s subscription where the two terms are explicitly ̈ equated (‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐܗ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܪ ܐ‬ ... ‫ܐܬ‬, see fol. 122a), indicating scribes understood the two terms as referring to the same object.49 Yet, what demands explanation here is why the Syriac translator(s) used different Syriac for the same concept in translated portions. It is unlikely that the translator(s) would have toiled on an entire book and its marginalia, rendering them all in “mirror”-like fashion, only to come upon

|| 48 For differing interpretations of the 3 Kgdms colophon in this respect, juxtapose the those of Wright (CSMBM, 1.34) and Zuntz (1945: 22). 49 Note, however, that there is some ambiguity. Wright’s interpretation of the 3 Kgdms subscription implies this section was composed by the Sryians, whereas in Zuntz’s analysis he held the phrasing had been interpolated (1945: 22). (The same equating occurs for “heptapla” in the ̈ subscription to 4 Kgdms: ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒܐ ܕܐ ܐ ܐ ܗ ܕ ܕ ܒ‬ ; fol. 87a; the same ambiguity obtains there as well). It is difficult to know which analysis best clarifies the matter, especially if Zuntz is followed (viz., if interpolated, which parts precisely?). Note that I would argue that the colophon for SH Josh was interpolated, since such would best explain the awkward resultant phrasing (→ § 4.2, n. 30; also APPENDIX ad loc).

118 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

the subscription and choose at that point to waver from established practice. Thus, it is perhaps safest to view the differing Syriac as corresponding to the Greek terms from which they were translated. Presently, the first is clearly (τῶν) ἑξαπλῶν (ln. 3);50 however, the latter ‫ܐ ܐ ܐ‬ creates a problem. The extant Greek colophons show that the inflection of “hexapla” and “tetrapla” are consistent with Greek governing prepositions, i.e. ἀπό / ἐκ (+ gen.) τῶν ἑξαπλῶν / τετραπλῶν and πρός (+ acc.) τετραπλοῦν / ἑξαπλοῦν / τά ἑξαπλᾶ. Correspondingly, the Syriac subscriptions adhere to these conventions when ̈ ‫ܝ‬ ̈ unambiguously translating a Greek base: ‫ܐ‬ (Exod [ln. 3], Josh, ̈ Prov, Cant), ‫ܐ‬ ‫̈ܪܒ‬ (Dan, Job?), ‫( ܬ ܐ ܐ ܐ‬Gen, τά ἑξαπλᾶ), or ‫̈ ܐ‬ ‫( ܬ ̈ܪܒ‬Josh, τά τετραπλᾶ). Including ln. 5, there are three occurrences of “ + a transliterated designation” in the SH colophons (in assuredly translated portions). Gen (‫ܐ ܢ‬ ‫ )ܐܬ ܒ‬and Lam ( ‫ܐܬ ܒ‬ ‫)ܐ ܐ ܢ‬, however, can be reconciled to Greek, representing εγραφη εκ των τετραπλων (cp. Dan [SH and MS 88] and Ezek [CODEX Q]) and εγραφη … εκ των εξαπλων (= MS 88), respectively.51 There is still another complication in that this latter section of the colophon (lns. 5–6c) has clearly been rewritten by some intervening Greek scribe (viz., ‫ܕܥ ܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ ܕܗܘ ܪܘ ܐ‬, ln. 6a). This permits the possibility that the base Greek for ‫ܐ ܐ ܐ‬ may really have been ἀπό / ἐκ (τά) ἑξαπλᾶ, with ἑξαπλᾶ being understood as a frozen, technical term.52 Another alternative may

|| ̈ 50 Comparative data from non-colophonic sources are divided on the matter. Compare (‫) ܝ‬ ̈ ‫ ܐ‬in the translation of Epiphanius’ De Mens et pond §18–19 (fols. 57b–c) with the occurrences in the 4 Kgdms end matter (fols. 88b–89b) and the London Collection (BL ADD. 12168, fols. 38a–39b, after the excerpts from Judg). Differently is the Syriac translation of Eusebius’ H.E., where the translator elected to render τὴν δὲ ἐν ἑτέρῳ τοιῷδε τόπῳ· ἔν γε μὴν τοῖς Ἑξαπλοῖς τῶν Ψαλμῶν with ‫̈ܪܐ ܕ ܒ‬ ‫( ܐ ܐ ܕ ܒ ܘ ܐ ܐ ܬܐ ܒ ܘܪܓ ܐ ܕ ܕ‬6.16.3). This is then balanced by the translator’s unique pluralized transliteration in the following section: ̈‫ܐ‬ ̇ ‫( ܘ ܒ ܨ ܐ‬τὰ τῶν λεγομένων Ἑξαπλῶν ἡμῖν ἀντίγραφα ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕܗ ܢ ܕ‬ καταλέλοιπεν; 6.16.3). Whether or not the translator understood the terminology is perhaps debatable, as the mention of the “tetrapla” is seemingly omitted: ‫ܣ‬ ‫ܬܘܒ ܕܐ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ̇ ‫ܘܬܪ‬ ‫ܕܗ ܢ ܒ‬ ‫ܣ ܘܕܬܐܘܕܘ ܢ‬ ‫( ܘܕ‬ἰδίως τὴν Ἀκύλου καὶ Συμμάχου καὶ Θεοδοτίωνος ἔκδοσιν ἅμα τῇ τῶν ἑβδομήκοντα ἐν τοῖς Τετρασσοῖς ἐπισκευάσας; 6.16.4; cp. Rufinus’ translation). The date of the Syriac translation is thought to have been quite early, for which see the editions. 51 Cp. PS 1.184. 52 Perhaps this is also reflected in the scholion at Num 1.24 found in MSS 85΄-344s: τὰ ἑξαπλᾶ τὴν συγγένειαν τοῦ Γὰδ εὐθὺς μετὰ τὴν συγγένειαν τοῦ Συμεὼν ὑποτάσσει εἰθʼ οὕτως τὴν τοῦ Ἰούδα ὑποβάλλει (see AppII); however, this case is also ambiguous given the neuter plural of τὰ ἑξαπλᾶ. Theodoret is known to have used “hexapla” in the singular (see Gallagher 2013: 669, n.

The Colophon to Syrohexapla Exodus | 119

be that the translator(s) did take some liberty in rendering the terminology in order to indicate that this ‫ ܐ ܐ ܐ‬was in fact another, second source, comparable to the case in the colophon for Isa (CODEX Q): … ἐκ τῶν κατὰ τὰς ἐκδόσεις ἑξαπλῶν [= source 1]. ἀντεβλήθη δὲ καὶ πρὸς ἕτερον ἑξαπλοῦν [= source 2] … . Thus, the rewritten section might have read (τῶν) ἑξαπλῶν without ̈ any explicit mention of ἑτέρου/ων, prompting the Syrians to translate ‫ܝ‬ ̈ ‫ =( ܐ‬source 1) and ‫ =( ܐ ܐ ܐ‬source 2), respectively, to differentiate them as two, distinct hexaplaric items—one which had been collated with SP, on top of the base.53 However, such intervention feels unnecessary as the subscription implies the second source. (See historical reconstruction below.) ► ‫( ܐܬ‬lns. 3a, 4, ‫ܐ ܗܘܬ‬ = “ἀντιβέβλητο? ἀντιβεβλημένη?”54, ln. 5 “ἀντεβλήθη” cp. PS 2.3082): Unfortunately, the imprecision of the term “collate” muddles most of the colophons: Namely, does the term indicate a simple comparing of the text with a/the Vorlage, or does the term indicate something more complex, involving the merging of traditions by way of annotations (i.e., with ‫ ܐܬܬ‬/ παρετέθη being implied)?55 What can be claimed for the term generally, is that many of the occurrences in Syriac and Greek subscriptions also include explicit mention of the compared source (‫ܬ‬ ... ‫ ܐܬ‬or ἀντεβλήθη ... πρὸς), be it (1) the Vorlage itself (e.g., Judg, Dan), (2) an additional exemplar of the “same” source (e.g., 2 Ezra, Isa [CODEX Q]) or (3) an additional, different source (e.g., Gen, Josh, Isa [Q]). The testimony of the Josh colophon may support the term involving, at times, a process of textual collation or merging, given that a variant reading is present within the subscription itself and presumably from only one of the compared sources (cp. SH Deut subscription → §4.2; APPENDIX). Fortunately, the latter two instances of the term (lns. 4, 5) imply the second and third possibilities, respectively. Particularly, the third designates the inclusion of Samaritan materials not original to or normative of the hexaplaric exemplar(s), which were then added to the margins (cp. SH Num → §3.2) of the MS(S). Fortunately, while there is nothing in the Exod colophon iden-

|| 17 and literature). Something similar may have occurred for “tetrapla” (see Jenkins 1991: 266– 67, and S. Sipilä 1996: 173 [both accepting Barthélemy’s 1978 suggestion]). 53 Compare Wright (CSMBM 1.30) and Vööbus (1975: 42) “transcribed from (a manuscript of) the Hexapla, in which …” with Ceriani’s “Descriptus est textus LXX ex Hexaplis ubi …” (1863: 404). (ln. 6). 54 See below note on ‫ܪܨ ܗܘܐ‬ 55 See LSJ, s.v. II and literature, especially those occurrences in Strabo, Geog. 13.1.54 and 17.1.5. See also C. Spicq, TLNT, “ἀντιβάλλω” 1.127 (esp. n. 7).

120 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

tifying the individual(s) responsible for this activity due to scribes’ rewriting,56 that for Num does identify Eusebius as the one responsible for setting the Samaritan readings in the margins (→ §3.2). ► To what does ln. 3a refer? The first problem in determining the colophon’s MS stemma is the phrasing of ln. 3a. Specifically, does this line imply still anotḧ ‫ܝ‬ ̈ ? Wright er copy of the “hexapla” or the same exemplar denoted by ‫ܐ‬ (Vööbus followed) envisioned the former here, but was unsure.57 Differently, Ceriani’s understanding, imagining a Greek colophon akin to those in CODEX Q and MS 88, equated ‫ ܘܐܬ‬with καὶ παρετέθη.58 Though Mercati acknowledged the logic of Wright’s interpretation, he was inclined to interpret ln. 3a as not referring to another MS, retroverting: μετελήφθη (or: ἐγράφη) ἀπό τῶν κατὰ τὰς ἐκδόσεις ἑξαπλῶν καὶ ἀντεβλήθη, ἐξ ὤν καὶ αἱ ἐκδόσεις παρετέθησαν.59 The issue with ln. 3a is the presence of ‫ܘܐܬ‬. Mercati acknowledged the difficulty, observing the use of ‫ ܐܬ‬+ is unusual.60 However, Mercati correctly observed that both the SH Judg and Dan61 colophons used ‫ܐܬ‬ without any reference to an additional source. Note SH Judg: ‫ܐܬ ܒ ܕ‬ ‫ܬܐ ܕ ̈ ܒ‬ ‫ܘܐܬ‬.62 Presuming, with Mercati, that ‫ ܐܬ‬and

|| 56 Compare 4 Kgdms ( ‫ܣ‬ ), 2 Ezra (Αντωνινος αντεβαλεν), and Esther (Αντωνινος ομολογητης αντεβαλεν) which attest to both Pamphilus and Antoninus performing “collating” duties. 57 CSMBM, 1.30, n. *. 58 “[…3a] et collatum fuit ([3] μετεληφθη εκ των κατα τας εκδοσεις εξαπλων, [3a] και παρετεθη εξ) cum eo, … ” (1863: 404). Ceriani formed a bastardized construction from the cols. of Isa (CODEX Q) and both Dan and Lam in MS 88. 59 Mercati 1941: 36, n. 2. He does not appear to have known Ceriani’s translation and does not cite his fifth fascicule in his discussion of the Exod colophon. 60 1941: 36, n. 2. Mercati probably wanted to liken the text to that of the Ezek subscription (Q), which differently specifices a second source. 61 As for the case in Dan, Jenkins wanted to view the use of ‫ ܐܬ‬there as analogous to ‫ ܐܬܬ‬in an effort to resolve the tension by directly connecting the col. in SH Dan with that in MS 88: “Comparing with the colophon in Greek to MS 88, it would seem more reasonable to ‫ ܐܬ‬refers to the copying of the marginalia, to which παρατίθημι almost cersuggest that tainly refers” (1991: 263). Jenkins follows in a footnote: “This would suggest ‘collate’ as the sense of ‫( ”ܐܬ‬n. 14). Jenkins’ analysis is somewhat confusing at this point as the wider SH ‫ ܐܬ‬/ ἀντεβλήθη and ‫ ܐܬܬ‬/ παρετέθη indicated distinct even if cols. suggest that ‫ ܕ ܬܗ ܐܦ ܐܬ‬from the SH related activities. Compare Mercati (1941: 28), who retroverts Dan 12 col as προς α και αντεβληθη. Zuntz, in an effort to reconcile the variation in the Dan cols., believed any distinction between ἀντεβλήθη and παρετέθη was “purely verbal” (1945: 21, n. 1) since παρετέθη was the result of ἀντεβλήθη. Perhaps the original Dan colophon read with both verbs, and the two traditions, 88 and SH, differently represent later scribal corruptions. 62 The language in the subscription to Prov is similar; see also Hark Heb col. → §6.2.1, n. 64.

The Colophon to Syrohexapla Exodus | 121

‫ܒ‬

‫ ܐܬ‬are similar in function in the subscriptions, the colophon from Judg then could serve as the best analogue to the problem with ln. 3a, and the interpretation of Ceriani and Mercati should be upheld. Maintaining this understanding results in ‫ ܐܬ‬exhibiting the first above-discussed sense, i.e., that ̈ ̈ ), the copy made ( ‫ )ܐܬ‬from its exemplar (‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ܝ ̈ ܐ ܕܐ‬ ̇ was compared ( ‫ )ܘܐܬ‬with said exemplar (‫ܗܘ‬ = ἐξ οὗ [sc. ἀντίγραφου], ̈ ‫̇ܗܘ ܕܐܦ‬ not ὤν),63 from which also the versions were added ( ‫ܬܐ‬ ‫= ܐܬܬ‬ ‫̇ܗܘ ܕܐܦ ܐܬܬ‬ ‫̈ ܝ ̈ܐ‬ [Josh]).64 This is a reasonable suggestion since Exod is a particularly problematic book textually which would require careful inspection against the exemplar in copying and marginal annotation. Thus, it is best to support Mercati’s judgment, though with some uncertainty as he admitted. ► ‫( ܐܬܬ‬ln. 3a) “παρετέθη”65 (see PS 2.2560–61 for other Greek equivalents): The extant Greek colophons make this equivalency most probable.66 The verb clearly relates to the supplying of marginalia performed in conjunction with the process of “collating” ‫ ܐܬ‬and “editing” ‫ ܬܪܨ‬and is ubiquitous in the subscriptions.67 (See below for ‫ ̇ ܡ ܐܬܬ‬in ln. 6b.) Credited acts of

|| 63 Here following Mercati’s adoption (1941: 38) of Field’s retroversion of ‫̇ܗܘ‬ in the SH Josh colophon (1.394, n. 68). Greek ἐξ ὤν would require -‫ܗ ܕ‬ as in SH Ruth 2.18 and Num 23.13 (with scholion; on which see Field 1.254, n. 11). On the latter’s Greek, see Wevers, NGTN, 391– 92, and cp. the Dan colophon in MS 88 and SH (→ APPENDIX). 64 4 Kgdms’s subscription is similar: ‫̇ܗܘ ܕܐܦ‬ ... ‫̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܒܐ ܕܐ ܐ ܐ ̇ܗ ܕ ܕ ܒ‬ ̈ ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܬܐ‬ . 65 The equivalency provided for the pass. of παρατιθημι utilized here, which appears quite regularly in the SH cols., is found in SH Bel 11 (twice), 18, and 21 (cp. EpJer 26). The colophons ̈ for Eccles (‫̈ܗܘܝ‬ ) and Lam ( ‫ = ܐܬܓ‬παρετέθη as in MS 88) provide other possible equivalencies for παρετέθη. On the latter, see Mercati (1941: 27), PS 1.760 (where NT occurrences are also provided), and Field’s discussion (2005: 186, n. 10; 1.c, n. 10). Each concluded thus before the discovery of SH Lev (see 5.23 [6.4] where ‫ = ܕܐܬܓ‬ἥτις παρετέθη αὐτῷ, without significant variant). For that in Eccles, potentially less certain, see Mercati (1941: 45) and PS 1.1466–67. Perhaps διατεταγμεν* (διατασσω) was the Greek (cf. SH Ezek 21.[20]25: ‫ ܬ‬for διαταξεις)? For the SH Eccles colophon, → APPENDIX. 66 Mercati 1941: 37; Vööbus 1975: 41, n. 310. Cf. Jenkins 1991: 262 (he cites [in his n. 15] SH Josh as using ‫ ܐܬ‬which is incorrect for ‫)ܐܬܬ‬. is most common ‫ ;ܐܬܬ‬the shortened ‫ ܐܬ‬appears only 67 The full ethpe. form of ‫ ܐ‬occurs, though this is perhaps an error once (Prov). At the end of Isa (SHC), the ethpa. as the usual ‫ ܐܬܬ‬is found in BM MUS ORIENT 8732 (see Wright, CSMBM 3.xi–x; Ceriani 1874: 139, without comment). More problematic is the same in the generalized colophon composed ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܘܐܬ‬ ‫§ → ܕܐܬ ܒ‬1.1.1). Lexicons by Timothy I in his letter to Sergius ( differ on how to translate the ethpa., namely 1) “to be pointed” (JPS, s.v.; PS 2.2561) or 2) “compositus est” (Brockelmann, Lexicon 19282, 472; “to be put together” in Sokoloff’s revised

122 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

supplying marginalia are those of Eusebius (παρατίθημι) and Origen (εσχολιογραφητο) separately in Ezek (CODEX Q), as well as for Eusebius and Pamphilus jointly in SH Prov.68 Importantly, SH Num credits only Eusebius with the addition of the Samaritan marginalia (→ §3.2). Other instances cannot be determined, though the verb bears the connotation of Caesarea-based textual activity. ► ‫( ܪܘ ܐ‬lns. 4, 6a) “ὑποσημείωσις” ? (cp. PS 2.3987–88): While the first instance is certainly composed—perhaps under the influence of the latter instances69—the second and third are most likely translated and thus must represent something from the Greek source MS(S). There are, however, no Greek hexaplaric colophons extant for Exod. The term ‫ ܪܘ ܐ‬occurs in Syriac subscriptions only here and in SH Dan where it appears to correspond to the ὑποσημείωσις found in MS 88.70 ὑποσημείωσις occurs in the Greek colophons for 2 Ezra and Esther (both lacking Syrohexaplaric counterpart).71 The equivalent also appears in the Syriac translation of Eusebius’ H.E., evincing ‫ ܪܘ ܐ‬for the work’s only instance of ὑποσημείωσις.72

|| ET). Brockelmann’s (and Sokoloff’s) only reference for the word is specifically Timothy’s letter which Braun translated as “… und festgesetzt nach …” (1901: 305). Brock’s translation of the letter offers “and compared with” (1997: 247). 68 SH Prov:

.‫ܣ ܘܕܐܘ ܒ ܣ‬ ... ‫܀ ܀ ܀‬

‫̈ ܐ ܒܐ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܒ ܒ‬ ‫ܗ ܕܐ‬ ‫ܝ ̈ ܐ ܕܐܘܪܓ‬

‫ܘܐܬ‬ ‫ܐ ܕܐܬ‬ ‫ܨ ܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܗܘܝ ܘܗ ܀ ܐܬ ̈ ܒ‬ ‫̈ܪ‬

... ‫ܕܒ‬ 

… from an accurate exemplar which was annotated, and additionally scholia were written in it, by the hand of Pamphilus and of Eusebius, in which also these (words) were inscribed: “[The Proverbs] were taken from the Hexapla (Maior?) [lit. six columns] of Origen, those (?) which we found” ... . (On the interpretation of this colophon → APPENDIX.) 69 See the SH cols. for Num, Twelve, Prov, and Cant each which contain a composed reference to the subscription which verbally equates the translated subscription’s word choice. This suggests the lexical choices of the Greek source directly influenced the composed parts of the Syriac colophons. 70 Jenkins 1991: 262. He does not specifically claim that ‫ ܪܘ ܐ‬represents ὑποσημείωσίς. The verbal equivalent ‫ܗܝ‬ ‫ܗܘܐ‬ ‫ ܪ‬is found in SH Gen, Josh, Ruth, and the Twelve. Num uses ‫ ܘܕ ܐ‬and is discussed below (→ §3.2). 71 Mercati refers to the SH Exod col. as an “ὑποσημείωσίς senza dubbio,” without equating ‫ ܪܘ ܐ‬with the Greek term (1941: 37 and n. 1). He viewed the whole of the subscription as related to those for Isa ([Q] evincing παρασημείωσιν) and Esther (using ὑποσημείωσίς) in particular. 72 … ἐν ταύτῃ δὲ τῇ τοῦ Σεραπίωνος ἐπιστολῇ καὶ ὑποσημειώσεις φέρονται διαφόρων ἐπισκόπων, ὧν ὁ μέν τις ὧδέ πως ὑποσεσημείωται (H.E. 5.19.3). Admittedly the context is dif-

The Colophon to Syrohexapla Exodus | 123

► To what does ‫ܐ‬ ‫( ܗܘ‬ln. 4) refer? Like others, Mercati saw the problematic ambiguity: Does ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܗܘ‬refer to a copy used by Paul of Tella or one with which the copy had been previously collated?73 That is, does ln. 4 represent the continuation of the translated Greek colophon or an editorial remark from the Syriac translator(s)? Interpretations have differed. Both Wright and Vööbus left open the possibility of the Syrian translator’(s) having composed this line.74 Against these, Ceriani viewed the whole subscription after ‫ ܗ ܐ‬1° (ln. 2) as from the Greek source.75 Mercati (unknowingly) leaned towards Ceriani’s, asserting the following lines reflect the original Greek ὑποσημείωσίς whether summarized by Paul of Tella or not.76 Perhaps the most natural way to read the colophon is that ln. 4 meant to continue the subscription of the translated exemplar, which in addition to its own notice (lns. 3–3a) added still another notice taken from the other exemplar with which it was collated. This would result in a double citation. If the Syrian translator(s) meant to interject himself, independently writing ln. 4 or even himself executing the collation there stated, would this not have been made clearer?77 SHV’s representation lends itself towards this interpretation, marking off lns. 4–6c as if it were a quotation within the translated Vorlage’s subscription.78 If this is so, the situation would, following Mercati,79 then be comparable to an hypothetical Syriac translation of the colophons for Esther (CODEX S) or Isa (CODEX Q). It is important to reiterate that unlike the Hark subscriptions, those from SH never attribute “collating” acts to Paul of Tella (or his translation team), with the exception of 3 Kgdms. Compare the above introduction (→ §1.1.1). ► ‫( ܐܬ ܒ‬ln. 5) “ἐγράφη”: While functionally similar to ‫ ܐܬ‬/ μετελήφθη, generally speaking colophons usually prefer one term over the

|| ferent, as was the methodological approach of Syriac translator(s) of H.E.: ‫ܒ ܕܐ ܕ ܐܓ ܬܗ‬ ̈ ‫ܢ ܐܦ ܪܘ ܐ ܕܐ‬ ‫ܘܢ ܕܗ ܐ ܪ‬ ‫ ܕܐ‬. ̇ ‫ܒ‬ ‫̈ܓ ܐܐ ܪ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬. Note also the verb form. 73 1941: 37, n. 1. 74 CSMBM, 1.30; Vööbus 1975: 42. 75 1863: 404. 76 1941: 37, n. 1. 77 Compare the situation with the reading after the end of SH Josh (→ §4.2; APPENDIX). 78 Here I would argue that ln. 4 was not properly understood by the SHV scribe, though he did correctly understand the following section as a quotation within the quoted subscription. Vööbus may have been overly influenced by Wright’s earlier translation as he does not appear to have considered this way of interpreting the col. in SHV. 79 1941: 37.

124 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

other.80 Judging from what can be gathered from comparing those parts of the subscriptions which are composed versus that which was translated (or those of the previous generation with those of the next), it can be posited, that the language of the exemplar colophon influences the language of the copy (e.g., ‫ ܐܬ ܒ‬in Gen vs. Isa [CODEX Q; cp. ‫ ܐܬ‬in Twelve and Prov]). ► ‫( ܒ ܐ‬ln. 5, twice) “Ἑβραϊκὴ/-ὴν” (PS 2.2788): Unusual in the present case is the reference for “Hebrew” in the feminine; this contrasts with the masculine found in the parallel remark in the SH Num colophon (→ §3.2, ln. 5a) and most other occurrences of “Hebrew” (‫ ) ܒ ܐ‬in the extant μόνον-collation and attribution annotations. Exceptional are those attribution notes in SH Exod 18 and 20, where the full expression ‫ܐ ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܬܐ‬ ‫“ ܒ‬in the Sa81 maritan Hebrew ἔκδοσις” is found (see below). These annotations are the best referent for the second instance of ‫ ܒ ܐ‬. However, there is some opacity for the first instance of ‫ ܒ ܐ‬: Is the reference to “Hebrew” meant to indicate an actual Hebrew copy of Exod—the first column of the Hexapla Maior itself—or does “Hebrew” here have a different sense, roughly equivalent to “the Hebrew base-text of the ἔκδοσις of the Seventy in Exod,” i.e., the consonantal framework? Ceriani favored the former translating “… ubi Hebraeus (textus) collatus erat ….”82 This would necessitate something akin to ἡ Ἑβραϊκὴ [ἔκδοσις], for which at least one annotation appears to explicitly designate: ‫ܬܐ ܒ ] ܐ[ ܘ ܬ ܒ‬ ‫ܐܒ‬ ‫] [ ܒܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ... ‫[ … ܘ ܬ ܬܐܘܕ ܢ‬Severus of Antioch: “Thus I] found in the hexapla [Maior?], in the Hebrew edition and that of the Seventy and Theodotion …” (4 Kgdms 8.15, fol. 33a).83 Tending more towards the latter are ἡ Ἑβραϊκὴ λέξις84 /

|| 80 E.g., the extant Greek cols. from MS 88 (εγραφη) and those in CODICES Q and S (μετελη[μ]φθη). (PS 2.4193) as grammatically feminine. 81 Both Greek and Syriac hold ἔκδοσις / ‫ܬܐ‬ See the attribution at Exod 6.9‫ܐ( א‬ ‫§ → ܒ ̇ ܝ ܕ‬2.3.1), where ἔκδοσις is implied. Differently, both the colophon and attributions in Num and Deut largely tend to reflect ‫ ܨ ܐ‬/ ἀντίγραφον ‫)ܒ ̇ ܘ ܕ‬. (= ‫ܐ‬ 82 1863: 404. By “Hebraeus (textus),” he meant that the Hebrew of both MT and SP had been compared and collated with accompanying hexaplaric sigla in the SH Exod exemplar(s); see discussion below (→ §2.4.2). Wright and Vööbus were less specific. 83 See Field 1.667, n. 31; the reconstructions are de Lagarde’s (1892: 232). Field held that Cyril’s annotations sub ἡ τῶν Ἑβραίων ἔκδοσις (e.g., Amos 1.3; Zach 6.3; 8.10; 14.8; et al) were of the same type (2005: 140–141; 1.lxxv). However, Barthélemy argued these are Greek translations of readings taken from Jerome (1978: 64–65; also Ziegler, Duo, 106 and 115, n. 1). 84 E.g., Isa 8.8, 10 (CODEX Q; both from Eusebius; see Ziegler, Isa, 48); Ps 75.3 (Eusebius).

The Colophon to Syrohexapla Exodus | 125

‫ܐ‬

‫ܒ‬

‫ܐ‬

85

and ἡ Ἑβραϊκὴ ἀνάγνωσις.86 The reason why such a fine distinction is necessary is that there is more than one Hebrew ἔκδοσις under consideration in the Pent.87 Certainly, the (Syro)hexapla of Exod, in addition to the recentiores, involved three text-types: 1) the Seventy, 2) the Hebrew ≈ (proto/pre-)MT, and 3) the Hebrew ἔκδοσις of the Samaritans. But the question remains: Which ἐκδόσεις were collated against each other? If Ceriani’s understanding is maintained, the implication is that the MT and SP were collated against one another within the hexaplaric edition of the Seventy, but independently of the Seventy. However, there is no evidence from SH Pent88 which supports this interpretation; rather, the Samaritan μόνον-readings are always the result of collation against G, not MT (→ §1.3.2.2). Thus, no confirmed reading represents the G = SP ≠ MT category.89 With respect to the readings, SP appears to have been collated against the hexaplaric G-text, independently of MT.90 Therefore, it is best to view the first reference to “Hebrew” as referring to the “Hebrew (base-text)” (λέξις / ἀνάγνωσις)91 of the Origenic “ἔκδοσις of the Seventy,” which in places (-‫)ܐ ܐ ܕ‬92 was collated with the “Hebrew [ἔκδοσις] of the Samaritans.” In other words, the SP was quantitatively compared with G’s underlying “Hebrew.” See also the SH Num colophon (→ §3.2 at ln. 5a). ► ‫ܪܨ ܗܘܐ‬ (ln. 6) “διωρθωτο”? (see Ezek, CODEX Q) or 93 “δεδιορθωμενον”? (PS 2.4508–09)94: Another matter is the meaning of ‫ܪܨ‬ || 85 SHC Isa 5.1 (fol. 174b‫“ ;)ܒ‬Die Herkunft dieses Scholions aus dem Kommentar des Eus. ist offenkundig” (Ziegler, Isa, 48). 86 E.g., Ps 35.3 (Field 2.142, n. 4). 87 Presumably outside of the Pent any reference to “the Hebrew,” be it λέξις / ἀνάγνωσις or ἔκδοσις, would reflect the first column/pre-MT as long as it does not indicate the translation(?) known as ὁ ἑβραῖος. On the ambiguity of this designation, see Fernández Marcos 2000: 161–63. 88 Ceriani’s argument stemmed from his understanding of the collation notes in SH Exod (→ §§2.4.2, 6.1). 89 This category would have been quite significant (e.g., Lev 17.4+; Num 4.14‫)א‬. It is also worth noting that such readings would have violated the μόνον-collation as expressed by the attributions, i.e., if SP = G, these readings could not then be described as “only” in SP. 90 The only exception (it would seem) being the collation note at Exod 29.20 (→ §2.4.2). It is unclear why this would be so, and the note is codicologically difficult. 91 N.B. Origen: οὕτω γὰρ Ἀκύλας δουλεύων τῇ ἑβραϊκῇ λέξει ἐκδέδωκεν … (Ep. ad Africanum; SC 302, §4; PG 11.52, §2). 92 On -‫ ܐ ܐ ܕ‬in this context, see PS 1.148–49. The renderings of Ceriani (“ubi”; 1863: 404) and Wright/Vööbus (“in which”) are both correct; see also Perkins 1980: 63, with n. 14. 93 It would appear that the pluperf. mid./pass. ind. is indeed represented by the Syriac (cp. SH Gen 40.3, Deut 9.10; see Perkins 1980: 242, and Nöld. Gram. §278b). While unlikely, a perf. mid./pass. participle would perhaps seem possible given ‫ܪܨ‬ is pass. (cp. SH Num 11.26); an aor. pass. ind. is unlikely (cp. SH Wis 9.18).

126 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

‫ ܗܘܐ‬in the context of the SH Exod colophon. The Syriac represents some form of διορθόω (e.g., SH Jer 7.3, Wis 9.18, etc.; colophons to 2 Ezra and Esther), which occurs with great frequency in the extant Greek subscriptions (e.g., Isa [Q]: 4x, Ezek [Q]: 3x, 2 Ezra: 3x, Esther: 4x, etc. → APPENDIX). But the precise historical action underlying the term is difficult to discern. Though the general sense ‘to set aright, correct’ → ‘proofread’ is attested in the literature,95 a meaning pregnant with wider or more intrusive editorial activities can be derived from the usage of διορθόω, along with the substantive διόρθωσις, in relevant works, specifically those of Origen (Comm. on Matt. 15.14, in the context of his original intent to “heal” ἰάσασθαί the Seventy),96 Eusebius (H.E. 5.28.15–17: regarding heretics having falsely “edited” biblical texts),97 and other contemporary writers, e.g., Diogenes Laertius (fl. first half of 3rd cent. CE) in his Vit. Phil., 3.65–66 (a description of Alexandrian text-critical marks themselves)98 and 9.113 in which he related a story where Timon expressed his opinion as to which Homeric texts are best. This second case is particularly germane to the present discussion. In the anecdote, the garden-loving, one-eyed philosopher Timon (ca. 320–230 BCE), when asked if one can get ahold of a reliable (ἀσφαλῆ) copy of Homer, responded: … ειʼ τοῖς ἀρχαίοις ἀντιγράφοις ἐντυγχάνοι καὶ μὴ τοῖς ἤδη διωρθωμένοις (9.113) “You can, if you get hold of the ancient

|| 94 κατορθόω is another possibility (e.g., Prov 2.7, 4.18, 11.10, etc.), but the Greek subscriptions mostly use διορθόω. 95 See Lampe, “διορθόω,” “διόρθωσις,” and “διορθωτής”; LSJ, s.v.; GLRB, s.v.; BrillDAG, s.v. provides two interesting glosses in the context of the hexaplaric endeavor, namely “to reconcile” and “restore to order, correct.” Compare the use of κατορθόω in H.E. 5.20.2, though the nature of the work being copied and corrected in the latter is very different (see Skeat [1956] 2004: 19). 96 While Origen also used the term in a less intrusive sense in his Ep. ad Africanum (SC 302, §24; PG 11.85, §16), note also the important testimony from his Hom. in Pss. 77.1.1 quoted below (see n. 103 and also → §6.1). 97 Found in an excerpt he supplied from the so-called Little Labyrinth, an anti-heretical work describing those following Artemon (fl. 3rd cent.) and Theodotus (“the Cobbler”; 2nd cent.) as having falsely edited the Scriptures: … διὰ τοῦτο ταῖς θείαις γραφαῖς ἀφόβως ἐπέβαλον τὰς χεῖρας, λέγοντες αὐτὰς διωρθωκέναι (H.E. 5.28.15ff). “For this cause they did not fear to lay hands on the divine scriptures, saying that they had corrected them.” (K. Lake’s ET, LCL 153.523). The excerpt goes on to claim that their followers continued to mass-produce these copies, and that also these do not agree, evincing even greater corruption. Interestingly, H. Lawlor and J. Oulton held that the heretical sect’s followers were falsely editing the Septuagint (1954/2.190), while G. Bardy understood this as a reference to editing the NT (SC 41.78, n. 14). See also W. Adler 1990: 2–3. 98 With respect to the ancient editorial practices described in 3.65–66 (specifically the editorial diple periestigmene), see R. Nünlist 2009: 157–59; also Schironi 2012: 90.

The Colophon to Syrohexapla Exodus | 127

copies, and not the corrected copies of our day.”99 His response clearly indicates that the “scholarly” copies of Homer in his day at least were, in Timon’s opinion, falsely edited. For this ‘proofreading’, in its modern English sense, does not really fit the context from what we know the ancient Alexandrian text-critics were doing. After all, why would a philosopher not have recommended proofread texts? Note that the semantic evidence for the Syriac verbal equivalent ‫ܬܪܨ‬ (pael) is similar, having parallel connotations (cp. especially JNum and JDan colophons → §5.2.2).100 Of course, the immediate context of the extant Greek colophons themselves attribute διορθόω activity not only to Pamphilus and Eusebius (passim) but also Origen.101 Was Origen’s editorial activity limited to simple proofreading?102 Or did his διορθοῦν attain the very thing he set out to achieve—an emended, truly critical edition of the Seventy “corrected” based upon the other ἐκδόσεις with reference to the Hebrew?103 Put another way: Do the hexaplaric subscriptions only make reference to the copying of that which was produced for wider dis-

|| 99 R. Hick’s ET (LCL 185.523). 100 Compare also Barhebraeus, Chron. Eccl. 1.291. Judging by Jacob’s rather intense editorial activity, the term clearly applied broadly to editorial practices well beyond ‘proofreading’. 101 Ezek (Q): μετεληφθη απο των κατα τας εκδοσεις εξαπλων και διορθωθη απο των ΩΡΙΓΕΝΟΥΣ αυτου τετραπλων ατινα και αυτου χειρι διορθωτο; and Esther (CODEX S): μετελημφθη και διορθωθη προς τα εξαπλα ΩΡΙΓΕΝΟΥΣ υπ αυτου διορθωμενα αντωνινος ομολογητης αντεβαλεν, ΠΑΜΦΙΛΟΣ διορθωσα. While both colophons may communicate both senses of the term, Esther’s colophon seems to imply further editorial work by Pamphilus (reediting?). If “re-editing” is a reasonable interpretation, what did this entail? Compare SH Prov. 102 See Swete (1914: 73), though his comments specifically concerned the Hexapla Maior. 103 Note especially the testimony from Origen himself as follows (Hom. in Pss. 77.1.1): It is no marvel if [the Devil] even plots against the Scriptures. Because our salvation is through them, he contrives contradiction among the Scriptures, so that by means of the contradiction there might arise a stumbling block to those who read: which account is to be accepted, this or that? And as much as we labored through God and his grace, examining together both the Hebrew and the versions in order to see to the correction of errors [συνεξετάζοντες καὶ τὰ Ἑβραϊκὰ καὶ τὰς ἐκδόσεις ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἰδεῖν τὴν διόρθωσιν τῶν σφαλμάτων], God knows. What we intend to do about the rest he will guide (ET J. Trigg 2020: 288; Greek from GSC NS 19 [ed. L. Perrone]: 351–52; see also the Greek excerpt with different ET in Gentry 2021: 564). Note that Trigg, based on the final sentence, holds that since these homilies were the final work of Origen’s career (2020: 5), “the Hexapla [was still] a continuing project” (2020: 288, n. 8); however, if Gentry’s reconstruction is correct, the Hexapla Maior would certainly have been completed, and the resulting critical tetraplaric text would have been that which Origen meant.

128 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

semination (i.e., the Caesarean, hexaplaric ἔκδοσις), or do they also mean to make reference to the very act of such editorial production?104 Unhappily, the Greek colophons are simply too vague with respect to the matter, and the SH’s also reflect this ambiguity.105 Due to this opacity, the term is best translated as “edited” in modern English as this does not restrict the sense to ‘proofreading’ but includes it while allowing for implied editorial activities well beyond that sense.106 ► ‫̇ܗܘ ܕ‬ ‫( ܒܐ ܐ ܕܐܘ ܒ‬ln. 6): While the SH’s colophons were at the mercy of Greek scribal rewriting (e.g., ln. 6a), it is of interest that the editorial activity presently mentioned was connected with Eusebius’ hand alone (→ §1.1.1). As the SH Num colophon makes clear, Eusebius was responsible for putting the Samaritan passages in the margins of his hexapla (→ §3.2). Beyond that distinct action, the ambiguities remain. Of course, it is hazardous to extrapolate too much from incomplete data (which have been selectively transmitted), nevertheless, it is interesting to observe the frequency with which Origen is cited by name. Of the above surveyed colophons (→ Table 1.1.1.2), mention of Origen’s name appears in less than half of the subscriptions, specifically detailed as follows: 1) Origen’s library (Isa [SH]), 2) his “hexapla” (Prov and Cant [SH]; 2 Ezra and Esther [CODEX S]), 3) Origen’s exegesis (Isa [Q]), and 4) Origen’s “tetrapla” (Ezek [Q]).

|| 104 Recently Gentry rightly expresses anxiety over this very issue: “… our impoverished knowledge of the early history of the Hexapla [Maior] … make it difficult to distinguish the text of the Fifth Column … and the hexaplaric recension of [G] derived from it. Was this due to Origen’s own work in moving from Hexapla [Maior] to Tetrapla? What changes were introduced by Pamphilus and Eusebius?” (2021: 568). In addition to this level of uncertainty, Gentry muses that perhaps the Hexapla Maior survived “only in part in copies” past Eusebius’ death; thus he states: “We can see that Origen and his successors were only interested in the Tetrapla and not in preserving the original Hexapla [Maior]” (p. 568). Again, Schironi also is unsure who was responsible for what part of the critically emended hexaplaric text (2015: 217 and 219, with n. 85). See also above → 1.1.1, n. 47. 105 This is an important point often unacknowledged in discussions of the “hexapla” (so Schaper 1998: 7 and 9); Grafton and Williams’ is notable exception (2006: 188) as are Schironi and Gentry (see above note). 106 Note that Hesychius (ca. 5th cent. CE) glossed ἀντιβάλλει with διορθοῖ; cp. also at ἀντιστρέφει, διαβάλλει, and ἐπιστρέφει (ed. M. Schmidt 1867: 168). On the textual difficulties with the sole MS for the thesaurus, see P.B.R. Forbes and R. Browning, “Hesychius,” OCD, 679.

The Colophon to Syrohexapla Exodus | 129

Much more frequent is Pamphilus, whose martyrdom and subsequent reputation surely eased any possible disquiet scribes may have had in transmitting a work of either Origen or Eusebius, both whose orthodoxy was questioned at different times for various reasons.107 So presumably, Pamphilus’ role in the production of an authentic copy would not have been omitted from any rewriting of the subscriptions. Nonetheless, much more frequent, and exclusive to those subscriptions for the Octateuch, is Eusebius, and in the Pent, Eusebius Pamphili (→ Table 1.1.1.2; §3.2). He is mentioned by name in all hexaplaric colophons bearing attribution save those from CODEX S, a fact which perhaps ought to be viewed suspiciously. ►‫ܐ‬ ‫( ̇ܗܝ ܕ‬ln. 6b): As discussed above, the referent of ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ̇ܗܝ ܕ‬is that in ln. 5, specifically ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܬܐ( ܕ‬ ) ‫ ̇ܗܝ ܒ ܐ‬.108 The attributions in SH ̇ Exod attest ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܗܝ ܕ‬for every μόνον-passage, save those in Exod 18 and 20 where the more complete ‫ܐ ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ ܒ‬is evinced. Additionally, the same occurs in the first collation annotation, while the other two proffer ‫ܐ‬ ‫§§ →( ܒ ܐ ܕ‬2.4.1; 2.4.2). This is juxtaposed with the language in the SH Num and Deut attributions, where ‫( ܨ ܐ‬or ‫ )? ܒ ܐ‬is generally implied (= ‫ܐ‬ ‫ )ܒ ̇ ܘ ܕ‬or explicitly used, though Num is more mixed than Deut, using ‫̇ܗܝ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܕ‬for four of 15 notes (→ §3.3.1 at Num 13.33‫ו–א‬, attribution). These variations are important to point out as they indicate that the writer(s) of the original colophon and the writer of the annotations were one and the same. By extension, one might posit the colophon’s terminology was modelled on the annotations themselves. Mercati’s suggestion109 that ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ̇ܗܝ ܕ‬somehow relates to “τὸ Σαμαρειτικόν” is rejected here as entirely unsupported by the hexaplaric tradition (→ §1.3). ► ‫( ̇ ܡ ܐܬܬ‬ln. 6b) “προε(/ὐ?)τέθη” (PS 2.3489): The extant data suggests that ‫ ̇ ܡ‬+ represents προτίθημι.110 Mercati’s attempt to connect the

|| 107 It should be pointed out that while Origenist controversies would occasionally arise during the first Christian millennium—in which parties actively supported Origen (see ODCC, “Origenism”)—Eusebius’ reputation was not as actively defended. Compare the note of warning a scribe added to Eusebius’ H.E. just after the listing of contents of Book 1 (MS E, 10th cent. CE, one of the earliest MSS; see LCL 153.5: “Beware, reader, of being caught by the heretical tendency of the writer …”). J. Quasten suggested that Eusebius’ questionable orthodoxy is what led to most of his correspondence disappearing (3.343). 108 Thus Ceriani 1863: 404. 109 1941: 37, n. 2. Though he did not argue forcefully for the connection between the σαμαρειτικόν (as in Gie) and SH Exod, he retroverted ln. 6b with “εξ ου και τα του Σαμαρειτικου ανω παρετεθησαν” indicating he favored such an interpretation (1941: 38).

130 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

form to (ἄνω) παρατίθημι is unconvincing.111 Assuming this retroversion, the translations of Ceriani (“antea posita fuerunt”) and Wright (“have been previously inserted”112), while technically reflective of Syriac compositional practices (‫ ̇ ܡ‬+ a verb), may be somewhat interpretive, perhaps betraying confusion over why the underlying Greek would read προετέθη instead of παρετέθη.113 While the adding of the Samaritan elements was certainly previous to the writing (and subsequent rewriting) of the colophon represented by lns. 5–6c, ln. 6b is only means the scribe who wrote the copy introduced in ln. 4 was not responsible for them, rather his exemplar already had them “set out” in the margins.

|| ̇ ‫ ⨪ܕ‬for τῶν προτεθειμένων. See also σ΄ at Ezek 24.2 ( ‫ ܒ‬.‫ܣ‬ 110 See SH Exod 29.23 ‫܌‬ ̇ ‫ܐ ܗܐ ܡ‬ ‫)ܒ‬, despite the editors’ doubts (PS 2.3489; cp. Field 2.833, n. 2), as well as . See also Hark (and P) Rom 3.25; cp. also SH Ps 85.14, though 53.5 (3) and 100.3 have only ‫ ܕ ̇ ܡ ̇ܐܙܠ‬/ προπορευομενος at Num 13.33‫§ →( ד‬3.3.1) where the context is clearly different. 111 1941: 37, n. 2. 112 Vööbus followed, holding παρετέθη was the Greek (1975: 42, n. 320). 113 It is also possible that the Syriac misread the exemplar (παρετεθη → προετεθη), though lectio facilior argues against it. The same could be said for a mistake at the Greek level.

The Colophon to Syrohexapla Exodus | 131

Historical Analysis Based on the above, the following MS stemma more clearly displays the process:

Fig. 2.2: Hypothetical MS Stemma according to the SH Exod Colophon

Yet there are still lingering issues which philological analysis cannot clarify: ► Unknown time gaps: Undisclosed are the time periods between exemplars (possibly with undisclosed intervening MS generations). For instance, the period between S1 and E1 is unarticulated, as is the period between E3 and E2. ► What was the nature of the E1 ↔ E2 collation? Both are called “hexapla” implying that the source text was ultimately the same. Thus the collation may have principally been for marginalia. Clearly this is the case with respect to SP. One may further posit that any recentiores or scholia transmitted in E2 but not by E1 were transferred. Perhaps, it was at this point that those μόνον-materials extant in other G MSS but missing from SH’s tradition (→ §2.5) dropped out. ► What does E2’s colophon say? Due to the rewriting process of E2’s subscription (see the next discussed point) only three claims can be made for E3: 1)

132 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

that it contained SP passages in the margins; 2) that its base-text was collated against the Samaritan Hebrew ἔκδοσις; and 3) that Eusebius “edited” the exemplar, upon which much effort was expended. Sadly, the only fact from lns. 5–6c which could not have been discovered from a close reading of the MS, is that the collation was concurrent with Eusebius’ editing the exemplar. ► To what extent is E2’s colophon an indirect representation of E3’s? One might consider two possibilities: (a) the scribe of E1 cited ln. 5 and rewrote the content of lns. 6–6c (both from E2); or (b) lns. 5–6c are a rewritten summary of E3’s colophon, presumably précised by the scribe of E2, without any citation of E3’s probable first-person, Eusebian colophonic statement. Unfortunately, a first-person snippet from the original subscription, often excerpted by subsequent Greek scribes in other colophons (e.g., SH Prov, SH Eccles, 2 Ezra, Ezek [Q], etc.), was not transmitted in the present case. It is, however, possible that the SH Num colophon did originally transmit such a statement, most probably from Eusebius himself (→ §3.2). ► Into which “hexapla” was the SP introduced? While the SH Num colophon explicitly states that Eusebius introduced the SP passages into his exemplar/edition of the Seventy, it is unclear what distinction—if any—exists between S1 and S2 here. They may very well be the same basic “hexaplaric” text except that, at some point Eusebius added the μόνον-materials into the margin of S2 but, apparently, not S1. Why? Was S2 a specially made edition of S1 (= Hexapla Maior?)? Were S2 and E3 perhaps different editorial stages of the same object (→ §4.4.1)? Whatever the case, the colophon seems to suggest that S2/E3 was exceptional in this manner, which, by extension, leads to Ceriani’s suggestion that the Hexapla Maior had an annotated Hebrew column (or section) collating SP against MT. While it is certainly possible that this could have existed (→ §§2.4.2; 6.1), the SH Exod colophon does not explicitly support this hypothesis.114 Namely, if the ‫ ܐ ܐ ܐ‬in ln. 5 is to be understood as the Hexapla Maior, then the colophon of E2 would be claiming that Eusebius “edited” not an authorized exemplar of the Eusebian/Caesarean edition (= E3), but the Hexapla Maior itself. This seems unlikely.115 Most crucially, a close reading of SH Num’s colophon (→ §3.2) heavily favors the view of an authorized exemplar. As a result, following || 114 Mercati sided with Ceriani’s hypothesis on the matter (1941: 37, n. 2). 115 Most scholarly literature assumes that references to multiple “hexaplas” indicate the Eusebian-Pamphilan edition and not the Hexapla Maior itself. Recently, Ceulemans argued against (2008: 108) the prevailing opinion that the Hexapla Maior was never copied (e.g., Swete 1914: 76, et al). I do not mean to counter Ceulemans’s suggestion in general—certain Pss MSS (e.g., 1098 and 2005) prove at least some books could have been copied this way—only that the “hexapla” of Exod edited by Eusebius (= E3) was not a columned, synoptical text.

Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 133

Wright’s interpretation (mostly) of the terse language adopted in ln. 3 of the above ET (i.e., “… arranged according …”), S1 here, defined by the phrase “των κατα τας εκδοσεις εξαπλων” (see also the subscriptions for Isa and Ezek [CODEX Q]; cp. similarly [but with “tetrapla”] at SH Twelve → APPENDIX), is most likely the Hexapla Maior itself.116 If so, this would comport with the wider μόνον-data as historically reconstructed in this study (→ §§4.4.1; 6.1; 6.2.1).

2.3 Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary As the SH Exod subscription reveals, the μόνον-collation was an important feature of the copy of the Eusebian-Caesarean ἔκδοσις which the Syrians translated. For there are a great many, very sizeable passages which the MSS describe as ‫ܐ‬ ‫“ ܒ ܕ ܒ ̇ ܝ ܕ‬only in the (ἔκδοσις) of the Samaritans,” as well as a few surviving collation notes (→ §2.4). In addition to these, there are also some scattered readings, of the exact same typology, which are extant only in Greek hexaplaric MSS; these are dealt with separately (→ §2.5). As the SH-derived evidence stands, the μόνον-passages in Exod are as follows: Table 2.3: The μόνον-Type Readings in SH Exod and Derived Witnesses

SP Passage

SH (and JExod)

Parallel

Exod 6.9‫א‬

SH+ (sub ※) JExod+ (txt sub ÷) Isho’dadComm+

Exod 14.12

Exod 7.18‫ג–א‬

SH+ (sub ※) JExod+ (txt sub ÷)

Exod 7.16–18

Exod 7.29(8.4)‫ד–א‬

SH+ (sub ※) JExod+ (txt sub ÷)

Exod 7.26–29(8.1–4)

Exod 8.1(5)‫א‬

SH (sub ※)

Exod 8.1

Exod 8.5(9)+117

SHL+ (sub ※)

Exod 8.7

Exod 8.19(23)‫ד–א‬

+

+

SH (sub ※) JExod* (txt abbr.)

Exod 8.16–19

|| 116 I would, however, emend Wright’s ET for the beginning of ln. 3 reading: “Taken from a (copy of the) Hexapla…” (CMSBM 1.30). Eusebius/Pamphilus, or whoever was responsible, would not need to use a “copy of” the Hexapla Maior; both used the original directly, whether for the μόνον-collation (→ §4.4.1) or any other editoral activity or research (→ §6.2.1). The activity in lns. 3–6c clearly took place in the Caesarean library which housed the massive work. 117 This reading is re-labeled as “Exod 8.5(9)+” differently than T-F in order to designate the shorter SP exclusivity.

134 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

SP Passage

SH (and JExod)

Parallel

Exod 9.5‫ה–א‬

SH (sub ※) JExod* (txt abbr.)

Exod 9.1–5

Exod 9.19‫ז–א‬

SHL+ (sub ※) JExod* (txt abbr.)

Exod 9.13–19

L+

Exod 10.(2)2‫ד–א‬

L+

SH (sub ※) JExod* (txt traces only)

Exod 10.3–6

BarhebraeusScholia+ (after Ex 11.1): mentions SP’s repetitive Plague Narrative (→ EXCURSUS B) Ex 11.3b–3‫–א‬4‫–א‬4a

SHL+ (ind at vv 7/8) JExod* (txt trace)

Exod 11.3–7; 4.22–23

Exod 18.24‫ו–א‬ Exod 18.25–25‫ג–א‬

SHL+ (sub ※) JExod* (txt sub ÷)

Deut 1.9–15; 16–18

Exod 20.17‫ו–א‬

SHL+ (sub ※) JExod* (txt)

Deut 11.29, 27.2–7, 11.30

Exod 20.19‫ד–א‬

SH (sub ※) JExod* (txt)

Deut 5.24–27

Exod 20.21‫ט–א‬

SHL+ (sub ※) JExod* (txt)

Deut 5.28–29; 18.18–22; 5.30–31

L+

N.B.: + = explicitly attributed; * = lack attrib.; all SH text marginal

Each passage is analyzed below in an effort to better understand their origins as well appreciate their place in the Textgeschichte of the hexaplaric tradition. Note that in the following text tables, a transcription of the older, more complete SHL is given, punctuation included, with variants from SHV. All English translations are of SH, or other principal witness where indicated. Where relevant, JExod is discussed largely as a means of confirming SH. On the absence of these data in SHV from Exod 9.5‫ ה–א‬onwards, see below ad loc and EXCURSUS B.

2.3.1 The Plague Narrative Exod 6.9‫א‬: The People’s Complaint SH (L fol. 22a lower mg sub ※; V fol. 24a LH mg encircled118)

‫ܓ‬ ‫ܐ ̇ܗܝ‬

‫ܐܒ ܪ‬ ‫̇ ܗܘܬ‬

̇

.‫̈ܪ ܐ‬

‫ܚ ܒ ܘܬܐ‬ .‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܕ‬ .‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ ܗܘܐ ܗܕܐ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܗ ܕ ܐ܀‬. ‫ܩ‬

‫ ܒ ܩ ܘ‬.‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܐ ܘ ܬ‬9‫א‬ ‫ܒ ܒ‬° ‫ ܐܘ‬.‫̈ܪ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܕܒ̇ܝܕ‬ ‫̈ ܬ‬ ‫ ܗ‬Attrib. ‫ܬ‬ ‫ ܐ‬. ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܐܕ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܬܟ ܒ ܪ‬ ‫ܕ‬

Field’s Reconstructed Greek [Revised]

|| 118 SHV is damaged on the bottom corner of fol. 24a. The MSS agree insofar as can be determined. SHV marked the text with two crosses, one of which resembles a stylized asterisk.

Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 135

9‫ ※ א‬και ειπον προς Μωυσην παρες (S. εασον)119 ημας, και δουλευσ[ω]μεν120 τοις Αιγυπτιοις κρεισσον γαρ ημιν δουλευειν τοις Αιγυπτιοις η αποθανειν ° εν τη ερημω [Attrib. (ταυ)τα φερομενα μονον εν η των σαμαρειτων μεμνηται γαρ τουτων ο λαος μετα [την?] εξοδην ην εξ αιγυπτου λεγων προς μωυσην «ου τουτο ην το ρημα121, ο ελαλησαμεν προς σε εν Αιγυπτω λεγοντες παρες ημας» και οι λοιποι.]122 SP Exod 6.9‫( א‬cf. Exod 14.12) ≠ 4Q1 (DJD 12.26) MT

‫ויאמרו אל משה חדל נא ממנו ונעבדה את מצרים כי טוב לנו עבד את מצרים ממותנו‬ ‫במדבר‬ 9‫ א‬And they said to Moses: “Leave us (alone) and we shall serve the Egyptians! For it is better for us to serve the Egyptians thana to die in the wilderness.” a

SP STJM1: + for us

Attribution: This is only transmitted in the [edition] of the Samaritans. Now the people recall this after the exodus from Egypt, saying to Moses: “Is this not the thing which we told you in Egypt, when we said ‘Leave us alone’”… etc. Exod 6.9‫א‬: The first μόνον-passage in SH’s branch of the tradition (cp. MS 58 below → §2.5.1 at 3.22+) exhibits a mixture both of septuagintism as well as indications of being based on a Samaritan Hebrew source. ► ‫ܚ‬ ‫ ܘ‬/ και δουλευσ[ω]μεν and / ημιν : Both constructions represent departures from the GExod parallel, being οπως δουλευσ. and ημας δουλευειν, respectively.123 As such, these (particularly the first) demonstrate a translation from SP which, while largely cribbed off of the G parallel, still attempted to render the Samaritan source. Thus, the G parallels were not simply excerpted without consideration of SP itself. || 119 Field acknowledged the possibility that the Greek could be παρίημι or ἐάω; cp. SH Exod 14.12 vs. Gen 38.16, Exod 32.10, and Deut 9.14, respectively. His choice was rightly influenced by the passage at 14.12. The characteristic septuagintism of the passages in general is determinative here. N.B.: All Greek reconstructions are supplied without diacritics. 120 Field gave the future inflection (1.90). Strictly speaking, SH cannot provide definitive evidence in cases where the future ind. and aorist subj. are well represented in the MS tradition (see Perkins 1980: 269). However, the majority of MSS at the parallel have the latter (cp. AppI: δουλευσομεν 58-426c O 14′-131C 53f 75n 46mx). 121 Presumably, with the G parallel; SH did not differentiate between ῥῆμα / λόγος (→ Exod 20.21‫)ד‬. 122 Both Field (1.90, n. 10) and Ceriani (1863: 153) provided this only in LT. 123 The first lacks meaningful variant, while the second has some hexaplaric correction in the MS tradition: ημας δουλευειν] ημιν δουλ. 707oII 118′-537b 527y LatCyp Fortun 7 = M; tr 72O 57cI 56′664f n 30′s 74t. Note that οπως was translated by -‫ ܐ ܐ ܕ‬in SH (Perkins 1980: 38).

136 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

► ‫̈ܪ ܐ‬ / τοις Αιγυπτιοις (twice) and ° / αποθανειν ° : Nevertheless, septuagintism still abounds. Technically speaking, ‫ את מצרים‬could be read as “Egypt”; however, in accordance with GExod’s general policy,124 the gentilic was used, as is well attested in the versions.125 SH’s ‫( ܒ ܘܬܐ‬twice) is only a lexical idiosyncrasy126 and is not evidence for a different underlying Hebrew reading. As for ‫ממותנו‬, the μόνον-translator(s) did not supply ημας, a later hexaplaric correction attested by very few MSS.127 Furthermore, the translator(s) did not adhere to Aquila’s practice of marking ‫ את‬with συν.128 Attribution: Codicologically, SHL lacks both a metobelus and a marker indexing the passage to the running text. The latter was supplied in SHV, though the contents of fol. 22a in SHL make it difficult to misplace the μόνον-reading anywhere but with v 9. This was perhaps a liberty taken by SHL. As for the metobelus, both Ceriani and de Lagarde saw the need to mention its absence,129 though its lack hardly creates confusion. ►‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܒ ܕ ܒ ̇ ܝ ܕ‬/ μονον εν η των σαμαρειτων : Both Ceriani and Field clarified that ‫ܬܐ‬ / ἔκδοσις is meant.130 As above (→ §2.2), the abbreviaṫ ed ‫ܐ‬ ‫“ ܒ ܝ ܕ‬in the [ἔκδοσις] of the Samaritans” agrees with the language of both the SH Exod colophon as well as the attribution notes generally, save the collation notes at Exod 26.35‫ י–א‬and 29.20 which specify ‫ܐ‬ ‫“ ܒ ܐ ܕ‬the Hebrew of the Samaritans” (→ §2.4). ► citation: The partially quoted speech from 14.12 is from GExod (not SP) and was supplied to reference the parallel. A similar technique was used in the annotation at Exod 26.35‫י–א‬. Note also the verbal similarity with the attributions in Num (i.e., ‫ܕ‬ ) which cross-reference Deut (→ §§2.3.2 at Exod 18.25– 25‫ג–א‬, attribution, and 3.3.1 at Num 13.33‫ו–א‬, attribution). Later Syriac tradition: The present reading was mentioned in the biblical commentary by Isho‘dad of Merv, bishop of Ḥdatta (fl. 9th cent. CE). His was the first exegetical work in the Church of the East to use SH, a western, Syriac Orthodox product.131 Among the exegetical niceties plundered by Isho‘dad from

|| 124 NGTE, 7–8. 125 The agreement then with ‫ מצריים‬in 4Q22 (DJD 9.64) is circumstantial. 126 See SHB Gen 15.14 (esp. Baars’ comments [1968: 47] and Deut 28.64). Cp. PExod 14.12 ‫ܚ‬ ‫ܕ‬. which reads ‫̈ܪ ܐ‬ 127 Wevers AppI: + ημας 58′O 509mx = M. 128 See Fernández Marcos, 2000: 110 and literature cited there. 129 Ceriani 1863: 153; de Lagarde 1892: 55, n. 10. 130 Ceriani 1863: 153; Field 1.90, n. 10. 131 Ter Haar Romeny 2001: 505.

Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 137

SH’s margins were a few μόνον-passages, including the present, which he described as follows:132

‫ܐ ܀‬

‫ܒ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܓ‬ ‫ܕ‬ .‫ܐ ܒ ܕ‬ ‫ܗܕܐ ܗܘܬ‬ ‫ܗܘܐ‬ .‫ܐ‬

.‫ܘܕ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܗܝ‬ ‫ܒ ܪ ܗܕܐ ܕ ܐ‬ .‫̈ܪ ܐ‬ ‫ܚ ܒ ܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܐ ܒ ܩ‬ ‫ܘܐ ܘ‬ ‫ ܗ ܒ ܐ ܕ‬.‫ܒ ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ ܐܘ‬.‫̈ܪ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܘܬܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬. ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܗ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ ܒ ܪ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܢ ܈ ̇ܗܝ ܕ‬ ‫ܚ ܘܕ‬ ‫ܬܟ ܒ ܪ ܇ ܕ ܒ ܩ ܕ‬

After this (part), “They did not listen to Moses on account of [discouragement… Exod 6.9]” etc., is written in another exemplar: “And they said to Moses: ‘Leave us alone that we might serve the Egyptians. For it is better for us to serve the Egyptians, than to die in the wilderness.’ ” This is only in the exemplar of the Samaritans. Now the people mention this to Moses after the exodus from Egypt, saying “Was this not our word which we told you in Egypt: ‘Leave us alone that we might serve’ ,” etc.

Two aspects of Isho‘dad’s testimony are worth consideration: First, among the SP data preserved in SH, this is the only passage he mentioned in Exod. Why this is so is not immediately clear. Had the μόνον-passages begun to be snubbed (as in SHV → EXCURSUS B) by Isho‘dad’s time? If not, were not much more interesting SP readings transmitted elsewhere in SH Exod? Why were not any of those in Exod 20 commented upon? Without knowing the precise state of the marginalia of Isho‘dad’s source, one cannot be sure.133 One gets the impression that perhaps he simply included the first such reading (cp. Exod 3.22+ → §2.5.1) he found in his source(s). Whatever the case, given his late testimony, it would be improper to use Isho‘dad as evidence e silentio. Second is Isho‘dad’s description ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܐܒ‬ ‫ܐܕ‬ ‫ܗ ܒ‬: As van den Eynde previously detected,134 this differs from the citation formula used throughout SH Exod.135 However, in light of Isho‘dad’s rewriting, the semantic alteration should not be taken as evidence against SH Exod’s underlying Greek as supplied by the collator(s).

|| 132 Text taken from (ed.) C. van den Eynde, CSCO 176.14 (FT in CSCO 179.20). 133 Salvesen proffered the possibility Isho‘dad’s SH exemplar was in fact one of those produced by Timothy I (1997: 231–32, n. 5; ter Haar Romeny [2001: 505] concurs). If so, Timothy’s description of his copies may provide a hint of the state of the μόνον-readings: ‫ ܒ ܿ ܝ ܕ ܓ ̈ ܐܢ‬...

̈ ‫ܐ ܗ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕܒܓ‬

‫ ܒ‬: ‫ܣ ܘܕܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ ܘܬܐܕܘ ܢ ܘ‬ ‫ ܕܒ ܐ‬: ‫ܗ ̈ ܕܒܐ ܐ‬ ‫( ܕ‬Ep. 47); “… as there are so many things in the margin, I mean readings of

Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus and others, taking up almost as much space as the text of the Septuagint in the body of the manuscript” (Brock’s ET; 1997: 246). Quite literally, many μόνονpassages take up the marginal space as described by Timothy (→ APPENDIX, PLATES I and IV). 134 CSCO 179.20, n. 3. 135 Barhebraeus also preferred to describe ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܒ ̇ ܝ ܕ‬as ‫ →( ܒ ܐ‬EXCURSUS B).

138 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

Exod 7.18‫ג–א‬: The Nile Turns to Blood SH (L fol. 26a top mg sub ※ ind

136

; V fol. 25a mg encircled sub ⁜ ind ✠137)

‫ܪ‬

‫ܐ ܐܕ ܒ ܐ‬ . ‫ܢ ܘܐ ܘ‬ .‫ܐ ܐ ܕ ̣ ܢ ܒ ܒ ܐ‬ ̣ ̣ ‫ܘܗܐ ܐ‬ ‫ ܗܐ ܐ ܐ‬. ‫ ܒ ܕܐ ܬܕܥ ܕܐ ܐ ܗܘ‬. 18‫ ג‬.‫ܐ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫̈ ܐ ܕܒ ܪܐ܆ ܘ‬ ‫ܐ ̈ ܐ‬ ‫̈ܪ ܐ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܪܐ܆ ܘ ܐ‬ .‫܀‬. ‫( ܘܐܙ‬18‫ = )א‬JExod] ‫ ܘܐܙܠ‬SHV ] bis SHV ‫( ܗܘ‬18‫ ])ב‬sub ln.

‫ܐ ܘܐܗܪܘܢ ܬ‬ ‫ܘܐܙ‬ 18‫א‬ ̣ ‫ܐ ܕ ܆‬ ‫ܐ ܆ ܪ‬ ‫ܬܟ‬ ̇ ‫ ܗ ܐ‬18‫ ב‬.‫ܐ ܕܐ‬ ‫ ܒܐ ̣ ܐ ܕ‬° ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܐܐ ܒ‬ ‫ ܘ ܐ‬.‫ܬܘܢ‬ ‫ܘ ̈ ܐ ܕܒ ܪܐ‬ ↘ . .‫ܪܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܐܒ ܕ‬ ‫ ܗ ܒ ̇ ܝ ܕ‬Attrib.

(18‫ ≈ )א‬JExod] > SHV ‫ܐ ] ܕܐ‬

SHV = JExod

Field’s Reconstructed Greek [Revised] 18‫ ※ א‬και εβαδισαν Μωυσης και Ααρων προς Φαραω, και ειπον αυτω ΠΙΠΙ ο θεος των Εβραιων απεσταλκεν ημας προς σε, λεγων εξαποστειλον τον λοαν μου, ινα λατρευσωσι μοι εν τη ερημω και ιδου ουκ εισηκουσας εως τουτου. 18‫ ב‬ταδε λεγει ΠΙΠΙ εν τουτω γνωση οτι εγω ΠΙΠΙ ιδου εγω τυπτω τη ραβδω (τη)138 εν τη χειρι μου επι το υδωρ το εν τω ποταμω και μεταβαλειται εις αιμα. 18‫ ג‬και οι ιχθυες οι εν τω ποταμω τελευτησουσι, και εποζεσει ο ποταμος, και ου δυνησονται οι Αιγυπτιοι πιειν υδωρ απο του ποταμου ↙ [Attrib. (ταυ)τα139 εν η των σαμαρειτων μονον κειμενα] SP Exod 7.18‫( ג–א‬cf. 7.16–18) 4Q22 (DJD 9.74–75) ≠ 4Q1 (12.28) 4Q14? (12.105–06)140 ΜΤ ‫{ וילך משה ואהרן אל פרעה ויאמרו אליו יהוה אלהי העברים שלחנו אליך‬7.16} 18‫א‬ ‫{ כה אמר‬7.17} 18‫לאמר שלח את עמי ויעבדני במדבר והנה לא שמעת עד כה ב‬

‫יהוה בזאת תדע כי אני יהוה הנה אנכי מכה במטה אשר בידי על המים אשר ביאר‬ ‫{ והדגה אשר ביאר תמות ובאש היאר ונלאו מצרים לשתות‬7.18} 18‫ונהפכו לדם ג‬ ‫מים מן היאר‬ ‫ וי]א[ו֯ מר ]ויאמרו‬4Q22141 ‫( ביאר‬18‫ בת]וך היאר ])ג‬4Q22 (= 7.18) ‫ ֿמ]צ[ריים ]מצרים‬4Q22142

|| 136 This marker is apparently not tied to a place in the running text, though the reading is set where it could be logically inserted in the narrative. 137 The asterisk ⁜ is set along the side of the reading at the beginning of the second and third lines; the first line is where the ind cross lay. The passage was written along the lower and outer margins perpendicularly. No metobelus is visible in SHV. The page suffered from water damage on the bottom corner resulting in parts of the passage wearing away. 138 Thus Field, see below discussion. 139 For the demonstrative, see Perkins 1980: 114 and Nöld. Gram. §201; for the article, Nöld. Gram. §228 and Perkins 1980: 195. There is thus some ambiguity here, and this continues throughout. 140 While 4Q14 can be reconstructed with either SP or MT, Sanderson reconstructs with MT.

Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 139

18‫ א‬And theya went, Moses and Aaron, to Pharaoh, and theyb said to him: “‫יהוה‬c the God of the Hebrews sent us to you saying: ‘Send away my people so that theyd might worship me in the wilderness. And behold, you have not listened until ethis (point)e.’ 18‫ ב‬Thus says ‫יהוה‬: ‘By this you shall know that I am ‫יהוה‬. Behold, I myself am striking with the stafff in my hand the waters which are in the River, and they shall be changed to blood. 19‫ ג‬And the fish which are in theg River will die, and the River will stink. And the Egyptians will hnot be ableh to drink the waters from the River.’ ” a f

SHV SP ST: sg b 4Q22: he c > SHV d Sam. vocal. and ST-M: sg e SHV (JExod): now SP ST: + which is g 4Q22: + midst of (the) h SP ST: will struggle / be weary

Attribution: This is only extant in the [edition] of the Samaritans Exod 7.18‫ג–א‬: As a whole, the passage clearly conforms to the characteristics of the μόνον-translation including both nearness to (vis-à-vis the pre-SP MSS) and distance from SP (i.e., septuagintism). Exod 7.18‫א‬: The verse need not represent any genuine SP variants. ► ‫ ܘܐܙ‬/ και εβαδισαν : Both the older SHL and JExod confirm that the Syriac reads with the plural as neither witness could have derived a plural from the parallel, whether G or P; SHV’s singular is thus secondary. Nevertheless, it should be pointed out that no variant in SP or ST agree with the plural. And while it is not impossible that SP read with the plural ‫ וילך‬:: ‫וילכו‬,143 the use of a plural for their “going” to Pharaoh presumably would somewhat diminish Moses’ leadership and agency, something highlighted by the fact that even 4Q22 apparently did not mention Aaron here.144 Furthermore, the syntactic combination of Moses’ entering (in the sg.) with both Moses and Aaron speaking (in the pl.) occurs throughout these passages, suggesting such was the case here regardless of the differing verb of movement ‫הלך‬. It is thus easier to assume a scribal error during Greek transmission εβαδισεν → εβαδισαν (presuming Eusebius himself did not make a mistake).145

|| 141 Though not extant, Sanderson reconstructs without ‫ ואהרון‬based upon ‫( וי]א[ו֯ מר‬DJD 9.75). SH agrees with the SP’s plural reading, again indicating the text was not loosely excerpted from the parallel passage. 142 For the gentilic, double yod morpheme, see Sanderson’s discussion (DJD 9.64). 143 There are no final forms in Samaritan script, thus ‫ ־ך‬could not have precluded a misreading. 144 On Aaron’s being inserted to these passages, see Tov 2017: 12, n. 29 (following B. Lemmelijn). 145 Ceriani felt that graphic confusion was a possibility. He was unsure also whether Greek or Syriac scribe(s) were influenced by the context (1863: 161).

140 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

► ‫ ܘܐ ܘ‬/ και ειπον : In conjunction with the above paragraph, the reading indicates SP’s plural against both the GExod parallel (without variant) and 4Q22. ► / ΠΙΠΙ (≈ ‫ܐ‬ JExod): SHV is missing the divine Name. While the V later witness SH tends to convert to ‫ܐ‬ (as Jacob did here → EXCURSUS C), for this passage the latter two are present, along with attendant quššoyo ̇ ̇ ) indicating that they are pronounced with a “hard P” (i.e., the upper dots: equivalent to Greek Π (as opposed to Φ).146 Technically, based on Jacob’s editorial method his ‫ܐ‬ could have been taken from the P parallel in v 16. Thus his witness here is neutral strictly-speaking. ► / ημας (= ‫ ܪܢ‬JExod147): Again, the reading agrees with SP148 as extant here against all149 parallel evidence, including SP Exod 7.16 reading “me.” ► ‫ܢ‬ ‫ ܕ‬/ ινα λατρευσωσι μοι : The translator(s) produces septuagintism here both in the use of the subjunctive150 but, more importantly, in rendering the third plural.151 For both Samaritan vocalization reads and ST152 understands ‫ ויעבדני‬as wyābbå̄då̄ni (third singular), both here and in the parallel.153 This unique Samaritan vocalization occurs 14 times, based on Exod 4.23 where Israel is referred to as “my son” (and thus singular), at each of the parallels in the Plague Narrative as well as at those in 7.29(8.4)‫א‬, 8.19(23)‫א‬, 9.5‫א‬, 9.19‫א‬, and 10.2‫א‬154 where the μόνον-translation similarly disagrees with the reading tradition as here. It is a parade example of the extent to which the cribbing of the G parallel dominates the hexaplaric “translation”; specifically, the G parallel entirely guides the rendering of defective Hebrew forms (→ §2.6.1). As the following will demonstrate, this is not the only evidence for the lack of concord between the Caesarean translator(s) and Samaritan exegesis. ► ‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ / εως τουτου (≠ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ SHV JExod): At the Syriac level Jacob and SHV arrive at “until now” as opposed to “until this (sc. time / point).”

|| 146 On this, see Nöld. Gram. §25. 147 The JExod scribe came to the end of the line here, perhaps explaining the combined form. 148 But STV: ‫שלחי‬. 149 AppI: ημας Cyr. The reading is a simple mistake and exceptional. 150 AppI: -σουσιν 628n. 151 The word order μοι λατρευσωσιν however is corrected either by the translator(s) or by means of the majority variant (see AppI). Compare the circumstances for the other listed cases. 152 ST: ‫ וישמשני‬J A (‫ ויעבדני‬V; cp. ‫ וישמשוני‬M). Interestingly enough Tsedaka’s ET of SP has “… that they may serve me …” here (and in v 16 proper), presumably in order to achieve more natural English unless it is a mistake (cp. Florentin’s 2015 review). 153 Ben-Ḥayyim 1977: 409; T-F, 667. 154 See Ben-Ḥayyim 1977: 197.

Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 141

JExod’s is from the mixing with the PExod parallel as even the word order of v 16 is maintained. SHV’s, however, is more likely from graphic confusion, i.e., ‫ܕܐ‬ →‫ܐ‬ something perhaps more likely in the later serto script. (SHV also has ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ for v 16 in-text, reinforcing this interpretation.) As Ceriani155 observed, there is a short explanatory scholion at v 16 in SHLmg: ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܕܐ‬. This is merely an explanation for the somewhat odd translation choice GExod156 made for Hebrew ‫כֹּה‬. Wevers translated this construction as “up to this point.”157 Exod 7.18‫ב‬: ► ‫ ܒܐ ܐ‬° / (τη) εν τη χειρι : SHV is damaged at this point, and JExod reflects PExod’s ‫ ܕܒܐ ܝ‬precisely. Both Field and Ceriani (via his LT) supplied their respective witnesses’ reflection of SP ‫אשר‬. Ceriani justly understood this as a simple scribal error.158 Exod 7.18‫ג‬: Verse 18‫ ג‬contains a few noteworthy elements. ► ‫ ܕܒ ܪܐ‬/ οι εν τω ποταμω : The reading is in complete agreement with SP, contra 4Q22’s [‫“ בת]וך היאר‬in the mid[st of the river].”159 As the μόνονtranslation both here in Exod and also in Num makes abundantly clear, even despite the fragmentary witness of both 4Q22 and 4Q27, the translator(s) had before them an exemplar which aligned textually with SP proper, when it departs from the pre-Samaritan text (→ §1.3.2.3). ► ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܘ ܐ‬/ και ου δυνησονται : SP’s ‫ ונלאו‬is in agreement with MT’s vocalization, meaning “will be weary,” i.e., “loathe to.”160 ST follows suit with the Aramaic cognate ‫לעי‬.161 Wevers was correct to observe that the GExod rendering is exceptional; however, it is not unique but occurs also in Prov 26.15.162 His assessment was that GExod here captured “what MT meant.” Nevertheless, the present case is a septuagintism as the comparative Samaritan exegesis makes clear.

|| 155 1863: 160. He believed this clarifying note originated at the Syriac level. 156 Wevers did not discuss this, perhaps as H-R did not concord ουτος (1035). Note the minority variant in some scattered MSS; AppI: εως τουτου 835] εως του νυν 56*f 458n 318y Co. 157 NGTE, 100; NETS adopted this. 158 1863: 161. 159 Sanderson felt that SP’s reading (= MT), both here and in the parallel, represented the preferable text (1986: 86–87), stating that 4Q22’s reading was a further development. Kim held that SP read “smoother” than 4Q22 for the passage (1994: 116 with n. 26). 160 Third plural niphal (Ben-Ḥayyim 1977: 150); see also Tal who glosses ST as “the Egyptians will give up drinking…” (DSA, ‫)לעי‬. Thus, Tsedaka’s ET: “ … will be tired in drinking water ….” HALOT’s gloss “not be capable anymore” was perhaps influenced by G. 161 Note the variant in Vm: ‫“ ויתמנעון‬they will be prevented (from).” 162 NGTE, 101. Cp. H-R, 354 and Muraoka, Two-Way Index, 73 as well as LALHB.

142 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

Attribution: Out of the 14 μόνον-attributions in Exod, seven use reflecting κεῖμαι. Compare that at Exod 7.29(8.4)‫ ד–א‬below. For the attributions in JExod, see the survey and discussion below (→ §5.2.3 and Table 5.2.3.2). Exod 7.29(8.4)‫ד–א‬: The Plague of Frogs SH (L fol. 27a top mg sub ※163; V fol. 25b lower mg encircled sub ⁜ ind ✣164)

‫ܐ‬

‫ܪܘ‬

‫ ܪ‬. ‫ ܗ ܐ‬.‫ܬܗ‬ ‫ܢܘ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܗܐ ܐ ܐ‬.‫ܪܘ‬ ‫ܐܒ ܐܐ‬ ‫ ܘ‬.‫ܐܘ̈ܪܕ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ ܓ ܐ ܗܘ ܪܐ‬29‫ ג‬.‫ܐ‬ ̈ ̈ ̈ ‫ܘܒ ܐܕ‬ ‫ܐܕ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܐܕ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ ܘ‬29‫ד‬ ̈ . ‫ܬ‬ = JExod] +

‫ܐܕ‬

‫ܐ ܘܐܗܪܘܢ ܬ‬ ‫ ܘ‬29‫א‬ ‫ ܐܢ ܕ‬29‫ ב‬. ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܐ ܐܕ‬. ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܒܐܘ̈ܪܕ‬ ‫ܘܢ ̈ܬ ̈ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܐܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܘ ܘܐܕ‬ ‫ܒ ܐܕ‬ . ‫ܘܒ ̈ܪ ܘܒ ̈ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ ܐ ܕ‬°‫ܘܕ‬ ↘ .‫ܐܘ̈ܪܕ ܐ‬ ‫̈ ܐܕ‬ ‫ܐܒ ܕ‬ ‫ ܀ ܗ ܒ ܝ ܕ‬Attrib.

̈ SHV ‫ܘܘ ܐ ]ܘ ̈ܘ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ‬SHV 165

Field’s Reconstructed Greek [Revised] 29‫ ※ א‬και εισηλθε Μωυσης και Ααρων προς Φαραω, και [ελαλησαν]166 [προς αυτον]167 ταδε λεγει ΠΙΠΙ εξαποστειλον τον λαον μου, ινα λατρευσωσι μοι. 29‫ב‬ ει δε μη βουλει εξαποστειλαι, ιδου εγω τυπτω168 ταντα τα ορια σου βατραχοις. 29‫ ג‬και εξερευξεται ο ποταμος βατραχους, και αναβαντες εισελευσονται εις τους οικους σου, και εις τα ταμιεια των κοιτωνων σου, και επι των κλινων σου, και εις τους οικους των θεραποντων σου, και ° του λαου σου, και εν τοις κλιβανοις σου, και εν τοις φυραμασι σου. 29‫ ד‬και επι σε, και επι τον λαον σου, και επι τους θεραποντας σου αναβησονται οι βατραχοι. ↙ [Attrib. (ταυ)τα εν η των σαμαρειτων μονον φερομενα]

|| 163 L lacks an ind marker instead relying upon the context to imply where the reading fits. 164 V likely has ‫ ܘܒ ̈ ܐ ܕ‬in accordance with L though it is difficult to make out due to damage on the corner of fol. 25b. Also a stray ⁜ is placed before ‫ ܒܐܘ̈ܪܕ ܐ‬for no apparent reason. ̈ 165 The variant ‫ ܘ ܘܘ ܐ‬in V is only orthographic; ‫ܬܘ ܐ‬, ‫ܬܐܘ ܐ‬, and ‫ ܬܘܘ ܐ‬all mean ‘inner room’. . The impropriety is due to his over reliance on 166 Field’s ειπον (1.93) does not equal SH’s the G parallel και ερεις at 7.26 (8.1); a simple mistake as he was well aware of SH’s equivalencies for εἶπον and λᾰλέω (2005: 130; 1.lxix). 167 Field’s αυτω reflects not ‫( ܬܗ‬cp. SH Exod 9.1 vs. 7.26, respectively). Ironically, the parallel has προς (>126cII) αυτον (αυτω 76′mx). He reconstructed correctly at Exod 9.19‫א‬. See also at 8.19(23)‫א‬. 168 Wevers observed GExod’s unique use of τύπτω here for ‫( נגף‬NGTE, 106). Though SH seems not to have differentiated between τύπτω (e.g., 7.17, 27) and πατάσσω (e.g., 7.20, 25), septuagintism favors τύπτω.

Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 143

SP Exod 7.29(8.4)‫( ד–א‬cf. 7.26–29[8.1–4]) ⟨4Q22⟩ (DJD 9.76)169 4Q20 (12.149– 150)170 ≠ 4Q14 (12.105) ΜΤ ‫{ ויבא משה ואהרן אל פרעה וידברו אליו כה אמר יהוה שלח את עמי‬7.26} 29‫א‬ ‫{ ואם מאן אתה לשלח הנה אנכי נגף את כל גבולך בצפרדעים‬7.27} 29‫ויעבדני ב‬ ‫{ ושרץ היאר צפרדעים ועלו ובאו בבתיך ובחדרי משכביך ועל מטתיך‬7.28} 29‫ג‬ ‫{ ובך ובעמך ובכל עבדיך יעלו‬7.29} 29‫ובבתי עבדיך ובעמך ובתנוריך ובמשארתיך ד‬

‫הצפרדעים‬ ???] ]◦ ‫ ו[בֿכֿל‬4Q20171

29‫ א‬And Moses entered, and Aaron, to Pharaoh, and they spoke to him: “Thus says ‫יהוה‬: ‘Send away my people so that theya might worship me. 29‫ ב‬Yet if you are unwilling to send awayb; behold I myself will strike all your boardersa with frogs. 29‫ ג‬And the river shall cpuke outc frogs. And dgoing up, they will enterd your houses, and your innermost-rooms, and upon your beds, and in the houses of your servants, and ofe your people, and in your baking ovens, and in your dough (lumps). 29‫ ד‬And the frogs shall come up upone you and upone your people, and uponf your servants.’ ” a

Sam. vocal. and ST: sg b SHV: + my people c SP ST: swarm forth will rise up and enter e SP ST: in (or against) f SP ST: against all

d

SP ST: and they

Attribution: This is only transmitted in the [edition] of the Samaritans. Exod 7.29(8.4)‫ד–א‬: In what is easily one of the more entertaining parts of the Plague Narrative, the present passage betrays both septuagintism and a lack of familiarity with the Samaritan reading/exegetical tradition. Despite these typical, μόνον-type features, the translation was clearly based on a consonantal Samaritan text. Exod 7.29(8.4)‫א‬: Both the presence of Aaron172 and the use of ‫ דבר‬signal the translator(s) were using a true Samaritan source; MT and GExod lack these in the parallel. ► ‫ܢ‬ ‫ ܕ‬/ ινα λατρευσωσι μοι : See note at Exod 7.18‫א‬. ► / ΠΙΠΙ : The μόνον-translation utilized ΠΙΠΙ for the nomen sacrum in conformity with common hexaplaric practice. It need only be mentioned here that ‫ܐ‬ does not occur in SH Exod’s μόνον-texts (according to MS L), while the situation is more mixed in SH Num. The implications of both and the

|| 169 Sanderson believes this expansion was present according to her reconstruction. 170 The placement of the text vis-à-vis the parashot intervals “favors the expansion” (DJD 12.149). Hendel is inclined to classify 4Q20 as pre-(proto- in his parlance)SP (2016: 185 and 198). 171 In accordance with the reconstruction after SP, 4Q20’s ]◦ ‫ ו[בֿכֿל‬may suggest a different order of elements; see the discussion in DJD (12.150). This variant is unrelated to the text here since the translation lacks any reflection of ‫כל‬. 172 Again on the inclusion of Aaron in the pre-SP text-type, see Sanderson 1986: 201–05.

144 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

inconsistency in Num will be discussed below, especially in comparison with Samaritan practices (→ §3.3.1 at Num 20.13‫ א‬and EXCURSUS C). Exod 7.29‫ב‬: The plural ‫ ܬ ̈ ܐ ܕ‬can reasonably be surmised as a septuagintism. In fact, GPent does not exhibit the singular, save Deut 3.16–17 (twice).173 No Greek revisers supplied the singular.174 Oddly, Wevers adopted SHV’s ‫ܐ ܕ‬ here in AppII. This is curious as it does not equal SP itself nor the majority of G MSS at Exod 7.28 (8.2).175 Note that JExod confirms SHL, and thus SHV is clearly “ex par” and therefore secondary. Exod 7.29‫ג‬: This verse in particular demonstrates the three principle characteristics of μόνον-septuagintism: lexical equivalents, syntactical construction, and preposition election. ► ‫ ܓ ܐ‬/ εξερευξεται : The use of ‫‘ ܓ ܐ‬to vomit, to belch forth’ represents a wholly septuagintized interpretation, being an overly colorful translation for ‫שרץ‬.176 The idiosyncratic177 equivalency was taken from GExod as traditionally rendered, in opposition to a more normative translation of ‫שרץ‬.178 It also bears mention that ST MSS display a tendency to remove indelicate phraseology, including spitting or vomiting,179 suggesting the Samaritans would not have approved of GExod’s translation, something the equivalencies in ST MSS make clear (J ‫ ;שרץ‬A ‫* ;רמס‬M1 ‫)רבי‬. In light of this exegetical tradition, it is quite clear that no Samaritan would have retained G’s phrasing from the parallel. ► °. ‫ ܘ‬/ και αναβαντες ° εισελευσονται : Verse 29‫ ג‬continues to demonstrate syntactic influence from the G parallel, here ignoring the waw and using a typical G construction (participle + indicative; e.g., Exod 1.10, 2.2, etc.). ► Use of the plural: As Wevers previously noted, GExod “quite properly”180 utilized the plural for ‫( בית‬twice), ‫חדר‬, ‫משכב‬, and ‫מטה‬, reflecting MT’s collective singular. Presuming septuagintism, it is unclear whether the translator(s)

|| 173 See Wevers, NGTE, 106. 174 Ceriani’s comment “quae ut reapse nil differerunt” (1863: 164) is quite correct. 175 εξαποστειλαι] + τον λαον μου 120′-128′z. This is clearly “ex par.” ‫ )ܓ ܐ‬where the literary context is the Plagues themselves. 176 See also SH Wis 19.10 (‫ܪܐ‬ See PS 1.757–58 and Brockelmann-Sokoloff, Lexicon, ‫ܓ‬, for additional examples, some from medical texts where such imagery is to be expected. 177 Hence Tov’s evaluation: “[GExod] was definitely not literal, as it includes unusual translation choices” (2017: 3). 178 See Wevers, NGTE, 107. LEH2 omits this occurrence of εξερευξομαι, perhaps by mistake (?). Muraoka omits this sole use of εξερευγομαι for ‫( שרץ‬Two-Way Index, 375) disagreeing with HR’s earlier judgment (491). 179 See Tal 2003: 122–23. 180 NGTE, 107; cp. Kim who holds that these are harmonistic (1994: 110).

Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 145

consciously provided the plural in accordance with SP or if this was done as the result of GExod. The yod in Samaritan script is more difficult to overlook than in square script: ‫בבתיך ובחדרי משכביך ועל מטתיך‬ ‫ובבתי עבדיך‬. ► Prepositions: The selection of varying prepositions for ‫ ב־‬strictly adheres to the GExod parallel, producing in v 29‫ג‬: εις, εις, επι, εις, a genitive, εν, and εν, respectively. Apparently, the μόνον-translator(s) could not be bothered to level these forms or vary from the guiding hand of GExod.181 The cribbing is so rote that the translator(s) missed (?) the preposition at ‫ובעמך‬, producing ‫ܐ‬ °‫ ܘܕ‬/ και ° του λαου σου. Ceriani suggested that perhaps SH’s ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܕ‬had been corrupted from ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܒ‬.182 However, since the G parallel (7.28[8.3]) reads without ‫ב־‬ , presuming corruption feels forced.183 As is typical of the μόνον-translation’s septuagintism, the G parallel’s selection of prepositions nearly always prevails. Compare the use of εις vs. εν in the “Samaritan Itinerary” at Deut 10.6–6‫–א‬7– 7‫–א‬6 (in MS 767, not groups d t) matching the parallels at GNum 33.33–36 (→ §4.3.2). ► ‫ ̈ ܐ‬/ τοις φυραμασι σου : This specific rendering is also from the parallel as the Syriac makes clear. Compare that at Deut 28.5, where G understood the Hebrew differently.184 The order of the parallel was perhaps independently corrected to conform with SP, if the hexaplaric text was not consulted.185 Exod 7.29‫ד‬: The verse continues the septuagintism in 29‫ ג‬to a fault. ► Prepositions: Again, as in v 29‫ג‬, preposition selection is entirely that of the GExod parallel the translator(s) was using. Here is it realized with επι (3x). ► Omission of ‫ כל‬: Presumably, ‫ כל‬was in the Samaritan source text as no SP or ST MS omits it. Thus, this omission too is possibly based on the GExod text, though caution is required because GExod transposes ‫ עמך‬and ‫עבדיך‬, seemingly to level with the forthcoming references in 8.5(8.9) and 7(11).186 Whether or not the translator had (or consulted) MSS with the popular variant “correcting” this

|| 181 Wevers: “Exod uses different propositions … to show where the frogs go to, but why he did so is not always clear” (NGTE, 107). On Syriac equivalencies, see Perkins 1980: 75 and 78. 182 1863: 164. This is of course graphically possible, if only in Syriac. 183 Cp. PExod’s ‫ ܘܒ‬and all Tgs. As Ceriani pointed out, JExod (fol. 124‫ )ܐ‬reads ‫ܘܕ‬ confirming SH’s reading. 184 See Wevers, NGTD, 428. 185 See AppI. 186 NGTE, 107.

146 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

order is uncertain.187 Presumably, if the translator(s) corrected the order himself, he would have noticed the missing παντα found only in MS 458n. For a theory on how small words such as this could have been omitted/missed as a result of the process of the μόνον-collation itself, see below (→ §4.4.1). Attribution: Of the 14 μόνον-attributions in Exod seven use ‫( ܐܬܐ‬ettafal = φερόμεν-)188 while the rest use (κεῖμαι). As above, ‫ ܒ ̇ ܝ‬reflects ἔκδοσις. Exod 8.1(5)‫א‬: The Plague of Frogs Comes SH (L fol. 27b top mg sub ※; V fol. 26a LH mg encircled sub ⁜ ind +)

‫ܐܘ̈ܪܕ ܐ‬

‫܆ ܘܐ‬

‫ܐܕ‬

‫ܘܚ ܒܐ ̣ ܟ‬ ̈ ‫ܕ‬ .

.‫ܬ ܐܗܪܘܢ‬ ‫ܐܒ‬

‫ܐ‬

↘. ‫ܪ‬

‫ܒ̇ܝܕ‬

̣ ‫ ܘܐ‬1‫א‬ ‫ܐܪ ܐ ܕ‬ ̇ ‫ ܘܗ‬. - Attrib.

Field’s Reconstructed Greek [Revised] 1‫ ※ א‬και ειπε Μωυσης προς Ααρων εκτεινον τη χειρι σου την ραβδον σου, και αναγαγε τους βατραχους επι την γην Αιγυπτου ↙ [Attrib. και (ταυ)τα εν η των σαμαρειτων μονον κειμενα] SP Exod 8.1‫( א‬cf. 8.1) ⟨4Q22⟩189 4Q20? (DJD 12.149–150) ≠ 4Q20 ? 4Q14 (12.106) ΜΤ ‫{ ויאמר משה אל אהרן נטה את ידך במטך ותעל הצפרדע על ארץ מצרים‬8.1} 1‫א‬ ‫ ]מושה[ ]משה‬4Q20190 1‫ א‬And Moses said to Aaron: “Stretch out ayour staff in your handa. And bring up frogsb upon the land of Egypt.” a

SP ST: your hand with your staff

b

SP STJEB: coll. sg.

Attribution: And this is only extant in the [edition] of the Samaritans. Syriac Witnesses: Both SH MSS transmit the reading in perfect agreement. JExod omits, presumably as this is perhaps more redundant than Jacob would have preferred (→ EXCURSUS B; §5.2.3).191 Ceriani rightly pointed out that SHL has no

|| 187 τους θεραποντας] et τον λαον tr F M O′−376-15-29-135οΙΙ C′’ d 53′-56*-246f 75n s t 121′y 68′z 18mx 59mx 76′ mx 509mx 646mx LatAug Loc in hept II 40 Aeth−c Arab Arm Bo SH = M. Surely this reading was available to him. 188 PS 1.416–17. 189 Sanderson calculates this reading’s presence in the missing lines (DJD 9.77). 190 DJD reconstructs the plene form in accordance with that extant in 8.1 for 4Q20 (12.149). 191 Ceriani only said he did not have the reading for JExod here (1863: 165; → §5.2.1).

Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 147

ind marker;192 SHV, however, does. Given the flow of the narrative, the reading could not logically be misplaced. Exod 8.1‫א‬: The verse contains two septuagintisms.193 First, the smoother syntax “your staff in your hand” is clearly taken from the G parallel, the latter having relocated the preposition ‫“ ב־‬with better logic.”194 Both SP and ST (along with the parallel in MT and all Aramaic witnesses) read “your hand with your staff.”195 Second, much like the fish in the first plague, the Hebrew attests the collective singular for the plural frogs here in the μόνον-translation. Interestingly enough, STAV also read plural ‫ ארדעניה =( ערדניה‬V, note the guttural switching). This, however, is merely coincidence. Attribution: See above Exod 7.18‫ ג–א‬at attribution, for comment. Exod 8.5(9)+: “… and from your servants and from your people …” SH (L fol. 28a LH mg sub ※ ind ~ 196; > V)

‫܆‬

‫ܐܕ‬

‫ܘ‬

‫̈ ܐܕ‬

‫ ܘ‬5+ ‫ܐ܆‬

̇ ‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ܘܗܝ ܕ‬

‫ ܒ ̇ ܒ‬Attrib. .‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬

Field’s Reconstructed Greek [Revised]197 Attrib. ομοιως και η των Σαμαρειτων, 5‫ ※ א‬και απο των θεραποντων σου, και απο του λαου σου (↙), ακολουθως198 κειται. SP Exod 8.5+ (cf. 8.7199) ⟨4Q22⟩ (DJD 9.77)200 ≠ 4Q14 (12.106)201 ΜΤ

‫ ויאמר משה אל פרעה התפאר עלי למתי העתיר לך ולעבדיך ולעמך להכרית‬8.5 ‫ רק ביאר תשארנה‬8.5 ‫{ ומעבדיך ומעמך‬8.7} 5+ ‫הצפרדעים ממך ומבתיך‬ Attribution: In a similar manner the [edition] of the Samaritans also accordingly reads (lit. has extant): (5)9+ … and from your servants and from your people …

|| 192 1863: 165. 193 Both flagged by Ceriani without further discussion (1863: 165). 194 Thus Wevers’ assessment (NGTE, 108). 195 Thus Tsedaka’s somewhat awkward ET “… stretch out your hand with your stick….” 196 The note is indexed to ‫ ܒ ܡ‬in v 5. 197 Field for whatever reason only set this case in a footnote (1.93, n. 12). 198 Field appears to have indicated some hesitation in his retroversion (1.93, n. 12) setting ‫ܐ‬ in parentheses. See, however, PS 2.2460, citing this case specifically as well as P 1(3) Esd 7.6, et al. The SH excerpts for 1(3) Esd 7.6 from the London Collection confirm this equivalency (see BL ADD. 12168, fol. 63b and the Leiden edition ad loc). 199 Kim sees the parallel as MT 7.29 but the order is different there (1994: 143). 200 Sanderson again bases her reconstruction of the scroll’s line count. 201 The spacing of lines 29–30 make is “virtually certain” that the scroll disagrees with SP.

148 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

Exod 8.5(9)+: Despite the brevity of the reading, there a number of elements which bear comment. Syriac Witnesses: Of the three Syriac witnesses to the μόνον-collation in Exod, only SHL transmits the reading; SHV and JExod omit, the former presumably due to an error of some kind, while the latter likely did so purposefully (→ §5.2.3). SHV transmitted the “SP Omits” collation note at Exod 8.6–7 (→ §2.4.2) and, after the effaced reading at 8.19(23)‫ד–א‬, only then decided to omit the remaining μόνον-data in Exod (→ EXCURSUS B). Thus, it is probable that the omission here was unintentional. Attribution (first part): The present case is somewhat different than the others attested, and thus the attribution lacks the descriptor “μόνον.” This is because, strictly speaking, the Samaritan reading does not wholly qualify as an exclusive, since both GExod and SP read “and your people.” Thus, the reading is partially in conformity to the text to which is was indexed. Nevertheless, the order of the elements is different, hence the collation. Reading: SP, MT, and GExod all differ here as follows with respect to those entities to be freed from the frog plague: SP from you, and from your houses, AND FROM YOUR SERVANTS, and from your people MT from you, and from your houses G from you, and from your people, and from your houses Thus only SP’s “and from your servants” is unique to SP202; also the order of “your people” is different between SP and G. Thus, the Caesarean collator(s) chose to supply the Samaritan reading vis-à-vis GExod differently than normal, stating that SP “similarly” reads “people” while “houses” is differently set. Attribution (latter part): As Ceriani observed, the last section of the note ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ was mistakenly marked with the asterisk and any attendant metobelus was omitted.203 The latter is hardly necessary.

|| 202 BHSap note ‘c’ claims the Vulgate agrees with SP here. However, such is only found in the Clementine Vulgate and is certainly “ex par.” No MS in Kennicott’s collations reads thus. 203 1863: 166.

Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 149

Exod 8.19(23)‫ד–א‬: The Plague of Flies/Ravens SH (L fol. 29b lower mg sub ※204 ; V fol. 26b RH mg effaced205)

‫ܐ‬

‫ ܪ‬. ‫ ܗ ܐ‬. ‫ܢ ܘܐ ܘ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܐܗܪܘܢ ܬ‬ ‫ ܘ‬19‫א‬ ‫ ܗܐ‬. ‫ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܪܘ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܐܢ‬ 19 ‫ב‬ . ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬. ‫ܕ‬ ̈ ‫ܘ ܒ ܐܕ‬ ‫ܐܕ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫̈ ܐܕ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܐܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܘܒܐܪ ܐ ܗܝ ܕܐ‬.‫ܒܐ‬ ‫ܕܒ‬ ‫ܢ ܒ ܐ ܕ ̈ܪ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ‬.‫ܒܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܗܝ ܕ ܐ ܕ ܐ ܘܗܝ‬ . ‫ܐ ܗܘ ܒܐܪ ܐ ܕܓ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ ܘܐܬ‬19‫ ג‬. ‫ܗ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ ܐ ܐ ܕܬܕܥ ܕܐ ܐ‬.‫ܒܐ‬ ‫ܗܝ ܕ ܐ ܘܐ ܬ ܕܒ‬ . . ‫ܐܕ ܐܕ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ ܐ ܕ ܘܒ‬ ‫ܘܐܬܠ ܪ ܐ ܒ‬ 19 ‫ד‬ .‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕܐܪ‬ ̇ ↘ .‫ܕ ܬܗܘܐ ܐܬܐ ܗܕܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܐܒ ܕ‬ ‫ܗܘܝ‬ ‫ ܘܗ ̈ ܒ ̇ ܝ ܕ‬Attrib.

Field’s Reconstructed Greek [Revised] 19‫ ※ א‬και εισηλθε Μωυσης και Ααρων προς Φαραω, και ειπον αυτω ταδε λεγει ΠΙΠΙ εξαποστειλον τον λαον μου, ινα λατρευσωσι μοι. 19‫ ב‬εαν δε μη βουλη εξαποστειλαι τον λαον μου, ιδου εγω εξαποστελλω επι σε, και επι τους θεραποντας σου, και επι τον λαον σου, και επι τους οικους σου, την κυνομυιαν και πλησθησονται αι οικιαι των Αιγυπτιων της κυνομυιας, και εις την γην [or: εν τη γη?]206 εφ ης εισιν επ αυτης. 19‫ ג‬και παραδοξασω εν τη ημερα εκεινη την γην Γεσεμ, εφ ης ο λαος μου επεστιν επ αυτης, εφ ης ουκ εσται εκει η κυνομυια ινα ειδης οτι εγω ΠΙΠΙ εν μεσω της γης. 19‫ ד‬και δωσω διαστολην αναμεσον του λαου μου, και αναμεσον του λαου σου εν δε τη αυριον εσται το σημειον τουτο ↙ [Attrib. και (ταυ)τα εν η των σαμαρειτων μονον κειμενα207] SP Exod 8.19(23)‫( ד–א‬cf. 8.16–19) 4Q22 (DJD 9.77) ≠ 4Q11 ? (9.29)208 ΜΤ ‫{ ויבא משה ואהרן אל פרעה ויאמרו אליו כה אמר יהוה שלח את עמי‬8.16} 19‫א‬ ‫{ כי אם אינך משלח את עמי הנני משלח בך ובעבדיך ובעמך‬8.17} 19‫ויעבדני ב‬ 19‫ובבתיך את הערב ומלאו בתי מצרים את הערב וגם האדמה אשר הם עליה ג‬ ‫{ והפליתי ביום ההוא את ארץ גשן אשר עמי עמד עליה לבלתי היות שם ערב‬8.18} ‫{ ושמתי פדות בין עמי ובין עמך למחר‬8.19} 19‫למען תדע כי אני יהוה בקרב הארץ ד‬

‫יהיה האות הזה‬ 19‫ א‬And Moses entered, and Aaron, to Pharaoh, and they said to him: “Thus says ‫יהוה‬: ‘Send away my people so that theya might worship me. 19‫ ב‬Yet if b you are unwilling to sendb away my people, behold I will send uponc you and

|| 204 The ind marker is absent; the context of the folio dictates where the passage would read. 205 The passage was erased and written over with other materials; the following remains: ‫̇ܗ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫( ܐ ܐ ܕܬܕܥ ܕܐ ܐ‬v 19‫)ג‬. The margin thus presumably had the entire text at one time (→ EXCURSUS Β). Perhaps this was elected for erasure in preference for those readings of the Three (at v 26), which are longer than usual. The upper margin would have been sufficient to accommodate the Samaritan reading, so the decision is odd. 206 But compare SH Exod 8.17(21): ‫ܘܒܐܪ ܐ ܗܝ‬. See below. 207 Compare SH Wis 17.2 where εκειντο is used (see Perkins 1980: 242). 208 The character of the scroll suggests this was absent (see DJD 9.24–25).

150 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

uponc your servants, and uponc your people, and upond your houses—dog-fliese. And the houses of the Egyptians will be filled with the dog-fliese, andf in the land where they are there. 19‫ ג‬And in that day gI will deal gloriously withg the land of Goshen, upon which my people areh upon it. There shall be no dog-fliese there. In order that you might know that I ‫( יהוה‬am) in the midst of the land. 19‫ד‬ And I will grant distinctioni between my people and between your people. Nowj tomorrow this sign will occur.’ ” a

Sam. vocal. and ST: sg b SP ST: you are not sending c SP ST: against d SP ST: against/in e Sam. vocal. and ST: ravens (or crows) f SP ST: + also g SP ST: I will treat distinctly h SP ST: stand(ing) i SP ST: redemption j > SP ST

Attribution: And this is extant only in the [edition] of the Samaritans. Exod 8.19(23)‫ד–א‬: The nature of this passage is very similar to that in 7.29(8.4)‫ ד–א‬above, containing both septuagintisms and ignorance of the Samaritan reading tradition. For discussion of JExod’s abbreviated rendering as well as the effaced reading in SHV, see the above note and → EXCURSUS B below. Exod 8.19(23)‫א‬: As above, both ‫ ܘܐܗܪܘܢ‬and ‫( ܘܐ ܘ‬being pl.) show the translator(s) used a Samaritan source, particularly the former as neither MT nor GExod mention Aaron by name during the fourth plague.209 ► / αυτω : Note the translation of ‫ אליו‬in the μόνον-Plague Narrative: Table 2.3.1.1: ‫ אליו‬in the μόνον-type Plague Narrative

SP 7.18‫א‬

‫אליו‬

7.29(8.4)‫א‬

‫אליו‬

SH

‫ܬܗ‬

SH’s Greek

GExod parallel

αυτω

προς αυτον

προς αυτον

προς αυτον

8.19(23)‫א‬

‫אליו‬

αυτω

προς αυτον

9.5‫א‬

‫אליו‬

αυτω

αυτω

9.19‫א‬

‫אליו‬

προς αυτον

προς αυτον (αυτω 376O)

‫ܬܗ‬

Despite the rote septuagintism of the μόνον-translation, the translator(s) adhered to the GExod parallel only 60% of the time with respect to ‫אליו‬. This, of course, presumes αυτω did not at one time exist at GExod 7.16 and 8.16(20). One might also suggest that perhaps αυτω fit the margins of the target MS better than προσαυτον.

|| 209 See above note at 7.29‫א‬.

Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 151

► ‫ܢ‬ ‫ ܐ ܐ ܕ‬/ ινα λατρευσωσι μοι : Here too, the same comments concerning ‫ ויעבדני‬at 7.18‫ א‬apply. The GExod parallel at this location is more convoluted. If the translator’(s) parallel read λατρευσωσι(ν) μοι (i.e., the word order was not corrected), fewer MSS extant produce the translation verbatim.210 Thus, it is more probable the order was corrected by the translator(s). Note further that λατρευση, which would have artificially reflected the Samaritan vocalization, is very strongly represented in the MS tradition, particularly in hexaplaric MSS.211 Exod 8.19(23)‫ב‬: Both septuagintism and a lack of knowledge of Samaritan tradition continue. ► ‫ ܐ ܒ ܐ ܐ‬/ μη βουλη : The Hebrew ‫(“ אם אינך משלח‬lit.) if you are not sending” (= SP and MT) is certainly not literally represented as it was in GGen 43.5 (ει [δε] μη αποστελλεις / ‫ܪ ܐ‬ ‫)ܐܢ ]ܕ [ ܐ‬. This is a septuagintism cribbed from the parallel.212 ‫ מאן‬is simply not read in SP here as in 7.29‫ב‬, 9.5‫ב‬, and 10.2‫א‬.213 ► preposition / επι (4x) and ‫ ̈ܒ ܐ ܕ‬/ τους οικους σου : Again, the choice of preposition adhered to whatever the GExod parallel had. This is not a disagreement with SP per se, but rather a consequence of the μόνονtranslator’(s) method. Against such GExod influence, οικους σου was produced in conformity with the SP text. Given the strength of the variant in the G MS tradition, it is difficult to know if the translator spotted and adjusted his translation accordingly or if the revised text214 lay in front of him. ► ‫ܒܐ‬ ‫ ܕܒ‬/ κυνομυιαν (twice, once in v 19‫)ג‬: Perhaps the most striking differentiation between Samaritan exegesis and the product of the μόνονtranslator(s) is the very nature of the plague. For—as has been often pointed out since the SIXTINE (→ §1.2.1.1)—Samaritan exegetical tradition215 does not vocalize || 210 See AppI ad loc. 211 AppI: μοι λατρεύσωσιν] λατρευση (-σει x) μοι x 76mx; μοι (…) λατρευση (aut -σει) A O′−64mg, 426 -29′-135oII C′’ 118′-537b d 53′f s t y−527 68′-128′z 55mx 59 130 319 509 646′; tr 426O n 527y 120′z Arm Co SyhT* = M. Note that 4Q365, frag. 2 (DJD 13.263–64) reads ‫ ויעובדוני‬at v 16. As the editors stress, evidence whether positive or negative vis-à-vis the “harmonizing additions” is lacking in this MS (see p. 194). Note, however, that the DJD notes are incorrect; SP at v 16 does not read ‫ ויעבדוני‬with MT (p. 264). 212 Previously, Ceriani rightly pointed out the GExod influence (1863: 172). 213 See Wevers (NGTE, 116) for the rendition in GExod. Given the frequency of the phrase in the Plague Narrative later corruption “ex par” is not impossible. 214 Note the hexaplaric witness; AppI: σου O′−64mg-15-29-135oII C′’ 121y 68′z 55mx 59mx 76′mx 509mx Or IV 184 LatAug Ex 26 Aeth Bo SH = M. 215 Vocalized ʿārəb in vv 17, 18, 19‫( ב‬twice), 19‫ג‬, 20 (twice) (Ben-Ḥayyim 1977: 410); ST: ‫ערבה‬ (J [‫ ערב‬for 19‫ג‬, 20 (2°)] and A, passim). See also Tībåt Mårqe I:54 (ed. Tal 2019: 98–99, with his

152 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

the Hebrew ‫ ערב‬as ‫‘ ָערוֹב‬pest’ (especially, ‘[dog-]fly’)216 but ‫עוֹרב‬ ֵ ‘raven’! This is of course a very different interpretation of the consonantal text (think Alfred Hitchcock’s 1963 horror film The Birds!). Noticeably, SH Exod, whose hexaplaric marginalia were very rich, lacks the σαμαρειτικόν reading κόρακα “ravens / crows” (present in later, mostly catena MSS), despite listing the Three at v 17(21) for the lemma (→ §1.3.1.3).217 Thus, had the σαμ΄-type reading been available to the Caesarean collator(s), it is very unlikely that it would have been left out. As discussed above (→ §1.2.3.1), Kohn’s theory, that this Samaritan understanding was somehow removed by Jewish revisers, is too complicated and entirely unsupported by evidence. Rather ‫ܒܐ‬ ‫ ܕܒ‬/ κυνόμυια was simply one septuagintism among many others. No further historical gymnastics are necessary. ► ‫ ܘܒܐܪ ܐ ܗܝ‬/ και εις την γην : The phrasing, again from GExod 8.17(21), is not a literal representation of ‫ =( וגם האדמה‬4Q365, 4Q14).218 Exod 8.19(23)‫ג‬: The guiding hand of GExod continues strongly in v 19‫ג‬. ► ‫ ܘܐܬ‬/ παραδοξασω : The use of the verb “I will render glorious”219 is an interesting interpretation as it presumes, with GExod, the base root ‫‘ פלא‬deal miraculously’ instead of ‫‘ פלה‬treat separately / distinctly’.220 Both MT ‫יתי‬ ִ ‫וְ ִה ְפ ֵל‬ and the Samaritan exegetical tradition (wå̄flīti; ST: ‫[ ואפרש‬J and A; cf. TgO])221 understood the root here as from ‫י‬/‫פלה‬.222 Granted, the semantic or exegetical differentiation between the two senses could be and was blurred (e.g., TgPJ N). Nevertheless, as is typical of the μόνον-passages, the rendition of the G parallel guided the translator(s) when the base-root was unclear or a Hebrew word was ambiguous (e.g., ‫ גור‬at Exod 18.25‫§ → ב‬2.3.2; ‫ דבר‬at Num 13.1‫ ג‬and 13.1‫→ ד‬

|| note 3, at ‫§ →;דערבה‬7.4). Beware that in his earlier ET, J. MacDonald (1963: 1.18, text, and 2.26, ET) mistranslated ‫ ערבה‬with “flies”! Interestingly, Tsedaka rendered “different kinds of animals” reflecting another exegetical understanding found in SA, including the Arabic column in one of the TM MSS. See Tal’s aforementioned note and DSA, ‫ערב‬2. 216 4Q22, whose attestation of the μόνον-passage is fragmentary, reads ‫ הער[וב‬in v 17 and ‫ הערובֿ‬for v 20 (2°). Presumably the same understanding was in vv 19‫ ב‬and 19‫ ג‬as well. Q365 reads ‫ ה[ערוב‬in v 17 (2°; whether the plus is present is unknown as the fragment breaks off after ‫ ושמת]י‬in v 19). 217 This was curiously not pointed out by Ceriani (1863: 171–73); Field did, citing Nobilius (1.94, n. 26). 218 Clearly a septuagintism as with Ceriani (1863: 172; see also Wevers, NGTE, 117). 219 Wevers, NGTE, 117; also A. Le Boulluec and P. Sandevoir, BA 2.34. But compare LEH2 and LSJ, s.v., 2 (the latter of which Le Boulluec and Sandevoir criticize; cp. also BrillDAG, s.v.). See especially n. 374 below. 220 BA 2.34–35; 127 and NGTE, 117. The discussion in the former is more thorough. 221 Ben-Ḥayyim 1977: 410 (vv 18, 19‫)ג‬, and 225 (sub √ ‫ ;פלי‬cp. those from √ ‫)פלא‬. 222 Hence Tsedaka: “… I will set apart ….”

Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 153

§3.3.3]) or, perhaps better here, unknown. And often, this was in opposition to the Samaritan understanding of the text.223 ► ‫ ܕܓ‬/ ? : Despite the SH’s very regular translation policy, the more common proper names transmitted in SH were often those of P.224 Essentially, the orthographic peculiarities of the Greek exemplar(s) were not reflected in SH as long as the P form was close. Thus, ‫ ܓ‬cannot be used to reconstruct the μόνον-translation, though surely whatever orthography present in the μόνονtranslator’s MS(S) was also reproduced. Discussion of this issue is more relevant below (→ §2.3.3 at Exod 20.17‫)ג‬. ► ‫ܗܝ‬ / εφ ης and ‫ ܐ ܘܗܝ‬/ επεστιν : Both are septuagintisms, pointed out here merely as an indication the μόνον-translator made no effort to represent ‫ עמד‬literally. ►‫ܗ‬ ‫ ܒ‬/ εν μεσω : While thoroughly septuagintistic, the Caesarean translator(s) curbed such influence within the consonantal framework of SP. Thus for ‫ תדע כי אני יהוה בקרב הארץ‬GExod is only used insofar as it can reflect SP. Because ειμι κυριος, ο κυριος πασης της γης does not fit ‫( בקרב‬especially the double divine name), a more literal representation was adopted. Whether or not the θ΄ reading (‫̇ܗ ܕܐܪ ܐ‬ ‫ ܒ‬.‫ ܬ‬SHL) was used (or influenced the translator) is uncertain, though possible (cp. παράβασις → §2.5.1 at Exod 23.19‫)א‬.225 Exod 8.19(23)‫ד‬: The μόνον-translator(s) continues with G’s peculiarities. ► ‫ܪ ܐ‬ / διαστολην : The lexical choice διαστολη ‘distinction’ has led some commentators to suggest GExod read ‫ ְפּ ֻלת‬in the parent text.226 Samaritan exegesis accords with MT here, both in the reading tradition (fā̊dot = ‫) ְפדוּת‬227 and ST (‫‘ פרקן‬redemption’228). ► ‫ ܕ‬/ δε : The graecism is clearly from the GExod parallel.

|| 223 Compare the situation at Exod 9.5‫ד‬. There Le Boulluec and Sandevoir (BA 2.35; Wevers followed [NGTE, 125]) held that GExod was in agreement with SP’s ‫( והפלא‬vv 9.4, 5‫ )ד‬as opposed to MT’s ‫והפלה‬. But, there guttural variation again obtains as both ST and the Samaritan reading tradition reflect ‫( פלי‬Ben-Ḥayyim 1977: 411 [vv 9.4, 5‫ ]ד‬and 225 [wå̄fla from √ ‫ ;]פלי‬see ST’s use of ‫ פרש‬in vv 9.4, 5‫)ד‬. The μόνον-translation in Exod 11.3‫( א‬see below) agrees with SP (yifla from √‫ ;פלא‬though cp. ST: ‫ )! יפרש‬but only via the exegesis of the G parallel. 224 See Wevers, THGN, 59; Weitzman 1998: 324; Perkins 1980: 348ff. 225 Cp. AppI-II: εν (ε 58*) μεσω 58-426O and θ΄, but not α΄ (‫ܒܓ ̇ܗ ܕܐܪ ܐ‬, cp. PS 1:665–66) or σ΄ (‫)ܒܐܪ ܐ‬. 226 Especially, Le Boulluec and Sandevoir (“diastolē, «séparation», est liée à une aporie textuelle,” [BA 2.127–28]); also HALOT, ‫ ְפּדוּת‬, and literature cited there, as well as LEH2, διαστολη, with literature. 227 Ben-Ḥayyim 1977: 223; contrast Tsedaka’s “distinction” ad loc. 228 See Tal, DSA, s.v., where both glosses ‘redemption’ and ‘division’ are supplied.

154 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

Attribution: Nothing is unusual about the attribution. The verbal com̈ ̈ is found also at Exod 10.(2)2‫ד–א‬, Num 21.11‫( א‬SH only), and pound ‫ܗܘܝ‬ Num 21.12‫( ג–א‬SH only) reflecting κειμενα.229 Exod 9.5‫ה–א‬: The Cattle Plague SH (L fol. 31a lower mg sub ※ ind cled → EXCURSUS B)

230

; V fol. 27a abbr. scholion! LH mg encir-

‫ܐ‬ ‫̇ܐ‬ ‫ܗ‬. ‫ܐ ܘܐܗܪܘܢ ܬ‬ ̣ ‫ܢ ܘܐ‬ ‫ ܐܢ ܕ ܐ ̇ܒ ܐ ܐ‬5‫ ב‬. ‫ܐ ܕ ܆ ܐ ܐ ܕ ̣ ܢ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ‫ܬܗܘܐ ܒܒ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ ܗܐ ܐ ܗ ܕ‬5‫ܐ ܒ ܘܢ܆ ג‬ ̇ ̇ ̇ ‫̇ܐ ܘܒ‬ . ‫ܬ ܐ ܪܒܐ ̇ ܓ‬ ‫ܒܐ܆‬ ‫ܘ̈ܪܐ ܘܒ‬ ‫̇ܐ ܘܒܓ ̈ ̇ܐ ܘܒ‬ ̈ . ‫ܒ ܐܕ ܪ‬ ‫ܒ ܐ ܕܒ ܐ ܕܐ ܐ ܘܒ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ ܒ‬5‫ ה‬.‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܢ ̇ܗ ܢ ܕܒ ̈ ܐ ܕܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܐܪ ܐ ↘ ܀‬ ̈ ‫ܐܒ ܕ‬ ‫܀܀܀‬. ‫ܒ̇ܝܕ‬

:‫ܪܘ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ ܘ‬5‫א‬ .‫ܕ ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ ܒ‬:‫̈ ̇ ܐ‬ ‫ܕܒ‬ ‫ ܘ‬5‫ד‬ ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܗܕܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܘܗ‬ ̇ Attrib. ‫ܪ‬

Field’s Reconstructed Greek [Revised] 5‫ ※ א‬και εισηλθε Μωυσης και Ααρων προς Φαραω, και ειπεν αυτω ταδε λεγει ΠΙΠΙ ο θεος των Εβραιων εξαποστειλον τον λαον μου, ινα λατρευσωσι μοι. 5‫ ב‬ει δε μη βουλει εξαποστειλαι, και ετι εγκρατεις αυτων, 5‫ ג‬ιδου χειρ ΠΙΠΙ εσται εν τοις κτηνεσι σου τοις εν τοις πεδιοις, εν τοις ιπποις, και εν τοις υποζυγιοις, και εν ταις καμηλοις, και εν τοις βουσι, και εν τοις προβατοις, [λοιμος]231 μεγας σφοδρα. 5‫ ד‬και παραδοξασει ΠΙΠΙ αναμεσον των κτηνων των υιων Ισραηλ, και αναμεσον των κτηνων των Αιγυπτιων, και ου τελευτησει απο παντων των υιων Ισραηλ [ρητον]232. 5‫ ה‬εν τη αυριον ποιησει ΠΙΠΙ το ρημα τουτο επι της γης ↙ [Attrib. και (ταυ)τα εν η των σαμαρειτων μονον κειμενα] SP Exod 9.5‫( ה–א‬cf. 9.1–5) 4Q22 (DJD 9.78–79) ≠ ΜΤ ‫{ ויבא משה ואהרן אל פרעה ויאמרו אליו כה אמר יהוה אלהי העברים שלח‬9.1} 5‫א‬ ‫{ הנה‬9.3} 5‫{ כי אם מאן אתה לשלח ועודך מחזיק בם ג‬9.2} 5‫את עמי ויעבדני ב‬

‫יד יהוה היה במקניך אשר בשדה בסוסים ובחמורים ובגמלים בבקר ובצאן דבר כבד‬ ‫{ והפלא יהוה בין מקנה ישראל ובין מקנה מצרים ולא ימות מכל לבני‬9.4} 5‫מאד ד‬ ‫{ מחר יעשה יהוה את הדבר הזה בארץ‬9.5} 5‫ישראל דבר ה‬ ‫ מצריים ]מצרים‬4Q22 ‫( את‬5‫ > ])ה‬4Q22

5‫ א‬And Moses entered, and Aaron, to Pharaoh, and hea said to him: “Thus says ‫ יהוה‬the God of the Hebrews: ‘Send away my people so that theyb might worship

|| 229 PS 2.2559–60; → §2.4.2 at Notation at Exod 29.20. 230 This siglum has its corresponding notation in the RH margin of 9.6 (… ‫ܐ‬ ̈ …); this is several lines below the point at which it should have been placed. ‫ܕܒ ܐ‬ 231 Contra Field’s θανατος; for this see below. 232 Contra Field’s αριθμος; on which, see discussion.

‫ܕ ܒ‬

Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 155

me.(’?) 5‫ ב‬Now if you are unwilling to send (them) away, and you yet hold fast to them. 5‫ ג‬Behold, the hand of ‫ יהוה‬shall be against your cattle, those which are in the open fields,c against the horses, and against the donkeys, and against the camels, andd against the oxen,c and against the flocksc—a very great plague! 5‫ ד‬And ‫ יהוה‬will edeal gloriouslye between the cattle of dthe sons ofd Israel and between the cattle of Egypt. And not a thing [lit. number] will die from all thosec (cattle) of the sons of Israel. 5‫ ה‬Tomorrow ‫ יהוה‬will do this thing [lit. word] upon the land.” a

SP ST: they b Sam. vocal. and ST: sg c SP ST: sg. (:: ‫ ובעאניה‬STA[BC]) ‫ ובתוריה‬STEB) e SP ST: treat distinctly (→ Exod 8.19‫ג‬, note)

d

> SP ST (::

Attribution: And this is extant only in the [edition] of the Samaritans. Exod 9.5‫ה–א‬: Overall the passage, like the others, betrays the typical septuagintistic, Caesarean rendering of the Hebrew SP. A few philological cases also merit further consideration and observation, including one of the few cases where evidence from the μόνον-passage and a σαμ΄-reading may be compared. Syriac Witnesses: Unlike the case above at 8.19(23)‫ד–א‬, both JExod and SHV abbreviate the present passage. Nevertheless, they abbreviate differently, i.e., the former textually, the latter with a scholion, and thus for different reasons. For discussion, see below (→ EXCURSUS B). Exod 9.5‫א‬: The verse contains one agreement with SP, one case of corruption, and one disagreement with SP. ► ‫ ܘܐܗܪܘܢ‬/ και Ααρων : Similar to many places in these readings, the presence of Aaron is indicative (e.g., → 7.29‫)א‬. Mention of Aaron’s joint activity with Moses is even part of JExod’s abridged representation (→ EXCURSUS B). ► ‫ ܘܐ‬/ και ειπεν : For whatever reason, Ceriani, while noting SH’s variation from SP, gave the plural (dixerunt) in his LT by reason of the context.233 Two possibilities readily explain the reading: either this is due to the, here rather slavish, septuagintism, as the GExod parallel reads καὶ ἐρεῖς without variant; or this results perhaps from a mechanical misreading in Greek (ειπον → ειπεν). Perhaps the latter could be assumed on balance.234 ► ‫ܢ‬ ‫ ܕ‬/ ινα λατρευσωσι μοι : On this issue, see the case above (→ 7.18‫)א‬. Exod 9.5‫ג‬: The verse again contains one agreement, one case of corruption, and one disagreement. ̈ ►‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܕܒ‬/ τοις εν τοις πεδιοις : As with most translation equivalencies the Caesarean critic(s) employed, the form from the G parallel was largely

|| 233 1863: 175–76. 234 If so, Jacob’s abbreviation may support this as his reads ...

‫ ܘܐ‬...

‫ →( ܘ‬EXCURSUS B).

156 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

adopted, as is the case here for SP’s singular ‫שדה‬. Of the five occurrences for ‫ שדה‬in the remains of the μόνον-translation (here, 9.19‫[ ז‬2x], 10.2‫ג‬, and Deut 2.7‫ § → ב‬4.3.2), the parallel was adopted four times by rote.235 For the case at 10.2‫ג‬, see below. ̇ ‫ ܘܒ‬/ και … υποζ., και … καμ., και … βουσι : As for ► ‫ܐ ܘܒܓ ̈ ܐ ܘܒ ܘ̈ܪܐ‬ the sequence “and against the donkeys, and against the camels, and against the oxen …,” each animal group is preceded by και, in accordance with the parallel.236 SP and ST group the beasts as “horses and mules and camels, oxen and sheep,” thus lacking any copula before “oxen,” seemingly grouping riding vs. agricultural animals.237 Note that the collective plurals for oxen and sheep (pl.), as well as for ‘cattle’ generally, also adheres to the parallel.238 ►‫ܬܐ‬ / λοιμος : The present case is difficult and ultimately cannot be determined with absolute certainty. SH, only attested by L, unambiguously reads ‫ܬ ܐ‬ “pestilence” which cannot be retroverted with Field’s θανατος “death,” the latter being ‫ܬܐ‬ in Syriac.239 Given that the forms ‫ܬ ܐ‬ and ‫ܬܐ‬ can so easily be confused, an error could have occurred at any time on the Syriac level (→ 9.19‫ ג‬below). However, the former is the lectio difficilior, since the latter is a far more common word. Assuming the reverse error on the part of Syriac scribes (sc. ‫ܬܐ‬ → ‫ ) ܬ ܐ‬is not realistic, and the evidence mg from SH Exod 3.5 supports this reasoning.240 The retroversion λοιμος is secure despite the fact that SH generally uses some form of - ‫ ܒ‬for what are largely figurative uses (e.g., SH Isa 5.14, Ezek 7.21) in the LXX corpus. Nevertheless, when λοιμος unambiguously means ‘plague’ / ‘pestilence’ in a more literal sense, ‫ܬ ܐ‬ obtains with Syriac translations, as P and Hark show at Matt 24.7 (the latter with the Greek in the margin).241

|| 235 See AppI at Exod 9.3 for the witnesses, nearly all daughter translations, which read a singular here. 236 The wider textual witnesses reveal a variety of couplings; see Wevers, NGTE, 125. 237 The minority ST tradition in MSS EB coincidentally reads ‫ובתוריה‬. 238 Wevers held GExod’s interpretation here as appropriate (NGTE, 125). 239 1.95 (without hesitation). It is difficult to know if Field himself misread the Syriac here or was simply parroting the parallel, normally a safe procedure. Ceriani, for his part, correctly transcribed and translated the Syriac “pestilentia” (1863: 175–76). 240 Field was clearly aware of this potential confusion as he noted Ceriani’s wish to emend SH for the recentiores at Exod 5.3 (1863: 148; 1.88, n. 3). As Wevers’ AppII indicates, Ceriani was for Aquila. (Symmachus’ reading is damaged; see fol. 22b lower correct since SHV reads ‫ܬ ܐ‬ mg. AppII recorded pestilentia for Symmachus.) Ironically, this same mistake(?) is coincidentally found even in the Samaritan Aramaic tradition in STB (→ 9.19‫)!ג‬. 241 See the data in PS 2.2057; note also the reading in SH Jer 27.8 (34.8): ‫ ܒ ܬ ܐ‬.‫ ܣ‬.‫ܐ‬.

Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 157

This case likely shows the limits of the translator’(s) septuagintism. Usually when √‫ דבר‬occurs in the μόνον-passages, in a non-speaking sense, the parallel is taken over (e.g., 9.5‫ ד‬and 5‫[ ה‬see the following vv], 9.19‫[ ג‬assuming the text, but see discussion below], 18.24‫ו‬, 18.25‫ב‬, Num 13.1‫ד‬, and 31.20‫)ג‬. Thus, this may represent a case when the G parallel was rejected, since ‫ דבר‬simply does not mean ‘death’ (literally) and was thus viewed as a bit too far from the Hebrew.242 The MS evidence indicates that the recentiores mostly read λοιμος in the parallel.243 Usually, in light of the other places where the recentiores were consulted by the translator(s), one might assume that perhaps θ΄ also read thus here (→ §2.5.1 at Exod 23.19‫ א‬regarding παραβασις). However, the MS data rather points towards θ΄ keeping G’s θανατος.244 If so, then this case represents use of the other recentiores, specifically Aquila and Symmachus.245 This then is an exceptional case in both deviation from the G parallel and consultation of Aquila and/or Symmachus. For an hypothesis as to how translator(s) might have employed Secunda during this process, as a means of determining how ‫ דבר‬could be understood specifically as ‫ ֶדּ ֶבר‬, see further below (→ §4.4.1, #3). Exod 9.5‫ד‬: Despite the limits of septuagintism, it nonetheless continues. ̇ ► ‫ ܘ‬/ και παραδοξασει : See comment (with note) at 8.19(23)‫ ג‬above. ► ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܕܒ ̈ ܐ ܕܐ‬/ των υιων Ισραηλ : The Samaritan tradition lacks “the sons of.” The precise mechanisms here are not obvious. The G parallel apparently read “between the cattle of the Egyptians and between the cattle of the sons of Israel,” with a number of majority variants meant to switch the pair (= MT), make the plurals singular, or omit “sons.”246 In addition to the possibility of a scribe at any point unintentionally adding the stock phrase “the sons of” to “Israel,” perhaps under the influence of the phrase occurring later in the verse, the preponderance of the variants make reconstructing the textual history nearly impossible. A further element is how this was laid out in the Hexapla Maior. Based on the present reconstruction of hexaplaric collator’(s) procedure (→ §4.4.1), if the columns were laid out on the line in question aligning G’s τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ to the Hebrew ‫ישראל‬, “the sons of” may have slipped in unbe-

|| 242 Note Wevers: “[The Hebrew] is more literally rendered by Aq and Sym” with λοιμος (NGTE, 125–27, n. 7). For a comparable situation, see 2 Sam 24.13–14 in the forthcoming edition. 243 See AppII: αʹ σʹ in M 135oII 85-344s. Note λοιμος was adopted in-text by MS 75n where it displaced θανατος. See further data at Exod 5.3 and Deut 28.21. Aquila at least was consistent. 244 Theodotion appears to agree with GExod (see also MS 344s at Deut 28.21). 245 See additionally, AppII at Jer 21.7, 24.10, Ezek 12.16, Hab 3.5 (where Jerome says Quinta agrees with G’s θανατος), and Amos 4.10. 246 For these, see AppI.

158 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

knownst to the collator(s)-translator(s). As the evidence stands, the reading is considered a septuagintism. ► ‫ܐ‬ / ρητον : This case much exercised Ceriani and Field, both of whom could not figure why the Syriac translators would render ρητον with ‫ܐ‬ . The former (correctly) translated numerus whereas the latter (incorrectly) retroverted αριθμος, at least for the μόνον-passage.247 However, the GExod parallel in 9.4 is certainly ρητον, which SH unambiguously translated ‫ܐ‬ .248 With respect to the Caesarean translator(s), septuagintism can safely be assumed even if this equivalency is rare. The guiding principle of the translator’(s) procedure was to adopt the G parallel as long as it could appropriately render SP. Nevertheless, Ceriani thought that the form in 9.4 originally had been ‫ܐ‬ lit. ‘spoken (thing)’, as a means of saying “(any of the) aforementioned.”249 This, he felt, was somehow mutated (perhaps smudged?) resulting in ‫ܐ‬ ,250 after which a scholion was added by a later scribe to explain away the odd reading. This scholion, in SHL, reads (fol. 31a LH mg): ‫ܐ܆ ܗ ܕ ܐ‬ ‫܀‬ “‘Number’, that is (in this context) not even a (single) one.” Field took a different tack. His explanation, which was not altogether clear, seems to connect the scholion in SH with one in CODEX M.251 He noted the anonymous annotation in the margin of CODEX M (fol. 43b): ουδεν οτιουν “Not (even) one whatsoever.” Field then charged SH as having “insolently [insolenter] set ‫ܐ‬ , embellished with the scholion, which would be in Greek: Αριθμος, τουτεστι, καν εν ( ‫)ܐ‬.”252 Because of the way Field recorded the case, it is difficult to know if he believed SH had done this or the Greek text it had translated had replaced ρητον with αριθμος, or if he was perhaps unsure and wanted to be ambiguous.

|| 247 1863: 176; 1.95, with n. 4. 248 AppI: ῥητόν] pr ουδεν 18mx; ουδεν 126cII 106d Pal; μηδεν x; > 72O 118-537b 107′-125d 458n; + ουδεν 82oII. Wevers described these variants as “instances of simplification” (NGTE, 126). As will be clear, they are related to the scholion in CODEX M. does not have this sense, nor did the lexica in his 249 Ceriani admitted that this Syriac day mention any such meaning (1863: 175). The peal ptc. (only as adj.) has to do with things were are themselves articulate (i.e., rational) as opposed to things which have been articulated. See JPS, s.v.; PS 2.2113–14. 250 This is an admittedly clever explanation, as it typical of Ceriani’s work. 251 I say not altogether clear as he retroverted the scholion in SH into Greek as opposed to simply giving a LT which is his normal procedure. His implication then is that both this scholion and that in CODEX M are parallel Greek attempts to explain GExod’s ρητον. 252 1.95, n. 4. Perhaps by “insolenter” he meant “unusually” although it was not beyond Field to express himself strongly.

Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 159

Whatever the case, both Ceriani and Field lacked the benefit of SHV, which while generally secondary to SHL in Exod, here preserves the same but more complete scholion (fol. 27a LH mg): ⁜ ρητον ‫܀‬ ‫ܐ ̄ܗ ܐ‬ . That the Greek was supplied here suggests that the original SH Exod translator was unsure how to render ρητον to begin with, and so provided an (admittedly odd) ad sensum rendering ‫ܐ‬ . Yet because this violates the usual Syriac usage, the original Greek and an accompanying note (the latter from the Syriac translator, not his Vorlage) were supplied to clarify.253 Obviously, this same note would not be repeated for the μόνον-passage, which occurs after the first occasion in 9.4. Thus, both SH and CODEX M’s scholia are related but not directly to each other. They both stem from the GExod’s odd choice of ρητον for ‫דבר‬, though at very different stages of transmission and translation. One final element is that the odd ρητον provides an infrequent contrast with the σαμ΄-type readings (→ ‫ܒܐ‬ ‫ ܕܒ‬at 8.19(23)‫ ב‬above). MS 135oII, an hexaplaric catena witness, preserves a number of σαμ΄-readings (→ §1.3.1.1) approximately 20 in Gen-Exod.254 For the reading at 9.4, it supplies the note: τὸ σαμ΄ ῥῆμα (see AppII), glossed as οἱ̄ον δηποτοῦν “of whatever kind,” i.e., in the context, “nothing whatsoever.” As Wevers observed, σαμ΄ here provides “a far more common rendering” of ‫דבר‬.255 Pummer, despite his minimalist views on the relationship between σαμ΄ and ST, determined this case as one which does go back to ST and would thus be genuine, even connecting it to ‫ ממלל‬in MS J.256 By comparison, had SH seen ρημα in his Greek, ‫ܐ‬ would have been the result; yet something very different was the case. Thus, though the σαμ΄ reading is ostensibly innocuous and exegetically uninteresting, it further confirms the overarching contrast apparent from comparing the μόνον- and σαμ΄-typologies (→ §1.3).

|| 253 The only other occurrence of ρητον for ‫ דבר‬in G supports this line of reasoning. At Exod 22.8(9), the SH translated παν ρητον αδικημα somewhat awkwardly with ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ supplying the Greek in the margin (ρητυη mend in SHL, see fol. 71b; SHV provided the correct ρητον; fol. 41a, weirdly upside-down). Field again thought (here following Ceriani’s lead; 1863: 274) that this case meant that SH suggested different Greek, perhaps φανερον (1.119, n. 7). But the same circumstances obtain here. The SH Exod translator was simply unsure how to translate ρητον, and thus glossed it to be safe, something that occurs elsewhere in SH MSS especially for low frequency words. 254 I have based this count on Pummer 1998. 255 NGTE, 126, n. 9. This was one of the readings Wevers-Fraenkel labeled with “cf SamAram” (→ §1.2.3.6). 256 1998: 297 and 303. STJ reads the same at both 9.4 and 9.5‫ד‬.

160 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

Exod 9.5‫ה‬: Septuagintism continues both grammatically and for the preposition. ►( )‫ ܒ‬/ εν τη and / επι : Both are due to the translation choices of GExod. Rote use of the prepositions in the G parallel is a common feature of the Caesarean translator(s; → 7.29‫)ג‬. Attribution: See Exod 7.18‫ ג–א‬for comment. Exod 9.19‫ז–א‬: The Hail Plague SH (L fol. 33a top mg sub ※; > V257)

̇ ‫ ܗ ܐ‬.‫ܢ ܘܐ ܘ ܬܗ‬ ‫܆ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܐܗܪܘܢ ܬ‬ ‫ ܘ‬19‫א‬ ̣ ‫ ܒ ܒ ܐ ܓ ܕܗ ܐ܆ ܐ ܐ‬19‫ ב‬. ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܐܕ ܐ ܐܕ‬ ‫ܕ ܒ ܐ܆ ̇ ܪ‬ ‫ ܐ ܐ‬. ‫̈ ܐ ܕ ܆ ܘܕ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܒܐ ܕ ̇ ܘܕ‬ ‫ܘܢ ̈ܓ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܪܐܐ‬ ̇ ‫ ܗ ܐ ܓ ܐ ܪ ܐ ̣ ܐ ܕ‬19‫ ג‬.‫ܐܪ ܐ‬ ‫ܕܬܕܥ܆ ܕ ܐ ܐ ܐ ܬܝ ܒ‬ ‫ܗܕܐ‬ ‫ܒ ̇ܡ‬° 19‫ ד‬.‫ܐܪ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܬܐܒ‬.‫ܒ ܬܐ‬ ‫̇ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ ̇ ̇ ‫ܐܕ ܒ‬ ̇ ‫ܐܬ ̣ ܬ܆ ܐ ܐ ܕܐ ܐ ܒ‬ ‫ܙ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ ܆ ܘܐ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ ܒ ܐ ܕ ܕ ܐ ܬ ܪ ܐ ܢ܆‬ ‫ܗ ܈ܐ‬ 19‫ ה‬.‫ܐܪ ܐ‬ ‫܆ ̇ܗܘ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܕܐ ܓ ܐܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐܐܒ ܐ‬ ‫ ܗܐ‬19‫ו‬ 19‫ ז‬.‫ܐ ܗ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ° ‫ܗܘܐ ܒ ܪ‬ ̣ ‫ܕܐ ܬܗ܆ ܐ‬ ̣ ‫ܐ ܕܐܬܒ‬ .‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܗ ܕܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܐܕ ܆ܘ‬ ‫ܗ ܐ ܗ ܆ ܐ ܪܗܒ‬ ‫ ܘ ܐ ̣ ܢ ܒ ܐ܆‬.‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ ܗ ܕܐܢ‬:‫ܘܢ ܓ ܒ ̈ ܐ ܘܒ ܐ‬ ↘ .‫ ̣ ܬܘܢ‬° ‫ܘܢ ܒ ܕܐ‬ ‫̇ ̣ ܕ‬ ̈ ̇ ‫܀‬ ‫ ܀ ܘܗ ܒ ܝ ܕ‬Attrib. ̣ ‫ܐܒ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬

Field’s Reconstructed Greek [Revised] 19‫ ※ א‬και εισηλθε Μωυσης και Ααρων προς Φαραω, και ειπον προς αυτον ταδε λεγει ΠΙΠΙ ο θεος των Εβραιων εξαποστειλον τον λαον μου, ινα λατρευσωσι μοι. 19‫ ב‬εν τω γαρ νυν καιρω εγω εξαποστελλω παντα τα συναντηματα μου εις την καρδιαν σου, και των θεραποντων σου, και του λαου σου, ινα ειδης οτι ουκ εστιν ως εγω εν παση τη γη. 19‫ ג‬νυν γαρ αποστειλας (or: αποστελω?)258 την χειρα

|| 257 The outer margin of fol. 27b in the Midyat MS appears to have had something written there in Syriac, Greek, and Arabic of which only faint traces survive. It was not the Samaritan passage, however (→ EXCURSUS B). Based on what can be read, the Greek and Syriac belong to the Plague Scholion on which → Exod 9.19‫ב‬. 258 Field’s αποστειλας (1.96) is obviously from the G parallel in v 15. The ptc. form of αποστελλω in SH Exod is usually represented with either the Syriac participle (e.g., Exod 9.27 ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܢ ܐ‬ ‫ ) ܪ ܕ‬or some verbal form + (e.g., Exod 2.5 ‫ܪܬ‬ ). Nevertheless, the SH translator(s) could use the Syriac fut. for the Greek aor. act. ptc. equally (Perkins 1980: ‫ ܗ ܐ ܓ ܐ ܪ ܐ ܐ ܕ ܘܐ‬which equates— 328ff). Curiously, the parallel in SH reads twice—the citation from Jerome (AppI: αποστειλας] mittam Hi Is 18 = M and παταξω] pr et Hi Is 18 = M). Thus, it possible even if uncertain to interpret SH (in both places) as in accordance

Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 161

μου, [και?] παταξω σε και τον λαον σου θανατω, και εκτριβηση απο της γης. 19‫ד‬ ° πλην ενεκεν τουτου διετηρηθης, ινα ενδειξωμαι εν σοι την ισχυν259 μου, και οπως διαγγελη το ονομα μου εν παση τη γη. 19‫ ה‬ετι ουν συ εμποιη (S. αντιποιη?)260 του λαου [or: τω λαω?]261 μου, του μη εξαποστειλαι262 αυτους[;?] 19‫ ו‬ιδου υω263 ταυτη τη ωρα αυριον χαλαζαν πολλην σφοδρα, ητις τοιαυτη ου γεγονεν εν Αιγυπτω αφ ης ημερας εκτισται ° εως της ημερας ταυτας. 19‫ ז‬νυν ουν κατασπευσον συναγαγειν τα κτηνη σου, και [παντα]264 οσα [εστιν σοι]265 εν τω πεδιω παντες γαρ οι ανθρωποι, και τα κτηνη, οσα εαν ευρεθη εν τω πεδιω, και μη εισελθη εις οικιαν, πεση δε επ αυτα η χαλαζα, ° τελευτησει ↙ [Attrib. και (ταυ)τα εν η των σαμαρειτων μονον κειμενα] SP Exod 9.19‫( ז–א‬cf. 9.13–19) 4Q22 ≠ 4Q14 (DJD 12.108)266 ΜΤ ‫{ ויבא משה ואהרן אל פרעה ויאמרו אליו כה אמר יהוה אלהי העברים‬9.13} 19‫א‬ ‫{ כי בפעם הזאת אני שלח את כל מגפתי על לבך‬9.14} 19‫שלח את עמי ויעבדני ב‬ ‫{ כי עתה שלחתי את‬9.15} 19‫ובעבדיך ובעמך בעבור תדע כי אין כמוני בכל הארץ ג‬ ‫{ ואולם בעבור זאת‬9.16} 19‫ידי ואכה אתך ואת עמך בדבר ותכחד מן הארץ ד‬ ‫{ עודך‬9.17} 19‫העמדתיך בעבור הראתיך את כחי ולמען ספר שמי בכל הארץ ה‬ ‫{ הנני ממטיר כעת מחר ברד כבד מאד אשר‬9.18} 19‫מסתולל בעמי לבלתי שלחם ו‬ ‫{ ועתה שלח העז את מקניך‬9.19} 19‫לא היה כמהו במצרים למיום היסדה ועד עתה ז‬

‫ואת כל אשר לך בשדה כל האדם והבהמה אשר ימצא בשדה ולא יאסף הביתה וירד‬ ‫עליהם הברד ומתו‬ ‫ למן⸱היום ]למיום‬4Q22

19‫ א‬And Moses entered, and Aaron, to Pharaoh, and they said to him: “Thus

|| with an hexaplaric text Jerome cited, reflecting a Greek reading now lost. Yet given the overwhelming evidence from the parallel, Field’s is retained. 259 Presumably, with Field, on the strength of the parallel evidence. Compare the majority variant: ἰσχύν] δυναμιν (sup ras 618) A Mtxt oI-29-135 C′’ d 85′mg s t y−527 128′z 18mx 59 130 509 646′ Rom 9:17. (For Wevers’ defense of the text insofar as GExod is concerned, see NGTE, 132.) Strictly, the Syriac could reflect either (see PS 1.1258). Yet, as NT parallels seem to have had no sustained influence on the μόνον-translator(s) (see below), Field’s is best retained. 260 See discussion below. 261 Compare MS 72O the G parallel which may reflect SH both there and here. 262 On the use of Syriac imperf. for the Greek inf., see Perkins 1980: 292–95. 263 Technically, the Syriac could reflect βρεχω as well (cp. v 23) attested by a few MSS (see AppI) and conjectured by Wevers as from one of the Three. However, the strength of the MSS confirms υω. 264 Field seems to have missed the (-‫ܗ )ܕ‬ which is plainly in the Syriac and rightly rendered by Ceriani as “universa quae” (1863: 179), perhaps since it is not represented in the Greek parallel (see discussion below). While some variation occurs as regarding masc. or fem. demonstratives (given the neuter, something Syriac lacks), this is one of the constructions used. For discussion, see Perkins 1980: 169. 265 Transposed by Field (1.96), under the influence of the parallel. See, AppI at the parallel. 266 Fragments 12–15 could be reconstructed in accordance with either SP or MT but as Exod 7.29‫ ד–א‬and 8.1‫ א‬cannot be present, it is reconstructed with MT.

162 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

says ‫ יהוה‬the God of the Hebrews: ‘Send away my people so that theya might worship me. 19‫ ב‬For in this present time I myself am sending all my (hostile) encountersb against your heart and c(that) ofc your servants and c(that) ofc your people. In order that you might know that there is none like me in all the land. 19‫ ג‬For now I will send my hand and I will strike you, you and your people with death (sic, see discussion)d! And you shall perish from the land. 19‫ ד‬Yete for this (reason) fyou have been kept,f in order that I might reveal throughg you my power, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the land! 19‫ ה‬Nowh you still ihold fast toi my people, for you have not sent them away!?267 19‫ ו‬Behold, I am raining down, thish time tomorrow, very muchj hail—the likes of which have never been in Egypt from the day (in) kwhich it was constructedk luntil this dayl. 19‫ ז‬Now then mmake haste to gatherm your cattle and everything which is yours in the open country. Forh all npeople and cattlen which, if theyn shouldh be found in the open country, and not entero shelter, then the hail will fall upon them, theye will die!’ ” a Sam. vocal. and ST: sg b SP ST: plagues (see below) c SP ST: against d SP ST: plague (STB: death; STE: speech/word) e SP ST: pr and f SP ST: I raised you up (lit. I caused you to stand) g SP ST: om. (“show you,” w/sfx. acc. only) h > SP (cp. ‫ ועודך‬MS W3 at 19‫ )ה‬ST i SP: exalt yourself against (thus Tsedaka’s ET; cp. ST below) j SP ST: heavy k SP ST: of its founding l SP ST: (lit.) and until now m SP ST: (lit.) send, bring to safety n SP ST: sg o SP ST: be gathered (into; pass. in Sam. vocal. but STEC read w/act.)

Attribution: And this is extant only in the [edition] of the Samaritans. Exod 9.19‫ז–א‬: As Ceriani noted earlier a great deal of septuagintism obtains in the passage, particularly in vv 19‫ז–ו‬. Below, an emendation to the Syriac is proposed in 19‫ג‬. Exod 9.19‫א‬: The verse is much like those above. ► ‫ ܘܐܗܪܘܢ‬/ και Ααρων and ‫ ܘܐ ܘ‬/ και ειπον : For comment, see 7.29(8.4)‫א‬ and 8.19(23)‫ א‬above. ► ‫ܢ‬ ‫ ܕ‬/ ινα λατρευσωσι μοι : For comment, see 7.18‫ א‬above. Exod 9.19‫ב‬: A number of septuagintisms obtain, most remarkable of which is the first, the rendering “encounters.” ̈ ► ‫ ܓ ܐ‬/ τα συναντηματα : The use of the (presumably euphemistic?268) “encounters” (thus Perkins in NETS) for SP ‫(“ מגפתי‬my) plagues” is a clear sep-

|| 267 For a discussion of the punctuation in the MS, see below. 268 Though Wevers was correct to note that GExod’s choice here was “[s]omewhat surprising” (NGTE, 130, he thus translates it “plague-encounters”), LSJ lists not only this instance but another in a magical papyrus (PMag.Leid W.18.5) which witnesses to the same semantic use. Note BrillDAG does not cite this reference.

Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 163

tuagintism.269 Indeed the word choice is so odd that in the parallel at 9.14 SH transmits a scholion attempting to elucidate the form (SHL fol. 32a || SHV 27b [effaced]; both with Greek συναντηματα in mg270):

̈ ‫ܘ ̈ܓ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܐ ܓ ܐ‬

‫ܘܕ ܐ‬ ‫̈ ܐ܇ ܕ‬

‫ܐ ܕ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ̈ ܒܐ‬

̈

‫̈ ܬܐ ܗ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ‫܆ ܐ‬ ̈ ‫܀‬. ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬

‫̈ܓ‬ ‫ܒ ̈ܘ‬

[Scripture] calls these severe plagues, which were brought about and occurred severely and terribly, ‘encounters’, just as those (similar cases) we find in the sacred writings, in different places (where) ‘encounter’ is set in place of ‘slaughter’.271

This note, presumably (as the syntax indicates) from the Greek—and it would have been just as necessary to explain the usage in Greek as in Syriac—occurs in the MS before the present passage.272 Insofar as the Caesarean critic(s) method is concerned, it is perhaps a noticeable contrast that while GExod’s “death” was considered semantically too far from “pestilence” at 9.5‫ ד‬above, here “encounter” suffices for “plague.” The contrast is all the more so pointed as the recentiores here supplied the more regular αʹ θʹ θραύσεις σʹ πληγάς.273 Why the translator(s) elected to septuagintize the one and not the other may be due to two reasons: 1) Most probably the explanatory scholion was already in the hexaplaric text he was editing, and thus the form had already been “explained” and thus not in need of alteration. 2) It is possibly also pertinent that ‫‘ ֶדּ ֶבר‬plague’ / ‘pestilence’ occurs nearly twice as much as ‫‘ ַמגֵּ ָפה‬plague’ (at least in MT). Perhaps the translator somehow had more experience with the Hebrew form and the incongruence of GExod’s equivalency was more readily apparent. ► ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܕ‬... ‫̈ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܕ‬... ‫ ܒܐ‬/ εις την καρ., και των θερ., και του λαου : The Hebrew ‫ על לבך ובעבדיך ובעמך‬represents different prepositions with respec-

|| 269 Ceriani 1983: 179. Note that in Syriac ‫ ܓ ܐ‬has the same semantic range. It can imply a hostile attack (akin to English ‘fall upon’) but this is hardly used for ‘plague’ (see JPS, s.v.). 270 Ceriani noted that L has misspelled the Greek word (1863: 178). SHV (insofar as can be read) preserves the correct form. Compare above the case concerning ρητον at Exod 22.8(9). ‫ ̈ ܐ ܕ‬is legible in SHV. Of the Syriac, only the 271 This explanation must have convinced some, since Jacob adopted the reading in the ̈ margin (JExod 9.14mg: ‫ ; ܓ‬fol. 127‫)ܒ‬. 272 As Ceriani observed in his discussion of the scholion (1863: 178), the Greek Scriptures rarely evince any such usage. See LEH2, which references less than nine occurrences. Curiously, Field did not mention the note. 273 AppII: (τὰ) συναντήματά (μου)] αʹ (absc 707) θʹ (> 85) θραύσεις σʹ πληγάς M 707oII 85-344s; ἄλλος (> 135 126) τὰς (> 422) πληγάς μου (> 135 422 18 646) 135oII 126-422cII 18mx 646. As Wevers pointed out (NGTE, 130, n. 20), Hesychius equated θραύσις with πληγή; see LSJ, s.v., IV).

164 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

tive to the threatened parties. Ceriani was unsure at which point SP’s reading here had “been corrupted,” whether in Greek or Syriac.274 However, as the μόνον-evidence makes abundantly clear, the prepositions and associated grammatical constructions nearly always crib the G parallel, irrespective of the Hebrew (→ 7.29[8.4]‫)ג‬.275 It is then preferable to view this as an intentional septuagintism rather than a “corruption” as such.276 Exod 9.19‫ג‬: The Syriac here should be emended. ► ‫ ܒ ܬܐ‬/ θανατω, emend to ‫ ܒ ܬ ܐ‬/ (εν) λοιμω (→ 9.5‫)ג‬: The emendation is straightforward and requires little justification. As the Caesarean translator(s) rendered SP’s ‫“ דבר‬plague / pestilence” in the passage just previous to this one, it follows much more likely that the Syriac scribe(s) would unknowingly replace ‫ܬ ܐ‬ with ‫ ܬܐ‬, especially as the latter occurs in the parallel.277 278 L While only SH is relevant for this passage, it is highly improbable that the μόνον-translator(s) would go to the trouble to consult the recentiores for 9.5‫ג‬ and not maintain the difference.279 On the side of Samaritan exegesis, STB rendered ‫“ במותה‬with death,” while E ST used ‫“ בממלל‬by speaking” both here and in 9.15. STB’s from above then must have been an intentional alteration, perhaps euphemistic?280 Whatever the case, this adds to the distance between the μόνον-translation and ST, and thus any possible connection to τὸ σαμ΄. Exod 9.19‫ד‬: A number of elements require comment here. ► ‫ܒ ܡ‬° / ° πλην : The Hebrew is ‫“ ואולם‬And yet” (literally rendered by ST’s ‫ )וארום‬which the GExod parallel does not sufficiently render with και (ενεκεν).281 The text as is shows some independence from GExod, or the equivalencies of G

|| 274 “… nisi serius ex textu LXX corrupto versio Samaritani sive in Graeco sive in Syro …” (1863: 179). 275 All Hebrew and Aramaic parallel evidence supports the prepositions in SP (and ST) here. Tsedaka’s ET here is perhaps inelegant: “…I will send all My plagues over your heart, and on your slaves, and your people ….” 276 Wevers described the GExod preposition chain as both simplified and coordinated to σου not καρδιαν (NGTE, 130–31). 277 Ceriani was suspicious of ‫ܬܐ‬ as his notes indicate (1863: 179). 278 Though both this passage and the one before were abbreviated by Jacob, in the parallels he followed PExod with ‫ ܬ ܐ‬. 279 Note the recentiores for the parallel here as well (AppII: αʹ σʹ ἐν λοιμῷ M 85-344s); again Theodotion differs from Aquila and Symmachus. 280 On the use of euphemisms in ST MSS generally, see Tal 2003. This presumes that death is somehow less graphic than pestilence / plague. 281 See SH at 9.16 (... )‫ܘ‬. Influence from PExod (9.16: ... ‫ )]ܘ[ܒ ܡ‬on SH is improbable since assuming as much fails to account for the remainder of the verse’s divergences.

Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 165

in general, as the conj. ‫ אולם‬is rendered by αλλα more frequently than πλην.282 While omitting the ‫ו־‬, the translator(s) still demonstrated some attention to detail, even if incompletely. ► ‫ ܐܬ ܬ‬/ διετηρηθης : The precision of the previous case is more or less canceled by the following septuagintism “you have been kept” for SP’s “I have raised you up” (= ST ‫)אק)י(מתך‬. However, this case does show that familiar citations in the NT had no influence since Rom 9.17 reads: Εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἐξήγειρά σε ὅπως ἐνδείξωμαι ἐν σοὶ τὴν δύναμίν μου. Paul’s citation is a more etymologically literalistic rendering of the Hebrew than GExod,283 the latter of which, as Wevers noted, pacifies the Lord’s agency.284 Nevertheless, that both the word choice and the grammar were cribbed from GExod makes it clear that the Pauline citation was not even in the back of the Caesarean critic’(s) mind when he worked. On possible (while uncertain) NT influence elsewhere in the μόνον-data, see ‫ ܗܘ ܒ ܐ‬/ εκεινος ο προφητης at Exod 20.(17)21‫ ד‬below (→ §2.3.3). Exod 9.19‫ה‬: The Syriac MS exhibits one noteworthy feature affecting the tone of the entire verse. ►‫܈‬ ‫ ܗ‬/ ουν … [;?] : Textually, this is an addition285 cribbed from the GExod parallel in v 17 and is thus unremarkable.286 However, what is exceptional is that the scribe Lazarus supplied this word with the Syriac question mark affecting the tone of the entire verse. This Syriac punctuation—called the zawgā ʿelāyā (‫ܐ‬ ‫“ ܙܘܓܐ‬upper pair (of dots)”) in East Syriac sources and tāksā (‫‘ ܬ ܐ‬forbiding, holding back (dots)’) by West Syriac grammarians287—is the

|| 282 See LALS, H-R, and Muraoka’s Two-Way at the relevant entries. Wevers remarked that αλλα is the more expected form (NGTE, 131). 283 See HALOT ad loc. Presumably the act. of ‫ עמד‬in the hiphil, itself not overly common, need not imply only ‘preserving’ but also ‘setting up’ for a fall, the latter implied by Paul’s rendering and certainly the ST. On Paul, see C. Cranfield 2004/2.485–85, and the data there. Cranfield here basically concurs with W. Sanday and A. Headlam’s earlier discussion (see 1897: 255–56); note the latters’ assessment of the “Samaritan version” (= ST) is correct (and based on the LT in the London Polyglot!). Compare Tsedaka’s ET “…I have allowed you to stand…” which seems to split the difference semantically. 284 NGTE, 131–32. He held that the active sense in διετηρησα σε 135oII 85mg-343-344mg s represented one of the Three, a judicious assessment (following Field 1.95, n. 13). If this is so, then presumably the translator(s) would have had more than one option in front of them. 285 It is highly improbable that the form is in any ways related to the variant ‫ ועודך‬in von ‫ ܗ‬/ ουν still derived from the G parallel. Gall’s MS W3. And even if it were, the 286 Dutifully pointed out by Ceriani 1863: 179. 287 The standard, groundbreaking study on this topic is Coakley 2012, whom I use here. Coakley disagrees with J. Segal’s earlier interpretation of the latter meaning ‘reproaching’ / ‘reprov-

166 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

earliest known question mark in any language or script first appearing, according to J. F. Coakley’s survey, in MSS in the 5th cent CE.288 Amongst the various examples, there appears to be an interesting variation in the way in which scribes marked it: either vertically erect ‫ ݃ܐ‬- above the first or second word of the sentence, or at the same place but slanted obliquely ‫ܐ܈‬- as in the present case.289 Coakley holds that the former was the original shape meant to mark a yes-or-no question where the sentence was ambiguous, lacking an obvious interrogative.290 Eventually, Western Syriac grammarians in grammatical tracts discussed the tāksā, especially in the Bible, as marking questions of a reproving nature.291 That the present case was meant to be read in a reproving manner is obvious, as a straightforward question does not fit the context. The mystery, however, is how the scribe, Lazarus, knew the verse in question was meant to be read as an accusatory question. The parallel passage in SH Exod is not marked as such (either in L or V), suggesting that the questioningexclamatory tone in the Lord’s words is meant to be special to SP. Yet as Coakley points out, Greek scribes did not use anything functioning as a question mark until the 8th cent CE.292 It is therefore improbable that Paul of Tella’s exemplar had any such mark. Further, Lazarus wrote this MS (copying it from a Syriac exemplar) in 697 CE. The parallel reading in PExod is somewhat different not necessarily resembling a question (...‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܒ ܒ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫;)ܘ‬ moreover, the early PExod MSS 5b1 (fol. 70b‫)ܒ‬, 7a1 (fol. 17b‫)ܓ‬, and 8a1 (fol. 10a‫ )ܒ‬lack any such punctuation. Where did this interpretation come from? There is no obvious source for this interpretation in tone other than to assume that either Paul of Tella (or Lazarus?) thought it was an accusation, viz., the

|| ing’ (quoted by Coakley 2012: 205, n. 24). JPS defined the form as points expressing “reprehension of lamentation” (s.v.). 288 See the popular post from the Cambridge Library’s blog on Coakley’s work: https:// www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/the-riddle-of-the-syriac-double-dot-its-the-worlds-earliestquestion-mark. 289 While it is tempting to interpret the angle to the adjacent -‫ ܠ‬there would have been space to supply the marker in the middle of the word perfectly erect without obscuring anything. Therefore, here it is recorded angled, following Ceriani’s edition (1863: 179). Of particular interest for the angled shape are the comments by Barhebraeus which seem to align with the present case; see Coakley’s ET (2012: 209–10). 290 Coakley 2012: 202. 291 See Coakley’s survey of grammatical tracts and treatises (2012: 205–10). That the earliest known tract was written by one Thomas the Deacon, who G. Philips identified with Thomas of Harkel (→ §1.1.1), is suggestive for the present case. Coakley (2012: 205, n. 23) notes this suggestion without comment. 292 2012: 211 (and literature cited there). See also Metzger 1981: 32.

Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 167

Lord here is saying “How dare you?!” But such a supposition implies the Syriac translator(s) were engaged in matters beyond simple translating, something for which little evidence survives. In the end, it is most probable that the question mark emerged unconsciously on the Syriac level, though we cannot know precisely from whom.293 ► ‫ܐ‬ / εμποιη (αντιποιη?) : Field is right to include both as the Syriac denotes ‘grasping firmly’ (≈ εμποιη or αντιποιη).294 The low frequency of the words in the corpus makes it difficult to be certain. Further, εγκρατεις appears to be another possibility as Exod 9.5‫ ב‬shows.295 Whichever word underlies SH, it is a septuagintism.296 It should be pointed out that the Hebrew ‫ מסתולל‬was difficult and translated differently by the various witnesses.297 PExod ( ‫ܐ‬ ) followed GExod,298 whereas TgN and TgPJ read “you are claiming superiority / making great” (‫ )את מתרברב‬and TgO has “subduing / treading upon” (‫)את כבישת‬.299 For their part, the Samaritans translated different still. ST reads ‫ )א(כדך מדלס‬which Tal translates as “yet you hinder My people, and do not let them go” from √‫דלס‬2 ‘hindering’, though possibly also from √‫דלס‬1 ‘dealing falsely’.300 Exod 9.19‫ו‬: Septuagintism continues.

|| 293 Even modern editions of the Greek text differ in how the parallel is to be understood. Both Ceriani’s LT and Field’s Greek retroversion of the μόνον-passage mark the verse as a question. However they did this, not because they understood the punctuation mark in SH, but because Holmes and Parsons marked it as such in the parallel at v. 17 presumably based on the minuscule Greek MSS they used. (Note the LXX column in the London Polyglot also does so.) BrookeMcLean followed suit. By contrast, neither Rahlfs nor Wevers’ editions punctuate 9.17 as a question (NETS follows). Even modern ETs punctuate Exod 9.17 differently suggesting influence from the older LXX editions. Most use the full stop (e.g., ESV, NRSV, etc.); yet KJV/AV marks it as a (rhetorical) question as does NAB-RE. Interestingly, NJPS (1985) uses an exclamation mark, which is close to SH’s representation of the SP passage. Contrast Tsedaka’s ET of SP where he uses the full stop, both here and in the parallel. 294 Wevers pointed out the latter (NGTE, 132) means ‘lay claim to’ with a gen. (as opposed ‘to contend with’, see above note); see also the entries in LSJ and BrillDAG. 295 That the parallel at SH Exod 9.2 reads ‫ ܐ ̇ ܐ‬does not militate against this, since SH’s Greek there was probably κρατεις (see AppI MSS 72-707O; cp. SH Josh 18.1 which is similar). 296 Thus Ceriani 1863: 179. 297 Thus TDOT: “The LXX obviously experienced problems with this verb” (10.267). Wevers only pointed out that GExod differed from MT’s meaning here (NGTE, 132). 298 The fragmentary TgVNL glosses it: ‫[‘ מסתולל׃ מתקף‬the Hebrew lemma]: seizing’. 299 According to Jastrow and CALex this can also mean ‘detaining’. 300 See Tal, DSA, s.v., where this case is under √2. The entry in CALex lists both of Tal’s roots yet supplies this case under √1, translating “you are still dealing falsely with my people so as not to release them” (cp. Jastrow, ‫)דלס‬.

168 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

► ‫ ܒ ܐ‬/ ταυτη and ‫ ܓ ܐܐ‬/ πολλην : Both are septuagintisms reflecting the translator’(s) method. The former may indicate conscious usage of the hexaplaric text since it is improbable the translator would have bothered to alter the rendering of a preposition in the GExod parallel. The latter is without variant in the parallel (AppI: πολλήν] πολυ 458n). For the latter, Wevers correctly approved of GExod’s (admittedly low frequency) equivalency for ‫כבד‬: “Since the hail was to be extremely destructive either their large size or that they were πολλήν makes good sense.”301 ► ‫ ܕܐܬܒ‬/ εκτισται : The Syriac translates the GExod parallel as opposed to the recentiores (AppII: αʹ σʹ ἐθεμελιώθη M 85′-344s); θεμελιόω would have required Syriac ‫ܣ‬ in the pael (e.g., SH Josh 6.26). ►‫ܐ ܗܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ° / ° εως της ημερας ταυτας : No variant from SP as it stands is warranted. This is perhaps a more extended septuagintism,302 though the next verse is perhaps more so. Exod 9.19‫ז‬: The verse has some of the more pointed septuagintism. ► ‫ ܐ ܪܗܒ‬/ κατασπευσον συναγαγειν : This septuagintism, as Ceriani previously observed,303 hardly represents a literal rendering of the Hebrew. Wevers argued, perhaps rightly, that GExod’s is more precise than the Hebrew here as ‫ שלח‬could be ambiguous (i.e., send for what?).304 He further noted that the Jewish Targumim render the latter as ‫כנ)ו(ש‬, as GExod here.305 ► ‫ܕܐܢ‬ ‫ ܗ‬:‫ ܓ ܒ ̈ ܐ ܘܒ ܐ‬/ γαρ οι ανθρωποι, και τα κτηνη, οσα εαν : The conjunction, the pluralized forms, and the conditional ‫ ܐܢ‬/ εαν are all septuagintistic, even if accurate in terms of rendering the Hebrew. ►‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܒ‬2°: Presuming that the (Syriac) scribe did not neglect a seyame, the text is precise for ‫בשדה‬. Given the fact that ‫ שדה‬is always rendered using the parallels (→ 9.5‫)ג‬, there is reason to suspect SH in light of the MS evidence since the parallel reads with the plural τοις πεδιοις. Nevertheless, there is also a

|| 301 NGTE, 133. Again at least one other option was available via hexaplaric sources; see AppII: πολλήν] αʹ σʹ βαρεῖαν M 707(nom absc)oII 85′-344s. Compare the similarly septuagintistic rendering at 9.5‫ג‬. 302 As pointed out by Ceriani (1863: 179–80 ). 303 1863: 179. 304 NGTE, 133. 305 NGTE, 133. PExod similarly has ‫ܠ‬ ‫“ ܪ‬send, gather (both impv.).” Interestingly, ST, both here and the parallel, equates SP more precisely ‫ שלח עזז‬J = ‫ שגר אעיץ‬A (hithpael [?] impv. from ‫ ;חוץ‬cp. ‫ ערק‬MS B, ‘make flee / drive away’; see ST in v 20 where some carry out the order; see Tal, DSA, s.v.). My thanks to Martin Tscheu (MLU, H-W) for his insight into MS A here.

Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 169

very early and well-attested variant evincing the singular, including some hexaplaric MSS, suggesting that perhaps the translator(s) did double check it.306 ► ‫ܢ‬ / εισελθη : The variation in verbal number between SH and the Greek is merely the result of the neut pl., something not represented in Syriac. The reading for ‫ יאסף‬in SP is the niphal singular, as both the reading tradition and ST make clear.307 This septuagintistic308 rendering merited no comment by Wevers. However, the equivalency is exceptionally rare, occurring in the GExod parallel and at Num 12.14.309 ► ‫ܬܘܢ‬ ° / ° τελευτησει : The omitted ‫ ו־‬is merely due to the Caesarean translator’(s) policy of adhering to the G parallel. Note that the later insertion of και is only found in scattered witnesses (see AppI). As with ‫ܢ‬ / εισελθη, the difference in verbal number is the result of the way the Syriac translator(s) approached the Greek neuter plural. Attribution: See Exod 7.18‫ ג–א‬for comment. Exod 10.(2)2‫ד–א‬: The Plague of Locusts SH (L fol. 35a top mg sub ※; > V → EXCURSUS B)

̇ ‫ ܗ ܐ‬.‫ܢ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܐܕ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ ܪ‬. ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ ܆ ܗܐ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܪܘ‬ ‫ܘ ܐ ̈ܐ ̇ ܕܐܪ ܐ܆ ܘ ܐ‬ .‫ܢ ܒ ܕܐ‬ ‫ܕܐ ܒ ܇ ̇ܗܘ ܕ ̣ܒ‬ 2‫ ד‬.‫ܐܬܪܐ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܐ܇ ̇ܗܘ ܕ ܚ‬ ̇ ‫܆ ܘ ܒ ܐ ܕ ̈ܪ ܐ܇ ܗܘ ܐ ܕ ܐ‬ ‫ܕܗܘܘ‬ ‫ܐ ̇ܗܘ‬ ‫ܐܕ ܇‬ ̣

‫ܬ‬

‫ ܘܬܐ‬2‫ א‬.‫ܢ‬ ‫[ ܐ ܐ ܕ‬...] 2 ‫ܐ ܐ ܝ ܐ ܒ ̇ܐ ܐ‬ .‫ܕ ܒ ܐ‬ ̇ ‫ ܐܢ ܕ ܐ‬2‫ ב‬. ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܨܒܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ 2‫܆ ג‬ ‫ܬܘ ̈ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ ܐ ܠ‬.‫̇ ܐܪ ܐ‬ ‫ܬܬ ̣ ܐ‬ ‫ܐܪܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ ܕܐܪ ̈ ܐ܆ ܘ‬ ‫ܘܐ ܠ‬ ̈ ‫̈ ܐܕ‬ ‫ ܕ‬° ‫ܘܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܢܒ ܐܕ‬ ̣ ‫ܘ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܘܡ ̣ ܘ‬ ‫ܕܐܒ‬ ‫ܘ ܐ ܐܒ ̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܐܒ ܐ ܕ‬ ↘.‫ܐ ܗ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐܪ ܐ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܐܒ ܕ‬ ‫ܗܘܝ‬ ‫ ܘܗ ܒ ̇ ܝ ܕ‬Attrib.

Field’s Reconstructed Greek [Revised] 2 ※ ο θεος υμων. 2‫ א‬και ερεις προς Φαραω ταδε λεγει ΠΙΠΙ ο θεος των Εβραιων εως τινος ου βουλει εντραπηναι με; εξαποστειλον τον λαον μου, ινα λατρευσωσι μοι. 2‫ ב‬εαν δε μη θελης εξαποστειλαι τον λαον μου, ιδου εγω

|| 306 AppI: τοῖς πεδίοις] τω πεδιω (παιδιω A) A B 15-376′O Aeth Arab Arm Bo Pal SH. Flagged up by Wevers (NGTE, 134); see his explanation in THGE, 198. Presumably, the mechanisms which affected the original GExod translator, however, did not pertain to the Caesarean critic(s). 307 Vocalized as iyyå̄såf (see Ben-Ḥayyim 1977: 30 and 412). 308 Thus Ceriani 1863: 180. 309 Thus, H-R, 410.

170 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

επαγω αυριον ακριδα επι τα ορια σου 2‫ ג‬και καλυψει την οψιν της γης, και ου δυνηση κατιδειν την γην και κατεδεται το περισσον310 το καταλειφθεν, ο κατελιπεν υμιν η χαλαζα, και κατεδεται πασας τας βοτανας311 της γης, και παντα τον καρπον του ξυλου του φυομενου υμιν απο της χωρας.312 19‫ ד‬και πλησθησονται αι οικιαι σου, και αι οικιαι ° των θεραποντων σου, και πασα οικια των Αιγυπτιων ο (or: α)313 ουδεποτε εωρακασιν οι πατερας σου, ουδ (or: και ουκ?)314 οι [πατερες των πατερων]315 σου, αφ ης ημερας γεγονασιν επι της γης εως της ημερας ταυτας ↙ [Attrib. και (ταυ)τα εν η των σαμαρειτων μονον κειμενα] SP Exod 10.(2)2‫( ד–א‬cf. 10.3–6) 4Q22 (DJD 9.81) ≠ 4Q11? (9.30–31)316 4Q14 (12.110–11) MT ‫{ ואמרת אל פרעה כה אמר יהוה אלהי העברים עד מתי מאנת‬10.3} 2‫ אלהיכם א‬2 ‫{ כי אם מאן אתה לשלח את עמי הנני‬10.4} 2‫לענות מפני שלח את עמי ויעבדני ב‬ ‫{ וכסה את עין הארץ ולא יכל לראות את הארץ‬10.5} 2‫מביא מחר ארבה בגבולך ג‬

‫ואכל את יתר הפלטה הנשארת לכם מן הברד ואכל את כל עשב הארץ ואת כל פרי‬ ‫{ ומלאו בתיך ובתי כל עבדיך ובתי כל מצרים‬10.6} 2‫העץ הצמח לכם מן השדה ד‬ ‫אשר לא ראו אבותיך ואבות אבותיך מיום היותם על האדמה עד היום הזה‬ 2 … your God. 2‫ א‬And you shall say to Pharaoh: “Thus says ‫ יהוה‬the God of the Hebrews: ‘How long will you be unwilling to show me reverence! Send away my people so that theya might worship me. 2‫ ב‬Yet if you refuse to send away my people, behold I myself will bring tomorrow locust(s) upon your boardersb. 2‫ג‬ And (they) shall cover the facec of the land. And dyou will notd be able to see the land. And (they) shall eat the leftoversb (sic, see discussion) which the ehail left behinde to you. And (they) will eat ball the plantsb (sic, see discussion) of the land and every fruit of a tree, which sprouts for you from the placef. 2‫ ד‬And they shall gbe filledg, your houses and the houses ofh your servants and ievery house of the Egyptiansi, (the likes of) which your fathers never saw norj your fathers’ fathers from the day which they were on the land until this day.’ ” a Sam. vocal. and ST: sg b SP ST: sg. c SP STJ: eye; cp. appearance in STAECB (see below) d SP ST: no one will e SP ST: left behind by the hail f SP ST: field g SP ST: fill (act., see Ben-Ḥayyim 1977: 163) h SP ST: + all i SP ST: the houses of all Egypt

|| 310 SH must be emended here (see below). The plural would require τα περισσα as per SH and G at Num 4.26 and Ezek 48.15. Note Field’s discomfort with the text (1.97). 311 See below. 312 Field’s retroversion is sure. See P Mk 5.10 and OSS, P 1 Macc 10.38, and SH Bel 28 (cp. SH Dan 3.97); του τοπου is found in 1 Macc. 3.35, but retroverting with τοπος creates as many problems as χωρα. See below discussion. 313 See PS 1.981 for the Syriac vis-à-vis the Greek here. 314 Perkins says that SH makes no distinction (1980: 41); however, the G parallel should guide. 315 See discussion below. 316 See the extended discussion in the Skehan-Ulrich-Sanderson edition (9.30–31); the case is inconclusive.

Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 171

(-ians ST) j SP ST: and

Attribution: And this is extant only in the [edition] of the Samaritans. Exod 10.(2)2‫ד–א‬: The passage is fairly regular insofar as the expected μόνονtype characteristics occur. In v 2‫ ג‬a complication obtains concerning ‫ܐܬܪܐ‬ which has no sufficient solution. Syriac Witnesses: As noted above, the Syriac witness vary as to how they transmitted these passages from Exod 9.5‫ ה–א‬onwards. SHV omitted them altogether, whereas JExod variously represented the remainder of the Plague Narrative. For this reading and that at Exod 11.3–3‫–א‬4‫–א‬4, Jacob chose to add only those portions of the SP passage which were truly unique (i.e., “only”). Here these bits include ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܐ‬, ‫( ܘܐ‬v 2‫א‬/3), ‫ܐ ܕܐܪ ܐ‬ (as a singular), ̈ ‫( ̈ܐ ܐ ܕ ܐ̈ܪܐ‬a blend with P), and ‫( ܘ ܒ ܐ‬2‫ד‬, a blend with P). Comparison with PExod, GExod, and SH here make it clear that Jacob consciously added these elements to his edition. For analysis of this passage in JExod, see below (→ §5.2.3). Exod 10.2: ► ‫ܢ‬ ‫ ܐ ܐ ܕ‬/ ο θεος υμων : Only the Samaritan textual tradition ends v 2 with “(I am ‫ )יהוה‬your God.” The Caesarean collator(s) carefully observed and dutifully recorded this Samaritan exclusivity absent from all other extant witnesses. The precise manner in which ‫ אלהיכם‬was recorded is another matter. As Ceriani observed SH has no index marker,317 relying instead on the flow of the narrative (which cannot really be mistaken) to indicate where the passage ought to be read. However, because of this, it is ambiguous how ‫אלהיכם‬ is to be read: Is it meant to replace ‫ܐ‬ at the end of v 2 (“I am your God”) or supplement it (“I am the the Lord your God”)? Strictly speaking, it could be read either way, and Jacob appears to have read it in the former manner ( ‫ܘܬܕ ܢ‬ ‫ ܀‬.‫ܢ‬ ‫§ → ܕܐ ܐ ܐ‬5.2.3). While this might be interpreted as contrary to the way in which the data are presented (i.e., sub ※, ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܒ‬, etc.), there are cases in the wider set of readings which could support such an interpretation (e.g., → §§3.3.2 Num 21.21+, 22‫( ב–א‬placement), → §3.3.3 at Num 21.13a, cp. the Samaritan Itinerary → §4.3.2), at least in the way SHL has preserved it. Exod 10.2‫א‬: The verse is typical. ► ‫ ܘܬܐ‬/ ερεις : The translator(s) was unhindered by the GExod parallel which reads with the plural (ειπαν / var: ειπον)318 and produced the correct reading.

|| 317 1863: 184. 318 AppI: ειπεν 761*cII 314b 127n BoB; ειπων 246c f.

172 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

►‫ܘ‬ / εντραπηναι : The Samaritan ‫( לענות‬read as a qal inf. lānot :: MT’s niphal inf. ‫ ֵל ָענֹת‬in the parallel)319 is here rendered with GExod’s εντραπηναι ‘be reverent’, something Wevers called “simple but elegant.”320 As a point of interest, the Syriac translator for some reason differently expressed the exact same Greek in the parallel with ‫ܕܬܬ‬. Perkins found that both the Syriac infinitive and -‫ ܕ‬+ imperf. were used to represent the Greek complementary infinitive.321 There is thus no reason to suppose different Greek than Field reconstructed. ► ‫ܢ‬ ‫ ܕ‬/ ινα λατρευσωσι μοι : On this, → 7.18‫ א‬above.322 Exod 10.2‫ב‬: The septuagintisms are typical. ► ‫ ܐ ܨܒܐ ܐ‬/ μη θελης : The septuagintistic translation here, an inverted rendering of ‫מאן אתה‬, merits comment as Wevers pointed out that usually the G translator did so with the negative + βουλομαι. It is in fact only here and at 7.14 where a different Greek word was used.323 This shift in the parallel, βουλομαι / ‫ → ܒ ܐ‬θελω / ‫ܨܒܐ‬, appears to have affected the μόνον-translator(s) practice, as the very next occurrence of ‫ מאן‬in these passages (→ Exod 11.4‫א‬ below) is translated with θελω / ‫ ܨܒܐ‬despite the fact that all MSS and witnesses to the GExod parallel in question read βουλομαι. This may represent a case where the translator’(s) previous equivalency for a given word affected those similar cases which follow irrespective of the exact G parallel ad loc (→ §3.3.3 at Num 27.23‫)ב‬. ► ‫ܬܘ ̈ ܐ‬ / επι τα ορια : Both the prep. and the plural are taken from the GExod parallel.324 Note that the Caesarean critic(s) astutely omitted the παντα there omitted only by MS 72. Exod 10.2‫ג‬: The verse is as expected, save one reading which defies explanation as well as a coincidental agreement with some ST MSS. SH’s diacritics need to be emended twice. ̈ / την οψιν : This same choice of “face / appearance (of the earth / ► ̇ ‫ܐ‬ land)” for ‫ עין הארץ‬occurs not only in the parallel here but at 10.15, GNum 22.5

|| 319 Ben-Ḥayyim 1977: 213 and 412. STA seems to have interpreted this as if from ‫‘ ענה‬answer’ reading ‫( לאגיבותה‬see Tal, DSA, ‫)אגבו‬. 320 NGTE, 146. 321 1980: 293. 322 Note AppI: λατρευση (-σει 75-628) μοι 246f n−458 Latcod 104. 323 NGTE, 146. 324 As Ceriani observed, although he also mentioned that 2 witnesses in Kennicott read with the plural (1863: 185). The Kennicott MSS (here 6 and 13), however, have nothing to do with the reading.

Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 173

and 11.325 While the equivalent for ‘eye’ is reproduced by PExod and TgO, GExod’s less literal rendition is found also in TgPJ (‫ )חזוונא‬and TgN (‫)חזות‬.326 As for the ST tradition, many MSS read ‘appearance’ as well (‫ חזב‬A || ‫ חזות‬ECB).327 There is no connection between the μόνον-translation and ST, however. The MSS in question are quite late, and it is more likely that their reading is either influenced by the (later) Jewish Targumim or reflective of common Aramaic renderings of the Hebrew at the time. ► ‫ ܬܬ ܐ‬/ δυνηση : The indefinite ‫ יכל‬has been personalized here; Wevers explained GExod as purposefully translating thus since Pharaoh is being addressed.328 ►‫ܐ‬ / τα περισσα, emend to ‫ܐ‬ / το περισσον : It seems that SH, reading unambiguously in the MS with sey., should be emended to the singular based on the overwhelming evidence in the GExod parallel. Further, the accompanying verb ‫̇ܗܘ‬ ‫ ܕܐ ܒ‬/ το καταλειφθεν ο is singular, suggesting that the sey. here is a mistake.329 ► ‫ܢ ܒ ܕܐ‬ ‫̇ܗܘ ܕ ̣ܒ‬ ‫ ܕܐ ܒ‬/ το καταλειφθεν, ο κατελιπεν υμιν η χαλαζα : Both the syntactical variation from SP (‫ )מן הברד‬and the choice of καταλειπω for two distinct Hebrew words (‫ הפלטה‬and ‫)הנשארת‬, are the result of the translator’(s) cribbing.330 ► -‫ܐܪܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ ܕܐܪ ܐ܆ ܘ‬ / τας βοτανας της γης, και παντα τον καρπον του, emend to ... ‫ܐ‬ / (την) βοτανην … : The Caesarean critic(s) did not have to travel far to find a parallel to crib for the Samaritan exclusivity ‫עשב הארץ ואת‬ ‫כל פרי‬, namely the same phraseology in GExod 10.15.331 Both Ceriani332 and Field were uncomfortable with the sey. on ‫ܐ‬ , a plural for which nearly no evidence in the parallel supports.333 Fortunately, JExod 10.5 (fol. 129‫ )ܒ‬contains this very sequence which he added to his text from SH: ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ ܠ‬

|| 325 See H-R, 1044. 326 Jerome opted for superficiem. 4Q11 has preserved only ‫ ע[יֿ ן‬for this verse. 327 In MS A, the beth is pronounced as the waw. Tal demarcates ‫ חזב‬as masc. and ‫ חזו‬as fem. (see DSA, s.v.). This distinction is supported by CALex (see the entry for the latter). 328 NGTE, 146. He called this decision, also found in TgN, “sensible.” 329 Ceriani’s LT reads with the plural in both cases: residua quae relicta fuerunt (1863: 184– is masc (‫ܬܐ‬ is fem.). 85). He gave no comment. Note that ‫ܐ‬ 330 So Ceriani (1863: 185), who did not mention the varying Hebrew terms. 331 Kim points to v 15 for the parallel (1994: 91, n. 9, and 119); also Tov 2017: 12. 332 1863: 185. 333 AppI: βοτάνην] pr την M O′’−29′ 72 C′’−52′ 126 761 b 610d 56′-129f n s 121′y z 18mx 55 59 130 646′ = M; τα βοτανα 126cII.

174 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

‫ܕܐܪ ܐ‬.334 It seems therefore appropriate to emend SH here according to Jacob’s singular; perhaps the SH scribe was unthinkingly “seyame happy” in this sentence. ► ‫ܐܬܪܐ‬ / απο της χωρας : Where did the Caesarean translator(s) get της χωρας for SP ‫?השדה‬335 No such wording can be found in the GExod parallel either at 10.5 or 15, which attest to της γης and του πεδιου, respectively. Both of these are possible renderings for ‫( שדה‬the latter more so), whereas χωρα is found only once in GGen 32.3(4) as an equivalent for (‫שדה )אדום‬.336 There is nothing to suggest that SH’s reading has been corrupted on the Syriac level. (JExod adhered to PExod at this point producing ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܒ‬and is of no help.) Even on the Greek level, corruption is unlikely as the regular equivalent τουαγρου could hardly be altered to τησχωρασ unthinkingly.337 Even if the Caesarean critic(s) misread the Hebrew ‫ שדה‬/ ‫ שדה‬as ‫ ארץ‬/ ‫ארץ‬, he still should have produced the parallel at 10.5 (or v 15). Perhaps it is not impossible that the parallel was originally cribbed and was somehow generalized by a later scribe, τησ γησ → τησ χωρασ, though this also feels forced. Ultimately, the problem remains unsolved and no variant to SP should be contrived. Exod 10.2‫ד‬: The verse displays both septuagintism and an issue with ‫כל‬. ► ‫ܒ ܐ ܕ ̈ܪ ܐ‬ ‫̈ ܐ ܕ ܆ ܘ‬ ‫ ܕ‬° / ° των θεραπ. σου, κ. πασα οικια των Αιγ. and ‫ ܕ ̈ܪ ܐ‬/ των Αιγυπτιων : SP (and ST) reads ‫כל עבדיך ובתי כל‬ ‫מצרים‬, different from the μόνον-translation both with respect to ‫( כל‬twice) and the plural ‫בתי‬. The first ‫ כל‬is missing from the text here most likely since the parallel in GExod 10.6 reads αι οικιαι των θερα. lacking πασαι.338 The wider μόνον-data shows that ‫כל‬, from time to time, is missing from the SP readings because the G parallel in question lacks it (e.g., → §2.3.3 at Exod 20.21‫)ג‬. As for the second, “relocated” ‫ כל‬as well as the singular οικια, it is possible that the procedure the hexaplaric critic(s) used, in combination with scribal misreading of the Greek led to SH’s text.339 While the Caesarean critic’(s) procedure is explained more in depth below (→ §4.4.1), it need only be stated that he most likely used the columned Hexapla Maior to align SP with the G parallels, sort of like a large analytical lexicon. Since it is known from remnants of the Hexapla Maior || ‫§ → ܘ‬5.2.3. 334 For Jacob’s treatment of ‫ܐܪܐ‬ 335 Neither Ceriani nor Field discussed this point. 336 According to H-R, 1481. See Wevers’ discussion (NGTG, 530). As he pointed out, αγρος is the more common rendering in G. 337 Note that if one retroverted as του τοπου, the same difficulty obtains. 338 Ceriani 1863: 185. He made no attempt to explain the issue with ‫כל‬. ̈ 339 JExod here reads ‫ܒ ܐ ܕ ̈ܪ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ‬confirming the location of the second ‫כל‬. His plural “houses” is from P (→ §5.2.3).

Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 175

that ‫ כל‬was often bound with either the word before it or after it, the addition of πας or a “deletion” of ‫ כל‬can be explained using a reconstruction of the layout of the Hexapla Maior for a given parallel. Thus at GExod 10.6, the Hexapla Maior likely appeared as follows (cols. 1 and 5 only): ‫ובתי‬

και πασαι αι οικιαι

‫־‬

εν παση γη

‫( כל מצרים‬των/) Αιγυπτου / ιων (?)340

So upon deciphering SP’s script, and seeing that it is identical to MT here, the first and third lines were utilized, hence the “relocated” ‫כל‬. As for the singular “house,” perhaps, based on the MS evidence, the plural was originally produced. And when καιπασαιαιοικιαι was set in the margins, at some point a later scribe misread the scriptio continua and produced καιπασαοικια. Lastly, ‫ מצרים‬could legitimately be read as “Egypt” or “Egyptians.” Either the parallel read with the gentilic or the translator(s) reproduced it out of habit. ► ‫ܘܡ‬ ‫ ܕ ܐ‬/ ουδεποτε and ‫ ܘ ܐ‬/ ουδ : Both are from the parallel, adhering to GExod’s style. ̈ ► ‫ܕܐܒ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ ܐܒ ̈ ܐ‬/ πατερες των πατερων σου : Field’s προπαπποι, from 10.6, is surely incorrect since SH rendered the idiosyncratic term in v 6 itself as ‫ܕ ܡ ̈ ܐ ܕ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܐܦ ܐ ܗ‬.341 It is noteworthy that the translator(s) here opted to show some independence from the G parallel. Attribution: For comment, consult that at Exod 7.18‫ג–א‬. Exod 11.3b–3‫–א‬4‫–א‬4a: Plague of the Firstborn and Moses becomes very Great SH (L fol. 39a lower mg ind

inter (vid) vv 7/8342; > V → EXCURSUS B)

‫ܢ܆‬ ‫ܐ܆ ܪܒܐ ܗܘܐ ̇ ܓ ܒܐܪ ܐ ܕ ܪ ܒ ̈ ܐ ܕ ̈ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܒ ܐ‬°‫ ܘ‬3b ̈ ̇ ‫ ܗ ܐ‬.‫ܢ‬ ‫ܒ ܐܕ‬°‫ܒܐ‬. ‫ܐ‬ ̣ ‫ ܘܐ‬4‫ א‬.‫ܘܒ ܐ ܕ ̇ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ ܐ ܨܒ‬. ‫ܚ‬ ‫ ܘܐ ܬ ܬܟ܆ ܪ ܒ ܐ ܕ ܐ ܐ ܕ‬. ‫ܐ ܐ‬ ̇ ‫ ̣ ܗ ܐ‬.‫ܐ‬ ̇ ‫ܒܐܕ‬ ‫ ܗܐ‬.‫ܪܘܬܗ‬ ̣ ‫ ܘܐ‬4a .° ‫ܒ ̇ ܐ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ‫̇ ܐܪ ܐ ܕ ܪ ܆ ܘ‬ ‫ܓ ܕ ܐ܆ ܐ ܐ ܐܠ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ ̈ܐ‬° 3‫ א‬. ̇ ‫ܪ ܐܕ ܆‬ ‫ܢ ܗܘ ܕ ܒ‬ ‫ܒ ܗܕ‬ . ‫ܒ ܐ ܒܐܪ ܐ ܕ ܪ‬ .‫ܒ ܐ ܕܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ̇ܗܝ ܕ ܬ ܪ ܐ ܘ‬ ‫ܐ ܒ ܐܕ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ̇ ̇ ‫ܬܗ ܐ ܬܘܒ‬ ‫ܬܗ ܐ ܗܘܬ܆ ܘܐ‬ ‫̇ܐ ܪܒ ܐ ܒ ܪ ܆ ̇ܗܝ ܕܐ‬ ‫ܘܬܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܒ ܘܢ ܒ ̈ ܐ ܕܐ ܐ ܐ ̣ ܐ ܒܐ ܒ ܐ ܕ ܇‬. ‫ܬܬܘ‬

|| 340 For the witnesses for this majority variant, see AppI. 341 Literally, “fore-elders.” See PS 2.3766 (ref. there to Exod 10.6 not the Samaritan passage). 342 Field placed this after v 7 (1.99).

176 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

‫̈ܪ ܐ ܘܒ‬

‫܇ܒ‬

‫ܕ‬

‫ܐ ܕܬܕܥ ܗ‬

‫ܐ ̈ ܬ‬

‫ܕܒ̇ܝܕ‬

‫ ܐ‬.‫ܐ‬

‫ܐ ܒ‬ ° ‫܀‬. ‫ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܗ ܒ‬Attrib.

Field’s Reconstructed Greek [Revised] 3b (※)343 και ° ο ανθρωπος Μωυσης μεγας εγενηθη σφοδρα εν γη Αιγυπτου εν οφθαλμοις των θεραποντων Φαραω, και εν οφθαλμοις του λαου. 4‫ א‬και ειπε Μωυσης τω Φαραω ταδε λεγει ΠΙΠΙ υοις ° πρωτοτοκος μου Ισραηλ και ειπα προς σε εξαποστειλον τον υιον μου, ινα λατρευση μοι και ουκ [ηθελησας]344 εξαποστειλαι αυτον ιδου ΠΙΠΙ αποκτενει τον υιον σου τον πρωτοτοκον °. 4a και ειπε Μωυσης ταδε λεγει ΠΙΠΙ 3‫ א‬° περι μεσας νυκτας εγω εισπορευομαι εις μεσον γης Αιγυπτου και τελευτησει παν πρωτοτοκον εν γη Αιγυπτου, απο πρωτοτοκου Φαραω, ος καθηται επι του θρονου αυτου, και εως πρωτοτοκου της θεραπαινης της παρα τον μυλον, και εως παντος πρωτοτοκου κτηνους. και εσται κραυγη μεγαλη εν Αιγυπτω, η τοιαυτη ου γεγονε, και τοιαυτη ουκετι προστεθησεται. και εν πασι τοις υιοις Ισραηλ ου γρυξει κυων τη γλωσση αυτου απο ανθρωπου ° εως κτηνους οπως ειδης [οσα]345 παραδοξασει346 ΠΙΠΙ αναμεσον των Αιγυπτιων, και αναμεσον του Ισραηλ (↙) [Attrib. και (ταυ)τα μονον εν η των σαμαρειτων φερομενα] SP Exod 11.3a–3‫–א‬3b–4‫–א‬4a (cf. 11.3–7; 4.22–23) ⟨4Q22⟩ (DJD 9.84) ≠ 2Q2 (3.50–51) 4Q11 (9.32)347 MT ‫{ וכחצת הלילה אני‬11.4–7} 3‫ ונתתי את חן העם הזה בעיני מצרים והשאילום א‬3a

‫יצא בתוך ארץ מצרים ומת כל בכור בארץ מצרים מבכור פרעה הישב על כסאו ועד‬ ‫בכור השפחה אשר אחר הרחים ועד בכור כל בהמה והיתה צעקה גדלה במצרים אשר‬ ‫כמהו לא נהיתה וכמוה לא תסף ולכל בני ישראל לא יחרץ כלב לשנו למאיש ועד בהמה‬ ‫{ וגם האיש משה גדל‬11.3b} 3b ‫למען תדע אשר יפלא יהוה בין מצרים ובין ישראל‬ ‫{ ויאמר משה אל‬4.22–23} 4‫מאד בארץ מצרים בעיני עבדי פרעה ובעיני העם א‬ ‫פרעה כה אמר יהוה בני בכורי ישראל ואמר אליך שלח את בני ויעבדני ותמאן לשלחו‬ ... ‫{ ויאמר משה כה אמר יהוה‬11.4} 4a ‫הנה יהוה הרג את בנך בכורך‬ a

3b Andb the man Moses was (or: became) very great in the land of Egypt, in the eyes of the servants of Pharaoh and in the eyes of the people. 4‫ א‬And Moses

|| 343 While the asterisk may have been part of the original, Caesarean collation, as explained below (→ §4.4.2), Field was incorrect to reconstruct the sigla for SH. 344 Field’s ηβουληθης (= ‫ )ܒ ܐ‬is incorrect for Syriac ‫ =( ܨܒܐ‬θελω). Compare above Exod 10.2‫ ב‬vs. 7.29(8.4)‫ב‬. 345 Field supplied α against all evidence in the parallel. On SH -‫ܕ‬ ‫ ܗ‬for οσα, see Perkins 1980: 122–23. 346 Thus Field’s retroversion (fut. mid. = GExod 11.7); strictly-speaking, the pres. act. variant (see MSS B et al in AppI) is grammatically possible (see Perkins 1980: 221–23 for discussion). Wevers felt that the fut. was proper and the pres. was a paleographical error (NGTE, 165). AppI ‫)ܕ‬, though AppII translates does not make any distinction at 11.7 (where SH also reads the SH’s ‫ ܕ‬here as “facit” (pres. act. ind.). 347 See the discussion for line 1 of fragment 7, col. ii.

Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 177

said to Pharaoh: “Thus says ‫יהוה‬: ‘cMy firstborn sonc Israel! And I said to you: «Send away my son so that he may worship me»(’?). And you were not willing to send him away.(’?) Behold ‫ יהוה‬is slaying dyour firstborn sond!”(’?) 4a And Moses said: “Thus says ‫יהוה‬: 3‫‘ א‬About the middle of the night, I myself am enteringe into the midst of the land of Egypt, and all the firstborn in the land of Egypt will die – from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sits upon his throne – and until the firstborn of the handmaid (working) at the millstone and until fall the firstborn off cattle. And there will be a great outcry in Egypt, the likes of which have not been (before) and the likes of which shall never stillg be again. And among all the sons of Israel a dog will not howl with its tongue, from manh until cattle. So that you might know (it is by) these (things) that ‫ יהוה‬works gloriously between i the Egyptiansi and between Israel.a a

SP ST: verse order 3a–3‫–א‬3b–4‫–א‬4a (see discussion) b SP ST: + also c SP ST: my son (STC: people), my firstborn d SP ST: your son, your firstborn e SP ST: going out f SP ST: the firstborn of all g > SP ST h = STA : + and SP ST i = STAVEC!; SP STJ(B): Egypt

Attribution: And this is transmitted only in the [edition] of the Samaritans. Exod 11.3–3‫–א‬4‫–א‬4: This passage is the most problematic of those extant μόνον-data in Exod given the state of the passage as in SHL. Difficulties arise both textually and codicologically—the verses are even out of order! It is hypothesized here that these complications resulted from a mistake made by the Caesarean critic(s); this, in combination with the way in which the collation was originally presented, prompted further issues in transmission. SH’s version: Narrative Aspect, Placement, and Order: When comparing the passage in SH with SP, it is useful to examine them side-by-side: Comparative ET of Exod 11.3b–3‫–א‬3–4‫–א‬4

SH

SP

3b (Exod’s narrative voice:) And the man Moses was (or: became) very great in the land of Egypt, in the eyes of the servants of Pharaoh and in the eyes of the people. 4‫ א‬And Moses said to Pharaoh: “Thus says ‫יהוה‬: ‘My firstborn son Israel! And I said to you: «Send away my son so that he may worship me»(’?). And you were not willing to send him away.(’?) Behold ‫ יהוה‬is slaying your firstborn son!”(’?) 4a And Moses said: “Thus says ‫יהוה‬: 3‫א‬ ‘About the middle of the night, I myself am entering into the midst of the land of Egypt,

3a (Lord speaking:) “And I will give this people grace in the eyes of Egypt and they shall lend them (the requested items listed in v 2). 3‫א‬ And about the middle of the night, I am going out in the midst of the land of Egypt, and every firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sits upon his throne until the firstborn of the handmaiden who beside the mill, and until the firstborn of every domesticated beast. And a great cry shall be in Egypt, the likes of which there has never been and the likes of which shall never be again. And at all the sons of Israel, a dog will not

178 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

SH

SP

and all the firstborn in the land of Egypt will die – from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sits upon his throne – even until the firstborn of the handmaid (working) at the millstone and until all the firstborn of cattle. And there will be a great outcry in Egypt, the likes of which have not been (before) and the likes of which shall never again be. And among all the sons of Israel a dog will not howl with its tongue, from man until cattle. So that you might know (it is by) these (things) that ‫ יהוה‬works gloriously between the Egyptians and between Israel.

growl, at a man and even a domesticated beast. In order that you might know that the manner in which the Lord deals gloriously (ST: makes distinction) between Egypt and Israel.” 3b And also the man Moses was very great in the land of Egypt, in the eyes of Pharaoh’s servants and in the eyes of the people. 4‫ א‬And Moses said to Pharaoh: “Thus says the Lord: ‘My son, my firstborn Israel! And I said to you: «Send away my son so that he may worship me»(’?) And you refused to send him.(’?) Behold the Lord is slaying your son, your firstborn!” 4(a) And Moses said: “Thus says the Lord: ‘Around the middle of the night, I am going out in the midst of the land of Egypt.’”

SP has two principle elements which are unique (“only”) in its version of the passage: 1) the Lord dictates directly348 to Moses what he should say; and 2) the inclusion of the “firstborn” passage from Exod 4.22–23. Yet, SH’s version lacks the former but retains the latter: How did this occur? What may have caused such apparent confusion in the transmission history? ► Placement in Syriac witnesses: As the passage stands in SHL, it is set in the lower margin of fol. 39a with an index marker set just to the right of the final line of v 7 (‫ ܀ ܀‬. ‫ ܀‬. ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܒ‬...). The placement at v 7 is sure, for as both Ceriani and Field pointed out, the MSS of al-Ḥārith’s 10th cent. CE Arabic translation of SH Pent (→ §§3.1.1–2) confirms this location.349 Thus, it appears that the passage is meant to be read in addition to v 7 (thus Wevers’ AppII). This understanding, however, is lacking for two reasons: 1) Of all of those passages preserved in SHL, this is the only one without the asterisk (※);350 this may very well suggest that perhaps it should be construed differently. 2) Jacob of Edessa, who added parts of this passage to his recension, does not appear to have read SH as indicating a pure addition. Instead, Jacob appears to have interpreted the

|| 348 Rightly emphasized by Kim (1994: 27). 349 1863: 194; Field 1.100, n. 10 (Arab 1mg; Arab 2txt). Both took this from H-P. 350 1863: 194; Field mistakenly restored the asterisk, while noting its absence in the MS in his footnote. For an analysis of the sigla used in SH MSS for these readings vis-à-vis the original Caesarean collation → §4.4.2.

Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 179

marginal passage as replacement text for vv 3–7. As such, he added v 4‫—א‬the only unique part of the passage assuming such an interpretation of SH— between vv 3 and 4 of his usual blend of P and G (→ §5.2.3). In this sense, his treatment of the passage is similar to that above at Exod 10.(2)2‫ד–א‬. Alongside both of these observations, it is not too far a stretch to suggest reconstructing SHL’s original presentation of the passage as having accidentally lost another index marker which was probably set in the margin next to v 3. ► While such an explanation can account for the data as it is in SH (and, partially, JExod), it does not explain the most pressing issue in the passage: Why are the verses out of order? For this, we must reconstruct the original Caesarean collation insofar as can be surmised. If v 3a is taken as a starting point, there is one key difference between MT/G and SP, namely only the latter reads as if the Lord still speaking to Moses: ‫ונתן‬ ‫ יהוה את חן‬:: ‫( ונתתי את חן‬respectively). Unlike the other “Samaritan” parts of the Plague Narrative where such direct communication is filled out in fulllength paragraphs with composed speech introductions (i.e., “And the Lord said to Moses…”), here the pre-Samaritan editor(s) mere “adjusted” the beginning of the already-existing verse, much more subtly than he did elsewhere. Further, the end of v 3a in SP accords with GExod in that both read ‫והשאילום‬.351 Thus, for v 3a, a line of text which the hexaplaric collator(s) usually read as third person narrative, seemed at first glance in accordance with G save the omission of a subject ‫יהוה‬. It should be pointed out that single word omissions may not have been marked as such in the μόνον-collation (→ §1.3.2.2), for very little evidence suggests the collation was always word-for-word rather than phrase-byphrase.352 Further, Samaritan script probably played a part when the Hebrew from SP and (MT/)G are compared: ‫ ונתתי‬/ ‫ ונתתי‬:: ‫ ויתתן‬/ ‫ויתתן‬. Because no final forms exist in Samaritan script (here the nun), the collator’(s) eye could very easily have passed over the verb and not noticed any difference in the collocation of letters, especially if the page had faded or was smudged at this point. If v 3a can thus be accounted for, the collator then did not notice SP differed from G(/MT) until coming to the next line, 3‫ א‬above. This was dutifully set aside for the collation and “translation.” This part then, separate from vv 4‫–א‬4a, was supplied with its own collation note, which accurately delineated this was a

|| 351 As BHSap correctly points out. See also Wevers, NGTE, 163. 352 There may, however, be one (Deut 27.4) or two (Deut 11.30+?; for both → §4.3.3) notable exceptions which were likely only noticed, and then accounted for, because they were prompted by another, much larger passage (→ §2.3.3 at Exod 20.[13]17‫)ו–א‬.

180 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

Samaritan exclusive. Perhaps the hexaplaric editor(s) thought the shift from third (in v 3a) to first person (in v 3‫ )א‬was odd. Whatever the case, there is no evidence that the issue was dealt with, be it in an explanatory scholion or any other such note. Moving on to v 3b: The second part of this line differs from the G parallel (see notes below) not only in the more literalistic rendering of ‫ בעיני‬but also the constituent admirers and the sequence in which they are listed: SP (= MT353) : (in) the land of Egypt – eyes of Pharaoh’s SERVANTS – eyes of the PEOPLE GExod

: (before) the Egyptians –

Pharaoh

– all of his SERVANTS.

Thus, for v 3b, the collator included the GExod parallel verbatim for the first part (i.e., ‫)וגם האיש משה גדל מאד‬, most likely as a means of demarcating from which point the Samaritan exclusivities began, something evinced elsewhere (→ §3.3.2 at Num 21.22+, see ‫)ܒܐܘܪ ܐ‬. Immediately thereafter v 4‫ א‬followed, a more readily recognizable μόνον-reading with actual variants from the running text. The only other matter is that the Caesarean collator(s) included v 4a ‫ויאמר‬ ‫ משה כה אמר יהוה‬at the very end of the passage. Why? This was included in this second part of the marginal note for the same reason that v 3b was included—it provided a more precise demarcation for the reading’s end point, again something evinced elsewhere (→ §3.3.3 at Num 21.12‫–ג–א‬13a). It also made clear to the reader that SP reads oddly here. Due to the somewhat mechanical methodology of the pre-SP editor(s), in this narrative sequence Moses says “Thus says the Lord” twice—to the same person, in the same scene. And yet, the editor combined these as part of the same pronouncement. As a result, the passage reads awkwardly354 from a narrative perspective (i.e., why re-specify that the Lord is saying something?). Notably, this phenomenon does not occur elsewhere in the pre-Samaritan layer of the Plague Narrative.355

|| 353 Again, the μόνον-collation was against the hexaplaric LXX, not MT. 354 Compare the discussion by C. Berner (2013) regarding the use of repetitive resumption (Wiederaufnahme) in the pre-SP layer, something he argues was expanded in 4Q158. One might argue that the retention of the formula “Thus says the Lord” here functions in a similar way. ‫א‬ 355 Cp. Tsedaka’s ET which tries to smooth this over somewhat: “4 And Mooshe said to Phaaroo, Thus says Shehmaa, … 4a And Mooshe said, thus Shehmaa says, About midnight” (emphasis mine). It would seem that the pre-Samaritan editor(s) cared more about making the connection between the “firstborn” of YHWH passage in Exod 4 and the slaying of the firstborn of Egypt here, than the flow of the narrative.

Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 181

► The original hexaplaric collation reconstructed: Assuming the above hypothesis, the collation, as first produced, was in two parts as follows:356 First part, in the margin, ind at 11.3a (και εχρησαν αυτοις): ※ 3‫ א‬περι μεσας νυκτας εγω εισπορευομαι εις μεσον γης Αιγυπτου και τελευτησει παν πρωτοτοκον εν γη Αιγυπτου, απο πρωτοτοκου Φαραω, ος καθηται επι του θρονου αυτου, και εως πρωτοτοκου της θεραπαινης της παρα τον μυλον, και εως παντος πρωτοτοκου κτηνους. και εσται κραυγη μεγαλη εν Αιγυπτω, η τοιαυτη ου γεγονε, και τοιαυτη ουκετι προστεθησεται. και εν πασι τοις υιοις Ισραηλ ου γρυξει κυων τη γλωσση αυτου απο ανθρωπου εως κτηνους οπως ειδης οσα παραδοξασει ΠΙΠΙ αναμεσον των Αιγυπτιων, και αναμεσον του Ισραηλ ↙ και (ταυ)τα μονον εν η των σαμαρειτων φερομενα Second part, in the margin, ind at init. 11.3b: ※ 3b και ο ανθρωπος Μωυσης μεγας εγενηθη σφοδρα εν γη Αιγυπτου εν οφθαλμοις των θεραποντων Φαραω, και εν οφθαλμοις του λαου. 4‫ א‬και ειπε Μωυσης τω Φαραω ταδε λεγει ΠΙΠΙ υοις πρωτοτοκος μου Ισραηλ και ειπα προς σε εξαποστειλον τον υιον μου, ινα λατρευση μοι και ουκ ηθελησας εξαποστειλαι αυτον ιδου ΠΙΠΙ αποκτενει τον υιον σου τον πρωτοτοκον. 4a και ειπε Μωυσης ταδε λεγει ΠΙΠΙ ↙ και (ταυ)τα μονον εν η των σαμαρειτων φερομενα In so doing, the collator’(s) work was precise insofar as it demarcated SP correctly and conformed to his scribal practices evinced elsewhere. So what then went wrong so that the resulting passage in SH has been merged and marked differently? Why is the order of the text garbled? As the SH Exod colophon makes abundantly clear (→ §2.2), the MS from which Paul of Tella worked had been cross-collated at least once, perhaps twice, by Greek scribes. Further, as the below will demonstrate (→ §§2.5; 2.6.3), the μόνον-data do not survive untouched by later scribal intervention, either in terms of the willful omission of data or alteration of the readings themselves (→ §2.5.2 at Exod 27.19‫[ א‬esp. MSS 707 f−56txt 527]; cp. also Exod 32.10‫[ א‬esp. MS 318]; see also the sgroup MSS in §3.3.3 vs. those in SH). It is proposed here that a Greek scribe sometime before Paul was confused by the first passage’s switch to the first person (… I will go out …), something not addressed by the original collator(s). He sup-

|| 356 Ceriani, for his part, was unsure how (or even if) the verses were jumbled. He suggested that perhaps the reading was wrongly attributed, potentially represented MT vv 4(after the beginning)–7; if not, he suggested that one of the scribes at some point jumbled the text. I concur with the original text having been rearranged and mean to explain it. Certainly, as Ceriani noted, the reading as is can hardly go back to a true reading of SP (1863: 195).

182 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

posed, not unreasonably, that the passage order had been somehow switched and therefore set the second part before the first and combined their attribution notes. If the asterisk was used in the original collation, which is most probable (→ §4.4.2), this was omitted as potentially misleading, and the whole marginal passage was reinterpreted as being replacement text for vv 3b–7. This is why the index marker in SH is located where it is, and the passage as a whole appears to be out of order. Had the original Caesarean collator(s) been more careful to note that the Lord was still speaking in SP Exod 11.3a, then the passages would probably have survived intact. Exod 11.3b–3‫–א‬4‫–א‬4a: Now that the order of the passage as well as the codicological matters have been treated, the individual readings, as they appear in SH, will be examined. Exod 11.3b: The verse as noted above displays a mixture of septuagintism and true Samaritan readings. The translator(s) likely used the Three (→ §2.5.1 at Exod 23.19‫ )א‬in order to more carefully render ‫( בעיני‬2x). ► ‫ܒ ܐ‬°‫ ܘ‬/ και ° ο ανθρωπος (≠ ‫ וגם‬SP) and ‫ ܗܘܐ‬/ εγενηθη : Both are in conformity with GExod, though in light of the above explanation, it is difficult to determine beyond doubt if the first part of the line was meant purely for designating the beginning of the passage (and hence GExod was reproduced anyway) or if this is a regular part of the septuagintized μόνον-translation. ►‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܕ‬... ‫ ܒܐܪ ܐ‬/ εν γη … του λαου : As described above, the sequence of Moses’ admirers differs between the GExod parallel and SP at this point:

SP

‫בארץ מצרים‬

‫בעיני עבדי פרעה‬

‫ובעיני העם‬

G

εναντιον των Αιγυπ.

και εναν. Φαραω

και εναν. παν. των θερατ. αυτου

While the parallel usually dominates the Caesarean translation, as has been hinted at above there are limits. For this portion, the G Vorlage simply differed too greatly from SP(/MT).357 It is further likely that the hexaplaric text, namely the reading α΄ θ΄ και εν οφθαλμοις του λαου (in SHtxt)358 assisted the translator(s). Presuming the use of the Hexapla Maior hypothesized here (→ §4.4.1), the text of SP, which equates MT for this portion, could have been aligned and the testi-

|| 357 Wevers: “The remainder of the verse [in GExod vs. MT] is only explicable on the basis of a different parent text” (NGTE, 163). 358 See AppI for additional hexaplarically-inspired additions in various MSS.

Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 183

mony of Aquila and Theodotion guided the hexaplaric critic’(s) effort. Of particular interest for this case is the rendering of Hebrew ‫בעיני‬. The GExod clearly took the form prepositionally, while the recentiores of course treated it more literally. Hebrew ‫ עין‬occurs in the μόνον-passages here, Num 13.1‫ד‬, Num 13.33‫ד‬, Num 27.23‫א‬, and Num 20.13‫( ד‬2x). Of these, the term can be taken prepositionally both here and in Num 13.1‫ ד‬while the others refer to the physical eyes themselves. The μόνον-translator(s) rendered the form literally here, under the influence of the recentiores, while the parallel was adhered to at Num 13.1‫ד‬.359 This ostensible inconsistency does not thwart the general presence of septuagintisms. More likely, this specific case, with the differing elements and the order thereof, the Caesarean critic(s) more carefully used the parallels, as the differing arrangement of elements helped focus his effort. Exod 11.4‫א‬: The verse bears typical septuagintism as well as a case of the μόνον-translator’(s) using his own earlier equivalency to render part of the present verse against the parallel. ►‫ܢ‬ / τω Φαραω, ‫ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ ܒ‬° ‫ ܒ ܐ‬/ υοις ° πρωτοτοκος μου, and °‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܒ‬/ πρωτοτοκον ° : The use of the dat. and the lack of a second pronoun (superfluous, at least in Greek) are due to the style of G at Exod 4.22–23.360 Both are naturally acceptable ways of rendering SP here. It is noteworthy that the translator(s) produced “send away ‫ ܒ ܐ ܕ‬/ τον υιον μου” against the GExod parallel which uniquely reads τον λαον μου “my people.”361 By this point , the hexaplaric critic(s) would have been adept enough to recognize the difference ‫ בני‬/ ‫ בני‬vs. ‫ עמי‬/ ‫עמי‬, though if this were not enough, guidance from the recentiores could have flagged this up.362 ► ‫ܚ‬ ‫ ܕ‬/ ινα λατρευση μοι : While the above (→ Exod 7.18‫ )א‬documented the fact that the Caesarean translation normally differed from the Samaritan vocalization for ‫ויעבדני‬, both according to ST and the reading tradition, in this case all agree with the singular “that he may serve me.” However, as discussed above, this is not due to the hexaplaric critic(s) having any such familiarity with Samaritan exegesis, rather it is coincidental. The Samaritan reading tradition is

|| 359 On the meaning of the variation between the s-group and SH’s reading for this part of the passage in Num 13, see below (→ §3.3.3). 360 Thus Ceriani 1863: 194. 361 Wevers, NGTE, 53 (“… but this is not an improvement”). 362 See AppII: (τὸν) λαόν (μου)] οἱ λʹ τὸν (> Fb M 85′) υἱόν μου (> 85′) Fb(s nom) M 85′-127-344s. In AppI, MS 75n reads τον υιον as well. It is perhaps germane that the Threes’ witness is unified.

184 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

apparently based on the context in Exod 4363 and leveled the form throughout the Plague Narrative. ► ‫ܘ ܐ ܨܒ‬364/ και ουκ ηθελησας and / ΠΙΠΙ αποκτενει : Both of these indicate that the μόνον-critic(s) kept his eye on the Samaritan Hebrew. As briefly noted above, here the use of ‫ ܨܒܐ‬/ θελω stands in contrast to the parallel at GExod 4.23 reading μη βουλει. However, the opposition is not merely against GExod but also the available readings from the recentiores: αʹ ἀνένευσας “you have refused [lit. shook your head no]” σʹ ἠπείθησας “you have disobeyed.”365 This inconsistency, something occurring elsewhere in the data (e.g., μεθʼ υμων :: → §3.3.3 at Num 27.23‫)ב‬, suggests two things: 1) The translator, while mostly bound by the specific parallel to which a given SP passage corresponds, was here more likely influenced by his own previously adopted translation for a given Hebrew phrase/word. Thus, having just translated ‫מאן‬ with θελω at Exod 10.2‫( ב‬where the G parallel shifts from translating the same with βουλομαι to θελω), he simply reproduced the last used equivalency for the word. 2) The implication then, is that translator truly did make an attempt to work directly from the Hebrew SP in front of him. Had he done otherwise, or had he failed to treat the Hebrew as the guiding force in his effort, it would have been more natural to crib the parallel more rotely, which would have resulted in using βουλομαι as in GExod 4.22.366 This conclusion comports with the wider data set, which while heavily septuagintistic—indeed by modern standards, hardly a “translation” in itself—is still precise in that the Hebrew consonantal framework is in fact its base. This supposition is supported by ( ) / ΠΙΠΙ (αποκτενει) which, being absent from the GExod parallel, can only have come from SP in this specific location. On the significance this particular case for the historic, hexaplaric usage of ΠΙΠΙ / see below (→ EXCURSUS C). Exod 11.3‫א‬: The mixture of septuagintism and genuine SP continues. ̈ ° / ° περι and ► ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ̇ܐܠ ܐ ܐ‬367 / εγω εισπορευομαι εις μεσον : As for the former, there is no evidence for an omitted ‫ ו־‬in SP at this point. Septuagintism is the likely culprit. The same can be said of the latter, which stands in

|| 363 The Hebrew is defective and thus could be read either way. Nevertheless, the Samaritan exegetical tradition (viz., the reading tradition and ST) is too consistent to be accidental. 364 The Syriac is not a mistake; JExod confirms the reading: ... ‫ܪܘܬܗ‬ ‫ ܘ ܐ ܨܒ‬... (fol. 132‫)ܒ‬. 365 AppII: αʹ ἀνένευσας (ου κατεν. pro κ. ἀν. 707) M 707(vid)oII 57′cI 85′-127-344s | μὴ βούλει] σʹ ἠπείθησας (ηπιθ. 127-344) M 707oII 57′cI 127-321-344s. 366 The translator(s) may have also felt that the present tense in GExod was insufficient for the Hebrew’s preterit, as Wevers observed (NGTE, 53–54). 367 JExodmg ad loc confirms the verb (→ §5.2.3).

Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 185

for SP ‫אני יצא בתוך‬.368 The use of εισπορευομαι ‘to go in’ for ‫‘ יצא‬to go out’ is exceptionally rare in G, occurring in the Pent only here and Exod 33.8.369 G’s was clearly a forward-looking translation, viz., “(going out) I will enter into….” ► ‫ ܐܪ ܐ‬/ γης : Only SP reads “land” here (and at its own parallel), as this is missing from GExod, MT, and the wider versions—remarkable given the stock phrase “land of Egypt.”370 ► ‫ܐ ܕܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ‬/ και εως παντος πρωτοτοκου κτηνους : Wevers called GExod’s “a sensible reordering of MT’s [‫]וכל בכור‬.”371 Whatever the case, the μόνον-translator’(s) adoption of this also “reordered” SP’s ‫ועד‬ ‫ בכור כל בהמה‬to some extent. This, as explained above, is perhaps due to the layout of the Hexapla Maior, vis-à-vis the binding of ‫כל‬. Perhaps, as the hexaplaric correction shows,372 the translator(s) either ignored it (if such corrections were recorded in the Hexapla Maior → §1.1; 6.1) or simply saw no difference in sense. ► ‫ܪ‬ ‫ ܒ‬/ εν Αιγυπτω : At the parallel, MT, GExod, 4Q11 ( ]‫ֿגֿדולֿה⸱בֿכֿ]ל[⸱ ֯א ֯ר ֯ץ‬ ‫)מצרים‬, 2Q2 (‫)צעק[ה גדולה בכל ]ארץ מצרים‬, and all others read “in all the land of Egypt,” save for SP (with its own parallel). ̈ ► ‫ ܐ ܬܘܒ‬/ ουκετι, ‫ܘܢ ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܒ‬/ και εν πασι τοις υιοις, and ‫ܐ‬ °/° εως : These are simple septuagintisms lacking text critical value for SP.373 ► (‫ )ܕ‬/ παραδοξασει : Here the μόνον-translation agrees with SP and the Samaritan reading tradition,374 but not ST (‫ ;]ד[יפרש‬MSS NB ‫)]ד[מפרש‬. This, however, is only via the parallel; for further comment → Exod 8.19(23)‫ג‬. ► ‫̈ܪ ܐ‬ / των Αιγυπτιων : SP reads “Egypt” as do the older ST MSS; the later ST witnesses surely rendered this with the gentilic due to a common exegesis, reflected in the GExod parallel and others (PExod, Vulgate, etc.). ► ‫ ܘܒ‬/ και αναμεσον : Wevers’ reconstructed GExod without a second αναμεσον. Still, this could have been in the G MSS the translator(s) used, if it was not supplied from one of the Three. Attribution: For comment, see above at Exod 7.29(8.4)‫ד–א‬.

|| 368 So Ceriani 1863: 194. 369 See H-R, 414; also LALS. Wevers did not comment. 370 AppI: γην αιγυπτου 44d; but this is hardly related. 2Q2 was reconstructed according to MT. 371 NGTE, 164. Apparently ignoring ‫ועד‬, cp. BHSap. 372 AppI: tr O-15-707 Aeth−P SH. 373 As noted by Ceriani (1863: 194–95). 374 Tsedaka’s ET: “You will know how Shehmaa will make a wonder between Missrem and Yishraael.” See Ben-Ḥayyim 1977: 414 (yifla, from √‫[ פלא‬p. 225]); cp. above n. 223. Note that the ‫ )ܬ‬does not mean ‘distinguish’ as the Greek potentially could (cp. lexica). Syriac (afel ptc.

186 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

2.3.2 The First Parallels from Deuteronomy Certainly the μόνον-readings from the Plague Narrative demonstrate the above supposition of Montfaucon (→ §1.2.1.2): The parallel passages from G were more or less adapted for the Samaritan readings. Yet while such is understandable when the parallel is very close to the reading itself, it may also be proven as the Caesarean critic’(s) technique for passages with much more distant parallels. Exod 18.24‫ו–א‬: Moses Announces Jethro’s Plan to the People SH (L fol. 61b top mg sub ※ ind v 25375; > V → EXCURSUS B) .

376 ‫ܬ ܢ‬ ‫̣ ܐ ܐ ܐ ܐ ܐ ܒ ܕܝ‬ ‫ ܐ‬.‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܬ‬ ̣ ‫ ܘܐ‬24‫א‬ ̈ ̇ ‫ܒܐ‬ ‫̣ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܢ ܐ ܓ ܢ܆ ܘܗܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܐܕ‬ 24‫ב‬ ‫ܢܐ‬ ‫ܢ܆‬ ‫ܐ ܐ ܕܐܒ ̈ ܐ ܕ‬ 24‫ ג‬.‫ܐ ܒ ܓ ܐܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ̈ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ ܐ ܐ‬24‫ ד‬.‫ܢ‬ ‫ܢܐ ܐܕ‬ ‫ ܘ ܒ‬.‫ܒܐ ܐ ܕ ̈ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬ ̇ ‫ܕܝ‬ ‫ܢ܇ ܘ‬ ‫ܒ ܐܕ‬ ‫ܐܐܐ‬ .‫ܢ‬ ‫ܐܕ‬ ‫ ܘ‬° ‫ܒ ܬܐ‬ ̈ ̈ ̇ ̇ ̇ ̈ ‫ܐ ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܐܘ‬ ‫ܐܘ ܘ‬ ‫ܢ ܓܒ ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ ܘܢ‬377 ‫ ܗܒ ܢ‬24‫ה‬ ‫ܐ ̇ܗܝ‬ ‫ ܘ ̇ ܘܐ ̣ ܘ܆ ܐ ܐ‬24‫ ו‬.‫ܢ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܐ ܢ ̈ܪ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܢ܆ ܘܐ‬ ̈ ... ‫ܐ܆‬ ‫̈ܐܘ ܘ‬ ‫ ܘܓܒ ܐ‬:‫ܒ ܐ ܕ ܘܢ‬ ̣ ‫ ܘ‬. ‫̣ܒ‬ ̣ ‫ܕ‬

[See below for attribution] Field’s Reconstructed Greek [Revised] 24‫ ※ א‬και ειπε Μωυσης προς τον λαον ου δυνησομαι εγω μονος φερειν378 υμας. 24‫ ב‬ΠΙΠΙ ο θεος υμων επληθυνεν υμας, και ιδου εστε σημερον ωσει τα αστρα του ουρανου τω πληθει. 24‫ ג‬ΠΙΠΙ ο θεος των πατερων υμων προσθειη υμιν ως εστε χιλιοπλασιως, και ευλογησαι υμας, καθοτι ελαλησεν υμιν. 24‫ ד‬πως δυνησομαι μονος φερειν την γνωμην379 υμων, και την υποστασιν(?)380 °, και τας

|| 375 The siglum is not placed precisely. It appears to align just to the right of the end of v 25 ̈ next to the words ‫ ܐܘܬܐ‬and ‫ܐ‬ both beginning a new line of the verse. De Lagarde ̈ marked it at ‫( ܐܘܬܐ‬1892: 71, n. 24), but the siglum clearly lies next to both lines. Field places the text at v 24 (1.113 and n. 23). See discussion below. 376 For the use of the ptc. for the fut. mid., see Perkins 1980: 221 (on SH Deut 1.9 itself reading ... ‫ܐ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫) ܐ‬. 377 ‫ ܐ ܘܢ‬is confirmed by both JExod (fol. 145‫ )ܒ‬and the parallel at SH Deut 1.13. See below note on the corresponding Greek. 378 Field’s reconstruction (here and in 18.24‫ )ד‬is correct as φερω is translated in the SP attrib, e.g., utions with the (ett)afel of ‫( ܐܬܐ‬see PS 1.416). However, SH also translated with Gen 36.7, Num 11.14, Deut 1.9 and 12. Certainly in light of the parallel, there is no reason to question φερω (cp. α΄ αἴρειν M 108b 416mx). 379 Again Field’s reconstruction (which he adopted with hesitancy [see 1.113]) can be maintained (e.g., G and SH Prov 2.16; 12.26 and Dan 2.14) irrespective of its disassociation with Hebrew ‫טרח‬. For discussion, vis-à-vis the parallel and SP, see below.

Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 187

αντιλογιας υμων; 24‫ ה‬δοτε [υμιν?]381 εαυτοις ανδρας σοφους και επιστημονας και συνετους εις τας φυλας υμων, και καταστησω αυτους [ηγουμενους]382 υμων. 24‫ ו‬και αποκριθησαν και ειπαν καλον το ρημα ο ελαλησας ποιησαι. και ελαβε τους αρχιφυλους αυτων, και ανδρας σοφους και επιστημονας, … SP Exod 18.24‫( ו–א‬cf. Deut 1.9–15a) 4Q22 (DJD 9.97–99) ≠ 4Q11 (9.40–41)383 MT ‫{ יהוה‬1.10} 24‫{ ויאמר משה אל העם לא אוכל אנכי לבדי שאת אתכם ב‬1.9} 24‫א‬ ‫{ יהוה אלהי אבתכם‬1.11} 24‫אלהיכם הרבה אתכם והנכם היום ככוכבי השמים לרב ג‬ ‫{ איכה אשא‬1.12} 24‫יסף עליכם ככם אלף פעמים ויברך אתכם כאשר דבר לכם ד‬ ‫{ הבו לכם אנשים חכמים ונבונים וידעים‬1.13} 24‫לבדי טרחכם משאכם וריבכם ה‬ ‫{ ויענו ויאמרו טוב הדבר אשר דברת לעשות‬1.14} 24‫לשבטיכם ואשימם בראשיכם ו‬ ‫{ ויקח את ראשי שבטיהם אנשים חכמים וידעים‬1.15a} ‫ > ]אנכי‬4Q22 (= von Gall’s 𝕭 )384 ‫( ככוכבי‬4Q22 in DJD)] ‫ ככוכב‬4Q22 (sic, Sanderson385)

24‫ א‬And Moses said to the people: “I am myself not able alone to bear you.

|| 380 Thus Field, even if hesitant, from the G parallel at Deut 1.12 (accepted by PS 2.2515). While ‫ =( ܘ‬PDeut), this variation is due to different Syriac translators for SH Deut translated ‫ܬ ܢ‬ Exod and Deut, something for which much evidence surfaces in our analysis. The word ὑπόστασις is contextual and various equivalencies are found in SH: ‫ܐ‬ (Ezek 19.5, 26.11), ‫ܐ‬ (Ezek 43.11, Ruth 1.12). While it is tempting to emend to υπομονη (see P Luke 8.15, Rom 2.7, etc; also SH Sir 2.14; 16.13; Pss 9.19[18]; 38.8[7]), assuming a υποστασιν → υπομονην corruption of some kind, no evidence from the parallel supports it (see discussion below). 381 υμιν was not reconstructed by Field. This case is somewhat complex. In Perkins’ study of SH Deut, he finds that SH rendered Greek υμιν (ε)αυτοις with two distinct elements namely ‫ܢ‬ ‫ ܐ ܘܢ‬three times (Deut 4.16, 23; 9.16). Given this pattern, he suggests that the reading ‫ܢ‬ ‫ )ܗܒ ( ܐ ܘܢ‬at the parallel in Deut 1.13 reflects υμιν (ε)αυτοις. However, as he points out, only MS 30 and Arm could support the Greek (1980: 120; cp. AppI which does not reflect his suggestion). Another case where the impv. of διδωμι is followed by a reflexive pronoun (εαυτοις) is at Judg 20.7, where SH reads ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܗܒ ܐ ܘܢ‬. According to the MS evidence (as recorded in Br.-M), only MS n reads αυτοις υμιν (but cp. OL). Given the ambiguous evidence, and the lack of support from the parallel, Field’s has been emended but with much uncertainty. 382 Field supplied ηγεμονας, from the nominative ηγεμων, a reading supported by one MS in the parallel. SH translated the ptc form with ‫ ܒ ܐ‬, e.g., at Exod 15.15 and Deut 1.13. According to the data in PS 2.3909, ‫ ܪ ܐ‬was used for both the nominative and verbal forms, as well as those related to αρχη/ω*. (Interestingly for those cases of ηγεμων in SH Gen 36 the calque ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܗܓ‬obtains.) While Field’s retroversion is philologically justified, the strength of the MS evidence in the parallel suggests that the ptc. in GDeut should be retained as the one could easily be altered to the other by a scribe, i.e., ηγουμενουσ → ηγεμονασ. 383 Frag. 20 cuts off just before the reading; frag. 21 begins with 19.24. See comment at Exod 8.19(23)‫ד–א‬. 384 Sanderson holds that SP’s ‫ אנכי‬was secondarily added for emphasis (1986: 214). 385 Such was Sanderson’s original reading, which she held as a scribal error since all witnesses in the parallel source have ‫( ככוכבי‬1986: 216). In DJD the reading is plural without discussion.

188 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

24‫ יהוה ב‬your God has multiplied you, and behold,a you are today as the stars of heaven in great number. 24‫ יהוה ג‬the God of your fathers will increase you as you are a thousand-fold, and he will bless you just as he told you. 24‫ ד‬How b am I able to bearb by myself your will,c striving(?),d and your disputese? 24‫ה‬ Givef for yourselves [lit. Give to you (pl.) yourselvesg] men, wise and prudent and understanding ones, for your tribes. And I will install them as your magistrates.” 24‫ ו‬And they answered and they said: “The thing which you have spoken to do is good.” And he took the magistrates of theira tribes andg men, wise and prudent. a

> STJ b SP ST: (can) I bear c SP STC: burden (ST pl.) d SP ST: your load/burden (ST pl.; STJ: your follies/iniquities) e STA: sg. f STABV: bring forward g > SP ST

Exod 18.24‫ו–א‬: While both this and that immediately following below comprise one passage in the MS’ margin, it is treated here in two sections. Importantly, matters related to the single passage’s attribution merit extended comment and are discussed after the second part. This section of the passage bears a few philological irregularities as well as some expected, minor variation from 4Q22. Placement: While the passage, as a whole (i.e., including the section below), is indexed to v 25 in SHL, the flow of the narrative does not really permit misunderstanding. Nevertheless, Jacob of Edessa adopted the whole passage intext along with (SP Exod) 18.25–25‫ ב–א‬immediately following, after which he provided his usual blend of P/GExod 18.25 and then followed with SP Exod 18.25‫( ג‬fols. 145‫–ܒ‬146‫)ܐ‬. Thus some slight ambiguity relates to the passage visà-vis v 25, at least as it is presented in SH (viz., it is a whole or partial replacement of v 25?). Whatever the case, confusion does not result.386 Exod 18.24‫א‬: Despite the short verse, the reading confirms the Caesarean translator’(s) eye was ever on SP. ‫ ܐ ܐ‬2° (= JExod) / εγω : The reading is verifiably Samaritan in the sense that the μόνον-translator(s) made an effort to represent Hebrew ‫אנכי‬, which in addition to being absent in the GDeut parallel, is, as Sanderson previously underscored,387 is also missing from 4Q22. While the evidence for the pre-SP layer is fragmentary, similar small variations from extant pre-SP MSS occur when compared to the hexaplaric SP passages (e.g., Exod 7.18‫[ ג‬2x] and somewhere in 7.29‫ד–א‬, as well as → §3.3.3 at Num 21.11‫א‬, 27.23‫ב–א‬, and 31.20‫ ד–א‬below).

|| 386 Ceriani supplied the whole of JExod here except for 18.25‫( ג‬1863: 248–49). This is due to his only excerpting those parts of the μόνον-passages which had sigla next to them (specifically ÷ in JPent). On Ceriani’s excerpting, see below (→ §5.2.1). 387 See above n. 384.

Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 189

Exod 18.24‫ד‬: The verse bears septuagintism along with lexical issues in need of explication. ̇ ‫ܕܝ‬ ► ‫ܐ ܐܐ‬ ‫ ܐ ܐ‬/ πως δυνησομαι μονος φερειν : SP reads ‫איכה אשא לבדי‬, differing from the Caesarean translation both in verbal construction and word order.388 It is simply septuagintism. Ironically, rendering it literally would have been more concise. ► ‫ =( ܒ ܐ‬JExod, but w/ sey.) / την γνωμην : The use of ‫ ܨܒ ܐ‬is confirmed by JExod despite the plural;389 and indeed the retroversion is sound, especially since there are occurrences of γνωμη in G generally reflecting ‘purpose’ or ‘decree’ in legal contexts.390 It then makes sense in the context of the passage. However, the equivalency is anomalous in light of the ubiquitous practice employed by the translator(s), namely cribbing the G parallel which reads κοπον (without variant) rightly rendering SP’s ‫ טרח‬/ ‫טרח‬,391 even if it is somewhat of a blur translation. One potentially attractive solution to this ostensible quandary392 is to suggest that perhaps the very low frequency of ‫טרח‬, occurring here and Isa 1.14 only, led the Caesarean critic(s) to seek beyond the G parallel in this instance. When consulting the recentiores, at both locations, it could be suggested that all Three read (εν-)οχλησιν ‘bother’, ‘disturbance’ for ‫ טרח‬here.393 Since, we know that the translator(s) seem to have occasionally consulted Theodotion (e.g., Exod 23.19‫§ → א‬2.5.1), and probably Aquila (→ §2.3.1 at Exod 9.5‫)ג‬, perhaps οχλησιν was the original translation. This then could be misread by a later scribe, οχλησιν → θελησιν, which would have resulted in

|| 388 Compare the hexaplaric MSS (including SH Deut) which reverse the order of μονος φερειν (see AppI). The translator(s) did not feel the need to do so. 389 Why Jacob reads with the plural is uncertain. Normally, this could be the result of a plural form for the corresponding P parallel, with which he has mixed the SP passage from SH as a kind of grammatical blend; → §§4 and 5.2.3 for examples. However, here the element in question from PDeut is ‫ܐ ܬ ܢ‬, a singular without variant in the MS tradition. Perhaps the scribe of JExod absentmindedly levelled all the elements. 390 See above note and PS 2.3354. The semantic range is well established with further data in M-M, s.v. 391 So Wevers, NGTD, 8. 392 Ceriani pointed out this discrepancy without offering a solution (1863: 248). 393 Compare the data from AppII at both locations: Deut – α΄ ὄχλησιν (-σην cod) ὑμῶν … 108b; note that some of the data for other renderings has been wrongly indexed (often s nom) by certain witnesses (CODEX M, etc.). In comparison with the wider readings from the Three here, as well as the case in Isa, Wevers’ AppII correctly interprets the data. Isa – πλησμονήν] α΄σ΄θ΄ (σ΄ sec. SH) ενοχλησιν Q SH [‫ ] ܬܐ‬710A-text (οχλησιν). Based on these data, it could be posited that all Three read (εν-)οχλησιν here.

190 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

‫ܨܒ ܐ‬. However speculative this reconstruction may be, it can account for the data. ► ° ‫ܒ ܬܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܘܬ ܢ =( ܘ‬ ‫ ܘ‬JExod [sic] and tr w/ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ )ܘ‬/ και την υποστασιν (?) ° : There are a couple of issues with the present case. At the first, the Syriac evidence is somewhat difficult. Second, the underlying Greek is uncertain. As for the Syriac, ‫ܒ ܬܐ‬ means ‘patience’, ‘endurance’, ‘continuance’, something Ceriani translated as “sustinentiam.”394 It is not immediately clear what is meant even by the Syriac in this context and thus, the above ET has “striving(?)” in the sense that the people’s issues would be so constant so as to overwhelm Moses. Without knowing the underlying Greek beyond doubt, it is problematic. And the Greek is itself uncertain. While Field did not hint at any uncertainty in his retroversion, PS lists only this case as an example of ‫ܒ ܬܐ‬ representing υποστασις.395 In commenting on GDeut’s original translation of ‫ ַמ ָשּׂא‬in the MT parallel (= SP here396), Wevers overserved that υποστασιν is difficult given the wide range of meanings, from ‘basis, foundation’ to ‘substance’, ‘reality’, ‘essential nature’; thus, he believed that GDeut was interpreting the Hebrew “in a psychological sense,” in contrast to the general trouble represented by κοπον and the case-specific work entailed by αντιλογιας.397 While Wevers’ analysis of GDeut is well put, the equivalency now known from SH Deut for υποστασιν at 1.12—not known in the time of Payne Smith (PS), Ceriani, or Field—is actually ‫ܘ ܐ ܬ ܢ‬, an equivalency repeated again at Deut 11.6, where the meaning is somewhat similar. And in the former case, SH supplied the underlying Greek in the mg: υποστασιν. The meaning of these data is not immediately clear. This is especially so when one compares the Syriac of the Deuteronomically-derived μόνον-passages with the parallels in SH Deut itself. It is obvious that the translators for both were different and used synonymous (though not identical) equivalencies for many lesser used terms (e.g., γραμματοεισαγωγεις at Exod 18.25 below or αντιλιβανον at Num 10.10‫→ ב‬ §3.3.2). In fact υποστασις, being so semantically flexible,398 is accordingly translated differently by SH. In addition to those indicated above (see note), of rele-

|| 394 Thus JPS, s.v.; Ceriani 1863: 248. 395 “… υποστασις, Deut. i.12 = Exod. xviii.4 in Samaritico …” (2.2515). I am aware that PS is not a comprehensive reverse Syriac-Greek lexicon. 396 Though note the variants in ST MSS, none of which are relevant for this case. 397 NGTD, 8–9. 398 See, e.g., BrillDAG for a wide array of glosses.

Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 191

vance for this case, at least insofar as the underlying Hebrew is concerned, is ̇ that at Jer 10.17, where συνηγαγεν εξωθεν την υποστασιν σου is translated: ̈ (mg: υποστασιν σου). Differently, SH Job 22.20 uses ‫ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫‘ ܗ ܐ‬endeavors’/‘resources’(?) (cf. AppI: CODEX A). Thus, the Syriac translators used a variety of equivalencies for υποστασις; it is thus entirely possible that SH represents it as is.399 The hexaplaric data from the parallel proffers a few other options which the μόνον-translator(s) could have adopted: αʼ τὸ ἄρμα and σʼ τὸ βάρος as well as the anonymous rendering τὰς ἄρσεις and βάσταγμα.400 Each of these means ‘burden’, ‘load’, etc. However, none of these seems to have been adopted by the translator(s) since the Syriac for βάρος is ‫ܐ‬ (SH Deut 1.12mg) while ἄρσις (4 Kgdms 8.9) and βάσταγμα (Jer 17.21) are reflected with ‫ܐ‬ . (ἄρμα occurs in SH once and is a special case.401) Altogether then, Field’s is retained however cautiously. Lastly, the pronoun is missing here though present in the parallel with very few exceptions (see AppI). Probably is omission is a simple mistake. Exod 18.24‫ו‬: The verse is philologically unremarkable. ► ‫ ܘܓܒ ܐ‬/ και ανδρας :: ‫ ܓܒ ܐ‬JExod: The και is probably a mistake as shown by JExod. There is no MS support in GDeut for it and thus it should likely be emended.402 Exod 18.25–25‫ג–א‬: The Appointment of the Elders → Exod 18.24‫ ו–א‬for MS data

̈ ‫ܐܘܬܐ܇ ܘ̈ܪ‬ ‫̈ܐ ܐ ܘ̈ܪ‬ ‫ܘܐ ܘܢ ̈ܪ ܐ܇ ̈ܪ‬ ‫ܐ ܢ‬ ‫ ܘܐ‬25 ̈ ̇ ̇ °‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ‬25‫ א‬.‫̣ ܐ ̈ ̇ ܐ ܕ ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܘ ̈ܒ‬.‫ܐ‬ ‫̈ ܇ ܘ̈ܪ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܓܒ ܐ ܘ‬ ‫ܐܐ‬ ‫ܘܕܘ‬ ‫̈ܐ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫̣ ܒ‬ ‫ܐ̇ ܆‬ ̣ .‫ܢ‬

|| 399 Again, it is tempting to propose an emendation in this case. Perhaps, the Caesarean translator(s) felt that υποστασις was too far afield (or ambiguous) from the Hebrew and instead opted for ενστασιν which Syrians translated as ‫ܒ ܬܐ‬ (see PS 2.2515 for data). However, there is no evidence for this reconstruction from the hexaplaric data at the parallel and thus should likely be rejected. 400 See AppII: αʼ τὸ ἄρμα M 58oII(s nom et ind ad κόπον) 85(ind ad κόπον)-344s 416mx; σʼ (+ et SH) τὸ (> 108) βάρος (+ ὑμῶν 108) M 58oII(s nom et ind ad κόπον) 108b(s nom) 85(ind ad κόπον)344s 416mx (ind ad ἀντιλογίας) SH; τὰς ἄρσεις 58oII(ind ad κόπον); αʼ ἄρμα σʼ βάρος F; βάσταγμα (βασταγμ cod) Fb. It is tempting to see βάσταγμα possibly as from Theodotion? See Fincati who does not offer any opinion (2016: 326, 328–29). 401 See Field 1.661, with n. 29. 402 Ceriani noted the difference without comment despite recording JExod here (1863: 248).

192 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

‫ ܐ‬.‫ܨܘ ܐ ܒ ̣ ܐ‬ ‫ܘܕܥ ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬25‫ ב‬. ‫ܓ ܪܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܕܕ ̣ ܐ‬ ‫ܨܘ ܐ ܕܓܒ ܐ܆‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ ܐ ܬ‬.‫ܪܒܐ ܬܕܘ ܢ‬ ‫̇ ܬܝ‬ ‫ܢ܆ ܬ‬ ‫ܐ ̇ܐ ܐ ܕܐܢ ܕ ܐ ܬܗܘܐ‬ ‫ ܘ‬.‫ܘܗܝ‬ ‫ ↘ ܀ ܀ ܀‬.‫ܕ ܒ ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܘ ̇ ܐ ܢ ̈ ܐ ܐ‬25‫ג‬ . ‫ܐ ̣ܒ ܐ ܒ ܕ ̈ ܬ‬ ‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬

‫ܕ ܆ܘ‬ ‫ܙ ܪܐ ܘܐ‬ ‫ܕܐ ܐ ܐ‬ .̇ ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ ܘܗ‬Attrib.

Field’s Reconstructed Greek [Revised] 25 και κατεστησεν αυτους ειναι αυτοις ηγουμενους, χιλιαρχους, και εκατονταρχους, και πεντηκονταρχους, και δεκαδαρχους, και γραμματοεισαγωγεις τοις κριταις αυτων. 25‫ א‬και ενετειλατο τοις κριταις °, λεγων διακουετε403 αναμεσον των αδελφων υμων, και κρινετε404 δικαιως αναμεσον ανδρος και αναμεσον αδελφου αυτου, και αναμεσον προσηλυτου αυτου. 25‫ ב‬ουκ επιγνωση προσωπον εν κρισει, κατα τον μικρον και κατα τον μεγαν κρινειτε, ου μη υποστειλητε προσωπον ανδρος οτι η κρισις του θεου εστι. και το ρημα ο405 εαν σκληρον η αφ υμων, ανοισετε αυτο [προς]406 με, και ακουσομαι αυτο. 25‫ ג‬και ενετειλατο αυτοις τους λογους ους ποιησουσιν ↙ [Attrib. και (ταυ)τα εν τη εκδοσει σαμαρειτικη εβραικη μονον φερομενα] SP Exod 18.25–25‫( ג–א‬cf. Deut 1.15b–18) 4Q22 (DJD 9.97–99) ≠ 4Q11 (above) MT ‫{ ויתן אתם ראשים עליהם שרי אלפים ושרי מאות שרי חמשים ושרי עשרות‬1.15b} 25 ‫{ ויצו את שפטיהם לאמר שמעו בין אחיכם ושפטתם‬1.16} 25‫ושוטרים לשבטיהם א‬ ‫{ לא תכירו פנים במשפט כקטן כגדול‬1.17} 25‫צדק בין איש ובין אחיו ובין גרו ב‬

‫תשמעון לא תגורו מפני איש כי המשפט לאלהים הוא והדבר אשר יקשה מכם תקריבון‬ ‫{ ויצו אתם את כל הדברים אשר יעשון‬1.18} 25‫אלי ושמעתיו ג‬ 25 And he installed them ato bea chiefs forb them: heads of thousands and heads of hundreds, anda heads of fifties, and heads of tens, and scribal-officers for their judgesc. 25‫ א‬And he commanded thed judges saying: “Listen amongst your brothers and judge rightly between a man and between his brother and between his resident alien. 25‫ ב‬You (sg.)e shall not show partiality [lit. recognize a face] in judgment. As the lowly soa as the great, you shall judgef; you will not shrink from the face of a(ny) man. For the judgment, it is ofg God. And the matter which is too hard for you, you shall hbring ita uph to me and I will hear it.” 25‫ ג‬And he commanded themi the things which they should do.

|| 403 SH does not differentiate between ἀκούω and the more technical διακούω (see SH Deut 1.16; Job 9.33). Presumably the parallel read with GDeut (sans variant, save 730s reading διακ-). 404 The variant tradition for the aor. impv is in some MSS: κρινατε (κρειν. B*) B 426O b 125d 71′‫ܢ ܘܕ‬ ‫̈ܐ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܗܘ ܘܢ ܒ‬ 392y. Either is possible. Cp. SH Deut 1.16: ‫ܐ ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܐ ܐ‬. Perkins discussed the problematic Syriac at length, resorting to the SH being influenced by PDeut ad loc and a translation policy involving “certain fulfillment” (1980: 252–53). 405 Compare the use of -‫ ܐ ܐ ܕ‬for a relative pronoun also at Num 13.33‫ה‬. SH Deut reads more ‫ܘ‬. On SH’s representation of ἐάν / ἄν, see Perkins 1980: 12. regularly ‫ܐ ̇ܗܝ ܕܐܢ‬ 406 Field gave επ εμε based on GDeut (1.113). However ‫ ܬܝ‬represents προς με (see Exod and the hexaplaric correction προς με in MSS oI-15. 18.19); cp. SH Deut 1.17

Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 193

a

> SP ST (STE ‫ תקרבונה‬at v 25‫ )ב‬b SP ST: over c SP ST: tribes d SP ST: their pl. f SP ST: hear g SP ST: to h SP ST: bring near i SP ST: + all of

e

SP ST:

Attribution: And this is only transmitted in the Samaritan Hebrew edition. Exod 18.25–25‫ג–א‬: Unsurprisingly, septuagintism abounds in the second section of the passage, as Ceriani previously pointed out.407 Exod 18.25: Interesting for the verse is the choice of parallel by the translator(s). Clearly, the passage was Deuteronomic in origin, and the Caesarean collator(s) understood this. However, v 25 is also found in GExod 18, where certain departures from MT align with SP (e.g., επ αυτων, και 3°). Despite these, the more significant omission by SP of ‫ ובחר — ישראל‬and the presence of SP’s ‫ ושוטרים לשבטיהם‬probably confirmed GDeut 1.15b as the proper parallel, and the μόνον-translation confirms this was the translator’(s) understanding. ► ‫ ܘܐ‬/ κατεστησεν : Again, the agreement with GDeut is noted merely in contrast to the use of ποιεω in Exod 18.25, which Wevers properly described as exceptional.408 ► ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ / ειναι αυτοις and ‫ ̈ܪ ܐ‬/ ηγουμενους : The translator(s) seems to have run into a problem with the GDeut parallel. Verse 15 lacks the designation ηγουμενους, instead offering ηγεισθαι. Thus, it seems he decided to maintain an infinitive, modifying it with the substantive participle taken from v 13.409 This results in a kind of double translation, which while unnecessary, does communicate the appointments.410 As for ‫ܘܢ‬ / αυτοις, Ceriani411 earlier sugoII gested MS 72 ’s reading υμιν influenced the translation.412 The overall MS tradition militates against this. One wonders if the μόνον-rendering was perhaps due to reading ‫ עליהם‬as ‫אליהם‬, though Samaritan script should not have encouraged it (‫)אליהם → עליהם‬. As it stands, the μόνον-translation cannot be accounted for by a specific, extant GDeut reading. ► ‫ ܘ̈ܪ‬1° / και 2° and ‫ ܘ̈ܪ‬2° / και 3° : While former agrees with SP, the latter is due to GDeut influence.413 ►‫ܐ‬ ‫ ≈( ܘ ̈ܒ‬JExod: ‫̈ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܘ ̈ܒ‬414) / και γραμματοεισαγωγεις : This neologism, exclusive to GDeut,415 meaning something like ‘scribal-officers’

|| 407 1863: 248. 408 NGTE, 290. 409 See Wevers, NGTD, 9, on the translation method of GDeut. )‫ܢ‬ ‫) (ܐ ܢ ܒ ܐܕ‬ ‫ܘ‬. 410 Cp. SH Deut 1.13 (with v 15’s differences): (‫ܢ‬ 411 1863: 248. 412 See AppI: υμιν 85mg-344mg s (v 13) ; υμιν 72oII Latcod 100; cp. εφ υμιν d t 68′-120z (v 15). 413 See Wevers’ comments on this (NGTE, 290).

194 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

(or ‘Torah-instructor’?),416 certainly adheres to GDeut’s exegesis. ST rendered the Hebrew ‫“ ספרים‬scribes,” while all Jewish Tgs offered ‫“ סרכין‬commanders/managers.” The Syriac term, meaning ‘book carriers’ or ‘interpreters of letters / translators’, is unique; the occurrences of the same Greek in Deut 1.15, 16.18, 29.10, and 31.28 were translated only with ‫ܐ‬ ‘scribe.’417 Whatever the case, this is a conspicuous septuagintism. ̈ / τοις κριταις : Critics have differed on whether or not GDeut’s ren►‫ܐ‬ dering in 1.15 is intentional or mistaken, reading ‫ שפטיכם‬for ‫שבטיכם‬.418 Wevers seemed to believe it was done intentionally, “which in view of their designation as ‫ שפטיכם‬in the next verse is a reasonable improvement.”419 C. Dogniez and M. Harl were less certain.420 McCarthy believes the confusion was unintentional, perhaps under the sway of the next verse.421 As for the μόνον-reading, confusion is certainly possible given ‫ שבטיהם‬/ ‫ שפטיהם‬in Samaritan script (or even square script → §4.4.1). However, the translator(s) probably adhered to whatever his GDeut MS(S) contained, and it is important to observe that though α΄ σ΄ ταῖς φυλαῖς ὑμῶν corrected the reading, the μόνον-translator(s) made no effort to do so himself.422 Exod 18.25‫א‬: The verse is a straightforward adaptation of the G parallel. ̈ / κριταις ° : For whatever reason the pronoun is missing. At what ► ° ‫ܐ‬ level this occurred is unknown. Parablepsis would have been easier in Greek than Syriac: κριταισαυτωνλεγων vs. ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ̈ ܐ ܕ ܘܢ‬. An error by the

|| in Syriac (see JPS, 414 Presumably Jacob wanted to remove the potential ambiguity of ‫ܐ‬ ܳ ܳ ‫‘ ܶ ܐ‬writing’ and ‫‘ ܳ ܐ‬scribe’). The JDeut parallel reads with P there. 415 See also the immensely popular variants at GExod 18.21 and 25, clearly “ex Deut 1.15” as Wevers marked them. 416 The Greek is variously interpreted: “governors” (Wevers, NGTE, 287), «scribe-instructeur» (Dogniez and Harl, BA 5.114–115 and 55), “some kind of interpreters of the law is probably ̈ meant” (Wevers, NGTD, 10 [perhaps under the influence of the ‫ ܬܒ ܐ‬.‫‘ ܐ‬vindicators’ / ‘creditors’ / ‘inquisitors’ and σ΄ παιδευτας ‘instructors’?]), ‘instructor, schoolmaster (minor official)’ (LEH2), ‘minor official (military or civil)’ (LSJ, s.v., citing only GDeut), ‘official, scribe (lit. teacher)’ (BrillDAG, s.v., also only citing GDeut). Modern GDeut translations use “recorders” (M.K. Peters in NETS) or “scribe-instructors” (N. King’s ET, following Dogniez and Harl). 417 Cp., PS 1.1541, who appears to read the Syriac here into Deut 1.15, which the later discovered SHV shows cannot be correct. Note this is yet further evidence of differing translators for SH Exod and SH Deut. 418 Ceriani 1863: 248. 419 NGTD, 10. 420 BA 5.114–15. They tend towards the graphic confusion in Hebrew. 421 See BHQap for her argument against it being intentional. 422 4Q22 reads ‫ לש[בֿטיֿ ֯ה]ם‬in v 25 (DJD 9.98).

Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 195

translator(s) via Samaritan Hebrew is not absurd ‫ ;שפטיהם לאמר‬it is but one missed heh. Only GDeut MSS 19b 799t omit the pronoun. ► / διακουετε and ‫ ܘܕܘ‬/ κρινετε : Both are presumably taken over from GDeut 1.16. Although the Syriac cannot confirm the first, διακουω occurs only here and Job 9.33 in G. (See note for the reconstruction above.) Exod 18.25‫ב‬: Septuagintism is found in word choice and inflection. ► ‫ܘܕܥ ܐ‬ / επιγνωση and ‫ ܘܐ‬/ και κατα : Septuagintism here appears to have dictated the inflection, which does not reproduce SP’s (and ST’s) plural.423 The addition of ‫ ܘ‬/ καί is without variant in the G MS tradition. ► ‫ ܬܕܘ ܢ‬/ κρινειτε : While it is tempting to suggest GDeut’s evaluative translation κρίνω for ‫ תשמעון‬was adopted by the μόνον-translator(s),424 the resulting use of the plural contradicts the parallel’s singular.425 When Samaritan Hebrew is considered, it is interesting to observe that (‫ תשמעו)ן‬/ (‫ תשפטו)ן‬confusion is quite plausible in Samaritan script: ‫תשפטון → תשמעון‬. Still, given the overall septuagintism in the verse, evident mostly in the word choice (see ὑποστέλλω below), presumably the GDeut text was determinative here as well. Perhaps the parallel was merely grammatically adjusted to SP’s plural as in the next entry. ► ‫ܢ‬ ‫ ܬ‬/ υποστειλητε : The μόνον-translator is clearly influenced by the parallel ὑποστέλλω, here the only time in GPent where it translates ‫גור‬III.426 For a different equivalent, also taken from the GDeut parallel by the μόνον-translator, see Exod 20.21‫§ →( ז‬2.3.3) below. Again, the recentiores were not consulted: α΄ κρυφης and σ΄ δολιευη{ς}.427 ► ‫ ܕܓܒ ܐ‬/ ανδρος : The translation is correct but disagrees with GDeut’s ανθρωπου.428 It is possible that this resulted from the μόνον-translator’(s) levelling equivalents in Exod 18.24‫–ו–א‬25–25‫ג–א‬. Of the four occurrences of ‫ איש‬in the joined passages, the parallel offers ἀνήρ for all save this one. If so, this is another example of the translator’(s) previously adopted equivalency being applied to the same Hebrew irrespective of the G parallel. Perhaps it is also possible that a (presumed) legal context described here influenced the translator(s),

|| 423 See AppI for the very strongly supported plural variant. 424 Wevers believed this a “stylistic” rendering due to εν κρισει and the following η κρισις (NGTE, 11). 425 However, cp. AppI: iudicate iuste (> G) AethCG; audietis Latcodd 91 92 94 = M. 426 Num 22.3 (φοβέω), Deut 18.22 (ἀπέχω), and 32.27 (from ‫גור‬I, see McCarthy [BHQap]; cp. NGTD, 524). Le Boulluec and Sandevoir: “[υποστελλομαι] est bien atteste dans les inscriptions d’époque hellénistique, au lé sens de «reculer» (devant un danger) ou de «redouter»” (BA 2.239). 427 On which, see Wevers’ comments (NGTD, 11, n. 32). 428 Thus AppI (Deut 1.17): om ανθρωπου 72oII. The lemma is otherwise without variant.

196 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

as the majority of cases would be between male litigants (but cf. Num 27). Compare further below (→ §2.5.1 at Exod 3.22+). ► ‫ ܕܐ ܐ‬/ του θεου : The genitive is not so much incorrect as cribbed from GDeut. ►‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ‬/ το ρημα : For a discussion of the importance of ῥῆμα / λόγος (which SH did not differentiate), see discussion at Exod 20.21‫ ד‬below (→ §2.3.3). ► ‫ ܬ‬/ ανοισετε αυτο : The translation equivalent ἀναφέρω for ‫קרב‬ (hifil) is rare, being at the parallel and Lev 3.14 only.429 προσάγω, προσεγγίζω, προσφέρω, and προσέρχομαι are more obvious choices. Additionally, Wevers found the extraneous αυτο 1° most odious as it has no counterpart in the Hebrew.430 It too is a septuagintism.431 Exod 18.25‫ג‬: ‫ ̈ ܐ‬° / ° τους λογους : Somehow the ‫ כל‬was lost. For an hypothesis involving the method of the μόνον-translator(s) which may account for this, see below (→ §4.4.1). Possibly this occurred at the Greek level, due to parablepsis by either a Greek scribe or the Syriac translator(s).432 Attribution: While this is the first of the μόνον-passages in Exod which corresponds to a Deut parallel, the attribution formula conspicuously does not point this out. In fact, none of the μόνον-attributions in Exod for SP readings corresponding to GDeut mention any such relationship. This is curious as the attribution formulae for the Deuteronomic μόνον-passages in Num do make clear that their respective passages are recalled by Moses in Deut (→ §3.3). Further, in addition to this cross-referencing mentioned in the Num μόνονattributions (and originally those in Deut, → §4.3.2 at Deut 2.7‫ג–א‬, attribution), the corresponding passages in Deut 1–3 were also labelled by the Caesarean collator(s), being cross-referenced back towards SP Num (→ §3.3.1 at Num 13.33‫ו–א‬, attribution, with Table 3.3.1.1). If there were ever cross-references pointing back towards the Samaritan passages in Exod 20, these have not survived in extant SH Deut MSS; for those for Exod 18 here, see the following. Later hexaplaric witness: Despite any such lacuna in the MS evidence, Procopius of Gaza (ca. 475–ca. 538 CE) produced a Samaritan cross-reference related to this precise passage:

|| 429 See H-R, 84–85. On the latter, see Wevers who believed the G translator had ‫ והקטיר‬in mind in Lev (NGTL, 30). 430 NGTD, 11. 431 Previously identified by Ceriani (1863: 248). 432 This may have been facilitated by the maj. variant word order: τουσπαντασλογουσ (see AppI). Only MS 131C omits παντας.

Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 197

Procopius’ Scholion at Deut 1.9–15 & 16–18: Text and translation Comm. on Deut at 1.9 (PG 87/1.896; CatNic 1/3.1424, sub **προκοπιου; > SHV?) Οὐ δυνήσομαι μόνος φέρειν ὐμᾶς. Ταῦτα ἐν τῇ Ἐξόδῳ πρόσκειται τοῖς Σαμαρειτικοῖς ἀντιγράφοις, ο͂τε καὶ ὀ πενθερὸς αὐτῷ συνεβούλευσε μερικωτέρους ᾶρχοντας καταστῆσαι. Καὶ καθόλου, τὰ λεγόμενα μὲν ειρῆσθαι, μὴ εἰρημένα δὲ φανερῶς, ἐν τοῖς Σαμαρειτικοῖς ἀντιγράφοις εὑρίσκεται· καὶ τὸ περὶ τῶν υιῶν Ἰσραὴλ, ὡς αὐτῶν εἰρηκότων τῷ Μωῦσεῖ περὶ τῶν κατασκόπων. Εικὸς γὰρ ἦν ἀποστατοῦντας αὐτοὺς τῷ Θεῷ, τὴν γῆν ἐθελῆσαι μαθεῖν. Διὸ καὶ ἐρωτῆσαντος Μωϋσέως τὸν Θεὸν, μετʼ ἐμβριμήσεώς φησιν, «Ἀπόστειλον σεαυτῷ ἄνδρας, καὶ κατασκεψάσθωσαν τὴν γῆν,» ὡς δὴ ἀπιστούμενος. Procopius:433 “I will not be able to bear you alone.” [Deut 1.9] These are added in Exod in the Samaritan (Σαμαρειτικοῖς) copies, [at that part] when (Moses’) father-in-law advised him to appoint more specific (i.e., subdivision) leaders. Generally speaking, things reported to have been said, while not spoken explicitly [sc. in Exod in the Jewish exemplars], are found in the Samaritan exemplars. And (the same happens in) the [pericope] about the sons of Israel, when they had talked to Moses about the spies [Num 13]: For it was likely, they [the people] were apostatizing from God,434 wanting to learn about the land. And thus, after Moses asked God, with indignation [God] said, “Send for yourself men and they shall spy out the land” [Num 13.3], as if435 he [i.e., Moses] was disbelieving. [In other words, it is the people’s fault—not Moses’—that God was angry.] As the below will argue (→ §3.3.2 at Num 32.1+ and 29+; §4.3.3 at Deut 27.4; 4.3.4 at the χολ scholion), Procopius’s “Samaritan” textual information does not relate to any so-called σαμ΄-readings (as has been supposed); rather his information reflects the μόνον-data he gleaned from hexaplaric sources.436 The present cross-reference is one such case. Most likely, Procopius did not construct his annotation based off the present μόνον-attribution (in Exod), but rather he utilized a Samaritan cross-reference from Deut which has since been lost,437 hence the location of the statement in his Comm. on Deut. The present case transmits two of the three Samaritan cross-references mentioned by Procopius:

|| 433 ET mine (while having kept an eye on the LT in PG). 434 Conrad Clauser’s LT in PG (→ §4.3.3 at Deut 27.4) renders this clause “eos diffidentes Deo,” presumably in light of ἀπιστούμενος at the end. 435 Note the “Ironical δή” construction; see Smyth, Gram. §2842. 436 Cp. this case with Barhebraeus’ statement on the SP Plague Narrative (→ EXCURSUS B). 437 Note, however, that SHV transmits orphaned ind markers in-text, ad loc (→ Table 3.3.1.1).

198 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

Table 2.3.2: “Samaritan” Cross-Reference Annotations in Procopius

Parallel Passage

SH(V)

Procop

Deut 1.6–8

x*+

x*+

Deut 1.9–15 & 16–18

restore

x*+

Deut 1.20–23

x+

x*+ (at 1.9)

N.B.: * = Explicit mention of SP; + = “in Numbers” or “in Exodus”

Judging by his discussing the latter two jointly, one of which SHV did preserve (→ §3.3.3 at Num 13.1‫)ד–א‬, it is nearly certain that Procopius was working from an hexaplaric Deut MS which still had all three of these notes.438 It is clear that the preservation of the Samaritan data in SHV specifically is, at best, incomplete, fragmentary (→ §4), and at times intentionally abrogated (→ EXCURSUS B). The current situation represents such a case. On fol. 152 of SHV, a distinctive siglum is prefixed in-text to Deut 1.9: ... ‫ܘܐ ̇ ܬ ܬ ܢ ܒ ܒ ܐ‬. This siglum is not a mutilated hexaplaric obelus but an index marker, exactly like the one which denotes, in-text at Deut 1.27–33, the parallel Deuteronomic passage for SP Num 13.33‫§ →( ו–א‬3.3.1). It is of further importance that this would not be the only case of an in-text Samaritan cross-reference being orphaned in SHV; the same happened for that at Deut 2.9, 17–19 (→ Table 3.3.1.1). The present crossreference then should be restored; it has fallen out of the SH MS tradition, either by damage or neglect. Thus, Procopius may be used to restore the Caesarean cross-references to the margins of the Eusebian hexaplaric ἔκδοσις at Deut 1.9– 18 even if the precise wording of such a note is not recoverable. Unfortunately, it cannot be proven whether or not the Deuteronomic passages beyond Deut 1–3 were marked with Samaritan cross-references.439 Perhaps, it could be posited that the Caesarean collator’(s) desire to cross-reference SP Exod and Num with (common) Deut was limited to the Mosaic speech in chh 1–3 only. For further discussion of the Procopian Samaritan cross-reference for Deut 1.6–8, see below (→ §3.3.2 at Num 10.10‫ג–א‬, attrib).

|| 438 Pummer comments that while Procopius was from Gaza, he had no direct knowledge of the Samaritans and that his references to them are “derived from literary sources” (2016: 178). The same holds true for his knowledge of the Samaritans’ Bible. 439 I.e., the corresponding passages in Deut 5, 11, 18, and 27 were apparently not supplied with any such notes.

Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 199

2.3.3 The “Samaritan” Decalogue Most notably, SP contains three large “expansions,” when compared to G(/MT) in Exod 20, immediately following the Decalogue. Each of these, sizeable passages amounting to 19 verses, is found in SHL Exod (and JExod). The first of these passages equates the same from SP Deut 5, the very passage Masius found in his copy of SH Deut (→ §1.1). Exod 20.(13)17‫ו–א‬: The (so-called) “Samaritan Tenth Commandment” SH (L fol. 66a top mg sub ※440; SHM cp. below; > V → EXCURSUS B) → PLATE I

‫ܐܠ‬ ‫ܐܪ ܐ ܕ ̈ ܐ ܝ ܕܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܐܕ‬ ‫ ܘ ܘܐ ܕܐܢ‬17‫א‬ 17‫ܐ ̈ ܒ ܐ ב‬ ‫̈ܐ ܐ ̈ܪܘܪܒ ܐ ܘܬ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܬ‬.° ‫ܐܪܬ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ ܘܐ ܐ ܝ ܕ ܒ‬17‫ ג‬.‫ܐ ܗ ܐ‬ ‫̈ ܐܕ‬ ‫̈ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܘܬ ܘܒ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܐܐ‬ ‫ܕܐ ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬. ‫̈ܐ ܐ ܗ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ ܬ‬. ‫ܐ ܘܢ ܪܕ‬ ‫ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܐܕ‬ ‫ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܬܒ ܐ ܬ‬17‫ ד‬. ‫ܒ ܪܐ ܕܓ ܙ‬ ̈ ‫ܐ ܬܒ ܐ ܒ ܐ‬ ‫̈ܐ ܐ‬ 17‫ ה‬.‫ܙ ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ ܬܪ ܐ‬.‫̈ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܬܕܒ ܕܒ ܐ‬17‫ ו‬. ‫ܐ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܗܝ ̈ ܐ ̈ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܬ‬. ‫ܐ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ ܪܐ ܗܘ ܒ ܒ ܐ‬. ‫ܐ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܡ‬ ‫ ܘܬܐ ܠ ܬ ܘܬܬܒ‬.‫ܐ‬ .‫ܒܐ‬ ‫ ܗܘ ܕ‬. ‫ܐ ܒܐܪ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܒ ܪ ܐܘܪ ܐ ܕ‬ . ‫ܕ ܪܕ‬ ↘. ‫ ܒ ܪܒܐ ܕ‬.‫ܬ ܒ ܐ ܪ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܪܒܐ ܕܓ ܓ‬ . ‫ܐ ܒ ܐܒ ܕ ̈ ܬ‬ ‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ ܘܗ ܒ‬Attrib.

Field’s Reconstructed Greek [Revised] 17‫ ※ א‬και εσται εαν εισαγαγη σε ΠΙΠΙ ο Θεος σου εις την γην των Χαναναιων, εις ην συ εισελευση441 εκει κληρονομησαι °, και στησεις [συ?]442 σεαυτω443 λιθους μεγαλους, και κονιασεις αυτους κονια 17‫ ב‬και γραψεις επι των λιθων παντας τους λογους του νομου τουτου. 17‫ ג‬και εσται ως αν διαβητε τον Ιορδανην, στησετε τους λιθους τουτους, ους εγω εντελλομαι υμιν σημερον εν ορει Γαριζειμ. 17‫ ד‬και οικοδομησεις εκει θυσιαστηριον ΠΙΠΙ τω θεω σου, θυσιαστηριον εκ λιθων ουκ επιβαλεις επ’ [αυτους]444 σιδηρον. 17‫ ה‬λιθους

|| 440 As in previous cases, the ind marker is absent. Nevertheless, the mise-en-page of the folio ably determines the placement of the reading. JExod, which directly integrated the majority of the μόνον-type readings from SH Exod into its text (→ Table 2.3), placed the reading correctly after v 17 (fol. 149‫)ܐ‬. 441 See note at Num 10.10‫§ →( ג‬3.3.2) regarding the retroversion. 442 It seems another pronoun is needed here; cp. SH Num 3.6, 8.13, 27.19, and Deut 27.2. 443 This is the text from GDeut 27.2 without significant variant. Perhaps σοι is also possible. 444 Field’s αυτο (referring to the altar) is a mistake in some G MSS (i.e., CODEX B and its congeners), which, as Wevers noted earlier (NGTD, 417), is due to the influence of the law from v 25.

200 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

ολοκληρους οικοδομησεις, θυσιαστηριον ΠΙΠΙ τω θεω σου, και ανοισεις επ αυτο ολοκαυτωματα ΠΙΠΙ τω θεω σου. 17‫ ו‬και θυσεις θυσιαν ειρηνικην445 και φαγη εκει, και ευφρανθηση εναντι ΠΙΠΙ του Θεου σου. το ορος εκεινο περαν του Ιορδανου οπισω446 οδου δυσμων ηλιου εν γη Χανααν το κατοικουν επι δυσμων447 εχομενον448 του Γολγολ, [παρα or προς?]449 την δρυν την υψηλην, εχομενον του Συχεμ ↙ [Attrib. και (ταυ)τα εν τη εκδοσει σαμαρειτικη εβραικη μονον φερομενα] SP Exod 20.17(13)‫( ו–א‬cf. Deut 11.29, 27.2–7, 11.30)450 ⟨4Q22⟩ → §1.1.2.3 and §7.1.2 ≠ ⟨4Q22, so DJD 9.102⟩451 4Q158?452 MT ‫{ והיה כי יביאך יהוה אלהיך אל ארץ הכנעני אשר אתה בא שמה‬Dt 11.29a453} 17‫א‬ ‫{ וכתבת‬27.3a} 17‫{ והקמת לך אבנים גדלות ושדת אתם בשיד ב‬Dt 27.2b} ‫לרשתה‬ ‫{ והיה בעברכם את הירדן תקימו‬27.4} 17‫על האבנים את כל דברי התורה הזאת ג‬ ‫{ ובנית שם‬27.5} 17‫את האבנים האלה אשר אנכי מצוה אתכם היום בהר גרזים ד‬ ‫{ אבנים שלמות‬27.6} 17‫מזבח ליהוה אלהיך מזבח אבנים לא תניף עליהם ברזל ה‬

|| The majority MS tradition has the correct reading. The Syriac does not reflect the singular here or in the Deut parallel. Field later caught his error when recording SHM in Deut (1.282, n. 16). 445 SH Prov 7.14 supports Field’s reconstruction, which in comparison with the majority of the G MS tradition would have been a rare reading. Compare also SH Josh 8.31(9.4): ※ ‫ܘܕܒ‬ ‫( ̈ ܐ܌ ܕ ܪ ܐ‬see Br.-M. AppI, ad loc MSS kmgx and dgptw). from SH Deut 5.21‫ ח‬is not evidence of different Greek (so Perkins 1980: 446 The omission of 88). SHM’s ‫( ܕܐܢ ܗܘ‬in v 17‫ )א‬may betray αυτος (see Perkins 1980: 127); no MS evidence supports it (see AppI ad loc). 447 So Field (cf. GDeut 11.30). While the Syriac plural is normal (e.g., Exod 17.22, 22.26, and Dan 6.14), the singular is found here, JExod 20.17‫ו‬, SH Deut 5.21‫ ח‬and 11.30 (→ §4.3.3). 448 Field’s reconstruction (1.115) is correct (see also PS 2.3725). However, SH did not always translate thus; compare SH here, Num 22.5, and Lev 6.3(10) with that at SHV Deut 11.30 ( ‫)ܓ ܓ ܓ‬. The SH reflects the Greek which has an acceptable though low frequency translation of ‫מול‬. (H-R lists Deut 11.30 and Num 22.5.) 449 JExod confirms SH’s ‫ ܬ‬which most probably reflects παρα (Perkins 1980: 89–90). Field’s πλησιον was taken from GDeut 11.30 (1.115); however, there is no evidence that the SH translated πλησιον (as a preposition or adverbially) with ‫ ܬ‬. (PS 2.1920 lists this as the only occurrence of ‫ = ܬ‬πλησιον; but cp. Perkins 1980: 92.) As such the remainder is altered from Field’s genitive to accusative, though the dative is also possible for both παρα and προς. Compare SH’s translation of πλησιον at Exod 34.3 (-‫)ܒ ܪܒ ܕ‬, Num 33.37 ( ‫ܓ‬ ), Deut 1.1 (-‫)ܒ ܪܒܐ ܕ‬, and 11.30 ( ‫)ܨ‬. See Perkins 1980: 92 (for Deut 1.1 and 11.30). 450 T-F lists only 27.2–7. 451 Thus the editors based on Skehan’s original opinion. See, however, the recent discussion amongst Samaritanologists regarding the so-called “STC,” in particular the arguments in Schorch 2019 and Dayfani 2022 (→ §§1.1.2.3; 7.1.2). 452 The MS apparently skips from 20.17 to 20.21‫ט–ח‬. See DJD 5 (plate 1) for the text of fragment 7 and Zahn’s discussion (2011: 32–34). For an analysis of 4Q158’s “lack” of this passage vis-àvis 4Q22 and the wider pre-SP group, see now Dayfani 2022: 688–90. 453 On the identity of Deut 11.29a for the first half of the parallel, see below discussion.

Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 201

‫{ וזבחת‬27.7} 17‫תבנה את מזבח יהוה אלהיך והעלית עליו עלות ליהוה אלהיך ו‬ ‫{ ההר ההוא בעבר הירדן אחרי‬Dt 11.30} ‫שלמים ואכלת שם ושמחת לפני יהוה אלהיך‬ {SP Dt ‫דרך מבוא השמש בארץ הכנעני הישב בערבה מול הגלגל אצל אלון מורא‬ ‫ מול שכם‬11.30} a 17‫ א‬And it will be when ‫ יהוה‬your God brings you to the land of the Canaanitesb, to that which you are entering there to inheritc, then you shall erect for yourself great stones, and you shall plaster them with plaster. 17‫ב‬ And you shall write upon the stones all the words of this law. 17‫ ג‬And it shall be when you cross the Jordan, you shall erect the stones, those (about) which I am commanding you this day, in Mt. Gerizim. 17‫ ד‬And you shall build there an altar to ‫יהוה‬a your God, an altar fromd stones. You shall not raise upon them (any) iron (tool). 17‫( ה‬With) whole stones you shall build the altar tod ‫יהוה‬a your God. And you will offer up upon it whole burnt offerings to ‫יהוה‬a your God. 17‫ו‬ And you shall sacrifice ea peace offeringe. And you will eat there and be joyous before ‫יהוה‬a your God. This mountain (is) in the crossing of the Jordan; beyond the way of the setting of the sun, in the land of Canaanf, that dwelling guponh the westg, near Galgal, besidei the jHigh Oakj, neark Shechem. a

b SHM Deut: ‫ܐ‬ SP ST: sg c SP ST and SHM Deut: + it d SP ST: of e SP ST: pl f SP ST: the Canaanite g SP: in the Arabah; ST: in the valley h SHM Deut: ‫“ ܐ‬towards” i SHM Deut: -‫“ ܒ ܪܒܐ ܕ‬near” j SP: Oak of Moreh; ST: plain of vision k SHM Deut: -‫ܠ‬ ‫“ ܕ‬close to”

Attribution: And this is only transmitted in the Samaritan Hebrew edition. N.B.: Before examining the passage’s textual minutiae, it is imperative to underscore one important aspect of the extant data: No source derived from or reflective of the hexaplaric μόνον-collation gives any indication whatsoever that these verses, or the parallel at Deut 5 (in SHM), were in any way, understood as a constituent part of the Decalogue. Not one witness gives any hint whatsoever that this passage was at all understood as the Samaritans’ Tenth Commandment (→ §1.1.2.3). Rather this passage was recorded as any other in the wider collation; no special meaning was attached to it. Insofar as history of SP and Samaritan exegesis454 is concerned, this “omission” merits special consideration. Therefore, the implications of these data for Samaritan studies are considered separately below in the this study’s final chapter (→ §7.1.2). Exod 20.17(13)‫( ו–א‬with relevant variants from SHM Deut 5.21[17]‫)ח–א‬: In accordance with those passages surveyed above, the present verses are marked by septuagintism, particularly so in vv 17‫ ד‬and 17‫ו‬. This, in addition to a distinct

|| 454 For discussion of the last verse being cited according to ST by Marqe in TM II:48, see below discussion (→ §7.1.2).

202 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

lack of “Samaritanness” so clearly evinced elsewhere, makes it clear that the translator(s) had no knowledge of Samaritan exegesis. ̈ ‫ ܕ‬/ Χαναναιων : The designation “Canaanite/s” is not Exod 20.17‫א‬: ► ‫ܐ‬ in any version of the parallel (or variant thereof) including SP Deut.455 It is thus an entirely Samaritan reading which the μόνον-translator(s) still managed to septuagintize by rendering with the plural. ► ‫ܐܠ‬ ‫ ܕܐ‬/ συ εισελευση : Here, the translator(s) appropriately rendered SP in opposition to the GDeut parallel which has διαβαινεις, a translation more suitable for ‫ עבר‬than ‫בוא‬.456 ► °‫ܐܪܬ‬ / κληρονομησαι ° : SH Exod lacks the direct object. Excepting a mistake on the translator(s), perhaps the Greek ought to be reconstructed κληρονομειν as in some MSS.457 Then it could be explained as a short eye skip κληρονομειναυτην, possibly on the part of the SH’s translator.458 Deut ̇ 5.21(17)‫§ →( א‬1.1) represents the pronominal suffix ‫ܐܪܬܗ‬ supporting its presence in the original Greek here. Exod 20.17‫ב‬: The verse conforms with both SP and the GDeut parallel. Exod 20.17‫ג‬: The verse is important for its introduction of Mount Gerizim, the sacred temple-mount of the Samaritans (→ §7.1.2). A great deal has been written about the place of Gerizim in the Samaritan textual tradition, particularly as it concerns the reading in Deut 27.4 (→ §4.3.3), the present GDeut parallel.459 Discussion here, however, will center primarily on the evidence as it concerns the reading in SH Exod and its historical and philological implications. ► ‫ ܒ ܪܐ ܕܓ ܙ‬/ εν ορει Γαριζειμ (= Deut 5.21‫§ → ד‬1.1): Field correctly retroverted, producing a translated, separated rendering ορει Γαριζειμ. The reading is historically of interest in three related, though separate, aspects: 1) the μόνονtranslator’(s) knowledge of Samaritan reading traditions (or lack thereof); 2) the textual history of the parallel at GDeut 27.4; and 3) the specific form of the toponym contained in the μόνον-translator’(s) Samaritan Hebrew exemplar.

|| 455 Recently Knoppers (2019: 283, with n. 28 and literature cited there) disputed Deut 11.29a as the proper parallel at this point preferring Exod 13.11a which includes ‫הכנעני‬. (Dayfani 2022 has followed.) Here I would only point out that I find it improbable that the Caesarean critic(s) would have recognized as much in light of the overall wording, irrespective of the compositional process of the pre-Samaritan editor(s). 456 McCarthy, BHQap and literature cited there; also Wevers, NGTD, 202. 457 Note the hexaplaric form of the inf.; see AppI and II: κληρονομειν (-μην 376O) O–426 b 321′mg s 509mx ο΄ κληρονομειν οι λʼ κληρονομησαι 344s. 458 This is particularly so with the iotacism in MS 376. Neither Ceriani nor Field commented. 459 E.g., McCarthy, BHQap; Schenker 2010; Ulrich 2012; et al.

Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 203

1) It is clear that ορει Γαριζειμ, being both translated (as opposed to transliterated) and in two, separate words (in opposition to the form αρ[?]γαριζειμ), stands against discernible, historic Samaritan practice.460 This is demonstrated from the preserved Samaritan reading tradition (b)å̄rgå̄rīzəm,461 the older ST tradition: ‫( בהרגריזים‬J, vs. ‫ בטור גריזים‬A), and the majority of Samaritan codices, reading ‫( בהרגריזים‬see von Gall and Schorch, ad loc).462 In addition to the Semitic evidence, two ancient, Greek Samaritan synagogue inscriptions from Delos read αργαριζειν in reference to the Samaritan Temple site.463 This transliterated, and perhaps unified (?) form also occurs in the GDeut parallel in Gie (→ §1.2.3.2). Thus, it can be held that the retroverted form ορει Γαριζειμ certainly fails to conform to attested Samaritan practice when making reference to their own464 sacred temple-mount, and that the μόνον-translator(s) either was unaware of this practice or had in his possession an Hebrew Vorlage which attested the separated form, precluding him from producing the transliterated αρ—. While proper names in SH often deviate from the Greek (→ §2.3.1 at Exod 8[23].19‫ג‬, ‫)ܓ‬, the present case may, by analogy from Hark Rev 16.16, be viewed as an exception to the general rule. Hark465 translated Αρμαγεδων ‫̇ܗܝ‬ ܳ ‫ܐܓ‬ ܰ ܶ ‫ܰܐܪ‬ ‫ܘ‬.466 ‫ܐܕܘܢ‬ ‫ܐ ܒܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬, glossing in the margin ‫ܐܓ ܘܢ‬ Given what we know about the close kinship of SH and Hark (→ §1.1.1, Person-

|| 460 Many scholars discuss this issue. See, e.g., Y. Yadin and S. Talmon 1999: 138–47, with Illustration 18, who discuss the practice at length (pp. 142–46). While Yadin and Talmon were hesitant to confirm on paleographical grounds that the fragment, Mas1o, is Samaritan beyond all doubt (see esp. p. 147), recently M. Langlois seems open to it (2019: 279; → APPENDIX A). 461 Ben-Ḥayyim 1977: 423 (Exod 20), 525 (Deut 5), and 545 (Deut 27). 462 Note that unified form is found in the Beit al-Mā inscription: ‫( ]בה[רגריזים‬Pummer 1987: 20–21). Whether or not the inscription is 1–3rd cent. CE or early Byzantine or still later (→ §7.1.2), it ably shows the Samaritans made a point to depict (in public display) the sacred locus as a single, unified form. 463 Baillet, DBSup 11.860. Originally published P. Bruneau 1982: 468, 470, 472–73 (photos); 469, 471–72 (transcriptions). Bruneau dated the first to 150–50 BCE and the second to 250–175 BCE (p. 485). Note, however, that Kartveit’s recent discussion supports C. Crowther’s dating both inscriptions to the first half of the 2nd cent. BCE (2014: 450 and 467, with references). For a handy, accessible discussion (with photos of the inscriptions), see Pummer 2016: 92–95. 464 Kartveit has recently argued that the αργαριζειν of the Delos inscriptions show the transliterated toponym carried with it “overtones of [socio-religious] identity” (2014: 467–68), in addition to the earliest self-designation of the Samaritans as “Israelites” (pp. 449 and 467). As he points out, no inscriptions from Gerizim proper include such a designation). 465 This case was referenced earlier by Tov (1971: 373–74, n. 20, following a suggestion by M. Stone) with respect to the practice of using αρ– for ‫ הר‬in general as opposed to the SH here. 466 Vööbus 1978: 26* (fol. 155a, upper margin). Both the in-text and marginal readings are from Greek, for which see NA28ap ad loc. Compare P Rev reading ‫ܓ ܘ‬ ‫ܐ ܒܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬.

204 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

nel), it is thus perfectly reasonable to presume that if the SH Exod translator(s) had αργαριζειν in his base-text, a transliteration similar to the Hark’s would have been used. 2) Given the pronounced relationship between the μόνον-translation and the G parallels, it is also valuable to consider how the present reading relates to the history of the GDeut 27.4. Does the present rendering suggest that the μόνονtranslator’(s) GDeut MS(S) read εν ορει Γαριζειμ at 27.4? While this is possible, the extant evidence militates against this suggestion. Certainly the μόνονreading is unrelated to that in Gie; and while the OL’s in monte Garzin467 undoubtedly agrees with SH’s Greek, the bulk of the GDeut MS evidence indicates the GDeut parallel the μόνον-translator was utilizing read “Ebal.” This is confirmed by the Samaritan reading at Deut 27.4 (→ §4.3.3), which can be assuredly restored to the Caesarean μόνον-collation in SH Deut based on the joint witness of JDeut, Isho’dad of Merv’s Commentary, and Barhebraeus’ Scholia, all of which attest to the reading “Gerizim” in “the Samaritan ‫ ܨ ܐ‬of Deut” and each of whom can be shown to have used SH independently (→ §§4.3.1; 4.3.3).468 As the μόνον-collation generally provides readings which are not in G (i.e., μόνον), it is more likely that the Caesarean collator’(s) GDeut MSS read Ebal, not Gerizim. This would then conform with the most recent text-critical conclusions on the matter, that Ebal was a proto-/pre-MT emendation, revised in Deut 27 against the claims of the Samaritans.469 Thus, the Caesarean collator(s) worked at a time after the emendation had been introduced, and, as such, his MSS had already been altered; likely the variant was nowhere to be found in his G MS sources. For further discussion and evidence, see below at Deut 27.4 (→ §4.3.3) at length. 3) Assuming the present reconstruction, this then naturally leads to the Samaritan source the μόνον-translator(s) used: Was “Mount Gerizim” represented as a single lexeme as the majority of extant Samaritan codices or was the toponym represented by two separate and distinct Hebrew words, with a word divider? The evidence from the present case appears to support the latter and, as

|| 467 For useful analysis of the OL reading here, see Schenker 2010: 106–08 (→ §1.2.3.8). 468 Jacob of Edessa’s witness is particularly effective in this argument. If the original SH attribution or scholion at 27.4 claimed that SP read in agreement with GDeut, Jacob would not ‫ ܨ ܐ ܕ‬as a textual authority for his reading as he did for the majority of have cited the ‫ܐ‬ the other μόνον-passages he integrated into his recension. For Jacob, the authority of G was uncontested and needed no corroboration. 469 Schenker 2010; McCarthy, BHQap; Tov, TCHB3, 88, n. 140 and literature cited there, among others. Ulrich’s theory (2012: 371), that neither Ebal nor Gerizim was the original reading, could still be maintained in the present reconstruction. For additional literature and notes, see the above introductory survey on the pre-SP text-type (→ §1.1.2.3) and below at Deut 27.4 (→ §4.3.3).

Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 205

such, follows the minority reading. It should be observed that the unified, transliterated form is attested by non-Samaritan sources. Among those Septuagintal instances of this (or a similar treatment of ‫ )הר‬previously pointed out by Pummer (→ §1.2.3.7, A), he also discussed a number of other examples including the Pseudo-Eupolemos quotation from Eusebius’ PE 9.17.5,470 the account by the Pilgrim of Bordeaux (333 CE),471 and Damascius (fl. 5th–6th cent. CE)472 producing Αργαριζιν (-ειν), Agarzaren, and Αργαριζω, respectively, to name a few of the earlier occurrences.473 These suggest that this toponym, though used particularly by Samaritans,474 was also understood amongst non-Samaritans, viz., Christians were adept enough to both comprehend and reproduce the form. The specific case cited by Eusebius is especially telling in this regard (→ §§2.2; 3.2; 6.2.1). Thus, presumably, had the μόνον-critic(s) seen ‫ בהרגריזים‬without a word divider, he, most likely Eusebius himself, should have had the capability to produce εναργαριζειμ (-ζιμ), which then could have ably been rendered ‫ܒܐܪܓ)ܐ(ܪܙ‬ by the SH Exod translator(s). All of this, of course, presumes that the translator(s) did not simply take the form from GDeut 27.12, or some other place attesting the name (e.g., GDeut 11.29, GJosh 8.33; cp. Eusebius’ Onomasticon → §4.3.3 at Deut 11.30+). If this was the case, then the μόνον-type evidence from Deut 27.4 and both Exod 20 and Deut 5 should be thrown out with respect to this last point of discussion. Exod 20.17‫ד‬: ► / εκ : The preposition is a septuagintism in accordance with GDeut 27.5.475 ̈ Exod 20.17‫ה‬: ► ‫ܐ‬ : As a point of interest for the Syriac only, Masius ̈ recorded ‫ܐ‬ in Deut 5.21‫§ →( ו‬1.1).476 Both are synonyms and do not represent different Greek. Of the three occurrences of ολοκληρος in GPent, SH ̈ translates those at Deut 16.9 and 27.6 with ‫ܐ‬ (‫ ܐ‬- in 16.9), while Lev ̈ 23.15 utilized ‫ܐ‬ . Different Syriac translators are likely responsible.

|| 470 Pummer 1987: 18–19. 471 Pummer 2002: 111–13. 472 Pummer 1987: 21–22; 2002: 429 (cited in Photius). 473 Another early instance is Pliny’s Nat. Hist. 5.25: mons argaris (cited by Pummer 1987: 21). Note also Αργαριζειν in Josephus, Bell. Iud. 1.63, with variants; see ed. Nieseap: αργαριζην A αργαριζιν (ιν ex ειν corr. V) MV αργαριζειν N γαριζιν C argarizim Lat. 474 Here Pummer’s argument, that the transliterated form need not necessitate a Samaritan source (1987), is irrelevant as the μόνον-readings are described as “only” (‫ )ܒ ܕ‬Samaritan. 475 Ceriani 1863: 259; also Wevers, NGTD, 417. Conspicuously, only Gie omits εκ. 476 CS col. 286.

206 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

► ‫ܐ ܐ‬ / ΠΙΠΙ τω θεω: The dative, as Ceriani earlier observed,477 is due to GDeut influence. The use of / ΠΙΠΙ in this passage is curious with respect to Deut 5.21(17)‫§ →( ח–א‬1.1). Five times in the present passage / ΠΙΠΙ is used, while ‫ܐ‬ / κυριος is found for the corresponding nomina sacra in the Masian excerpt. There are two possibilities to explain this discrepancy: 1) Given the likelihood that this was recorded within the SH Deut colophon (→ §§1.1; 4.2), it is possible that the ΠΙΠΙ’s were changed to κσ/κω/κυ for the sake of saving space.478 2) Subsequent Syriac scribes “updated” with ‫ܐ‬ , thus representing a change at the later Syriac level. Since SHM was from a later MS, i.e., 8th–9th cent., the latter possibility is to be favored in light of the wider SH MS evidence for the practice. See further on this issue below (→ §§3.3.1 at Num 20.13‫ ;ג‬Table 3.3.1.2; and esp. EXCURSUS C). ► ‫ =( ̈ ܐ ̈ ܐ‬JExod) / ολοκαυτωματα : SHM at Deut 5.21(17)‫ ז‬is slightly different lacking the plural. In light of JExod, it is perhaps a printer’s error, something suggested by the misspelling ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬. Exod 20.17‫ו‬: The verse shows more septuagintism than the others; presumably such would not have gone uncorrected by a Samaritan or Hebrew speaker. ►‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܕܒ ܐ‬/ θυσιαν ειρηνικην : The difficulty obtains in both the use of ‫ܐ‬ and the singular, the latter of which hardly translates SP’s plural ‫שלמים‬.479 As Ceriani astutely reasoned, the current reading probably comes from both the GDeut parallel and the recentiores.480 Undoubtedly, in accordance with the μόνον-translator’(s) usual procedure the GDeut parallel was consulted in the first instance, resulting in the singular. Then perhaps σωτηριου was judged as improper for √‫ שלם‬prompting the translator to consult the Three. By analogy from the evidence preserved at Lev 3,481 it is very plausible that the recentiores read similarly in GDeut 27 or another analogous context (e.g., esp. Exod 20.24, Lev 3 and 7, etc.) familiar to the translator(s). Thus, a limit to the translator’(s) septuagintism resulted.

|| 477 1863: 259. Ceriani noted that MS 75n read κ̅υ̅ του θυ̅ σου, to which may be added MSS 799t Gie (!) Arm (see AppI). See also Wevers, NGTD, 417. ‫ ܕ‬instead producing the simplex 478 Another Syriac based variation is the alteration of ‫ܐ ܟ‬. This rote change may be due to a Syriac scribe wanting to save space. 479 While the loss of a seyame is hardly unimaginable, the same singular is also recorded by Masius (Deut 5.21‫)ז‬. JExod’s plural resulted from Jacob’s blending with the PDeut parallel. 480 1863: 259. 481 See AppII at Lev 3.1: σωτηρίου] οἱ λʹ (ἕτεροι Procop) εἰρηνικῶν (-κην 108) M′ 108b (s nom) 85′-321 (nom absc)-343 (s nom)-344s Procop (cp. similarly Lev 3.6; 7.1, 4). For discussion, see Wevers, NGTE, 318–19, and NGTL, 24, n. 1 (where he follows P. Harlé and D. Pralon, BA 3.37). Obviously, the reading had currency.

Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 207

► ‫ ܪܐ ܗܘ‬/ το ορος εκεινο : “That mountain” is unique to SP. ►‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ ܕ‬/ δυσμων ηλιου (= Deut 5.21‫ )ח‬: While in agreement with SP and GDeut, note that Aquila’s literalism (AppII: α΄ εισοδου M) was not adopted. ► ‫ ܕ‬/ Χανααν (= Deut 5.21‫ )ח‬: As with the previous gentilic in v 17‫א‬, the GDeut 11.30 parallel influenced the μόνον-translator(s).482 Compare the Three preserved in SHV at the parallel giving the plural. ► ‫ܒܐ‬ (≠ . ‫ ܐ‬Deut 5.21‫)ח‬483 / επι δυσμων : The septuagintism here reflects a confusion on the Hebrew level between √‫ערב‬V ‘to set (the sun)’ → ‫ערב‬I ‘sunset’ and ‫ערבה‬III ‘steppe’.484 Wevers argued the GDeut translator “was probably misled by the context in which οδον δυσμων ηλιου had just been mentioned.”485 Compare Num 10.10‫ ב‬below (→ §3.3.2). ► ‫ =( ܬ‬JExod) / παρα (or προς?): The reading preserved by Masius in Deut 5.21‫ܐ ח‬ ‫§ →( ܒ ܪܒܐ ܕܒ‬1.1) has the more usual (or more correct) form, reflecting the parallel (see n. 449). If the change to Field’s retroversion is maintained (see note above), it departed from the parallel; H-R lists only that occurrence for πλησιον representing ‫אצל‬.486 One might suggest that perhaps the translator(s) read the Hebrew as ‫ אל‬instead of ‫אצל‬, which would support retroverting προς. But this is unlikely since ‫ צ‬in Samaritan script ‫ צ‬is quite distinct. In any case, SH’s ‫ ܬ‬likely reflects παρα (cp. GGen 39.15, Lev 1.16, Deut 16.21, et al).487 ►‫ܐ ܪ ܐ‬ ‫ ܒ‬/ την δρυν την υψηλην : The most profound element of septuagintism is ‫ܪ ܐ‬, and it is very difficult to see the μόνον-translator’(s) rendering as coming from an understanding independent of GDeut’s.488 Representation of ‫ אלוני מורה‬/ ‫ אלון מורא‬was quite diverse in Antiquity, as the Targums (Jewish

|| 482 Ceriani: “… LXX videntur non animadvertisse literam ‫ י‬in fine vocis ‫ הכנעני‬ac male reddiderunt locum” (1863: 259). Also, Wevers, NGTD, 203. 483 According to Perkins’ study, the SH’s use of ‫ ܐ‬here might reflect προς, περι, or επι (1980: 83, 93; cp. PS 1.279). 484 So Wevers, NGTD, 203. Ceriani argued similarly (1863: 259). Compare the data listed in LEH2, δυσμαι (ref. Num 22.1). This too opposes Aquila’s reading in SH (‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܒ‬.‫)ܐ‬, which Wevers retroverted as εν ομαλει (203, n. 49). The Hebrew homograph numerals are from HALOT. 485 NGTD, 203. 486 H-R 1148. 487 See AppI: adfinem quercus altam Latcod 100. See above n. 449 and below n. 491. 488 Wevers held that G perhaps metathesized ‫ רמה → מרה‬in an attempt “to make sense out of the name” (NGTD, 204); see also his comments on the understandings in Gen 12.6 (NGTG, 166, with n. 11). McCarthy called Wevers’ construal of GDeut “attractive” (BHQap).

208 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

and Samaritan) and recentiores demonstrate.489 Presumably, at least the Three would have been available to the translator(s), who opted rather to adhere to GDeut’s reckoning. Certainly a Samaritan, informant or convert (→ § 7.3), would not have produced the μόνον-translation.490 ► ‫ =( ܒ ܪܒܐ ܕ‬JExod ≠ ‫ ܕ‬Deut 5.21‫)ח‬491 / εχομενον του Συχεμ : While there was no GDeut parallel to crib, unquestionably the μόνονtranslator’s treatment of ‫ מול‬equates that of ‫מול הגלגל‬.492 Note that the directional modifier “‫ מול‬Shechem” is only found in SP at the parallel, and the reading there can only be reconstructed for the original μόνον-collation by implication absent direct MS evidence (→ §4.3.3 at Deut 11.30+). Attribution: For the phrasing ‫ܐ ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ ܒ‬/ εν τη εκδοσει σαμαρειτικη εβραικη, see discussion of the colophon above (→ §2.2, lns. 5 and 6). The same comments outlined concerning the attribution note for Exod 18.25‫§ →( ג–א‬2.3.2) apply here as well. Note that unlike the corresponding Samaritan cross-reference which can be restored to SHV’s orphaned index marker via Procopius’ Comm., no data permits any such restoration of the Caesarean ἔκδοσις in Deut 11 and/or 27. Further, the excerpts from the catena and Procopius’ Comm. discussing SP’s “Gerizim” in Deut 27.4 (→ §4.3.3) make no reference to any such passages being found in SP Exod 20. Exod 20.(15)19‫ד–א‬: The People Request an Intermediary SH (L fol. 66a lower mg sub ※ ind

; > V → § EXCURSUS B) → PLATE I

. ‫ ܘ ܐ ܕ‬.‫ܘ ܒ ܬܗ‬ ‫̇ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܐ ܐܕ‬ ‫ ܗܐ ܝ‬19‫א‬ ‫ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܐܗܐ ̣ ܕ‬ ‫ ܒ‬.‫̇ܗ ܕ ܪܐ‬ ̇ ‫ ܐܢ‬.‫ܪܐ ܗܕܐ ܪܒ ܐ‬ ̣̇ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܬ܇‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܗ‬ 19 ‫ב‬ .‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ̇ ‫̣ ܓ‬ 19‫ ג‬. ‫ܐ ܐ ܕ ܬܘܒ܆ ܐܦ‬ ‫ܐܕ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ ܪܐ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕܐ ܐ ܐ ܕ‬ ̣ ̣ ‫ܒ ܐ܆ ̇ܐܘ‬ . . ‫ܐ ܐܕ‬ ‫ܕܐܢ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ̣ ‫ ܘܒ ܐ ܘ‬19‫ ד‬.‫ܕ ܘ ܐܐ‬

|| 489 For a complete outline of these diverse understandings of ‫ אלוני מורה‬/ ‫אלון מורא‬, see McCarthy’s discussion (BHQap). 490 N.B., contra ST: ‫“ מישר חזבה‬plain of vision” (A and J; cf. TgN). 491 One gets the impression that the Greek before “oak” and “Shechem” were reversed somehow in SH Deut 5.21‫ח‬. (Why would the Greek have differed for two renderings of ‫ מול‬in such close proximity?) The -‫ܠ‬ ‫ ܕ‬in SH Deut 5.21‫ ח‬can reflect either εγγυς (but after a verb, Perkins 1980: 75) or the Greek verbal forms παρα-, εχομεν-, εγγιζ-, as well as the substantive πλησιος (PS 2.3727; Perkins 1980: 92). Perhaps the Greek for Deut 5.21‫ ח‬originally read differently? 492 So Ceriani 1863: 259.

Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 209

‫ ܘ‬.‫ܬܟ‬ ‫ ܀‬.

‫ܐܕ‬ ‫ܕ ̈ ܬ‬

‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐܒ‬

‫ܕܐܢ‬ ‫ܐ ܒ‬

‫ܐ‬ ‫ܬܐ‬

‫ܬܢ‬ ‫ܒ‬

‫ܬ‬

‫ܘܐ‬

↘ . ‫ܘ ܒ‬ ‫ ܘܗ‬.. Attrib.

Field’s Reconstructed Greek [Revised] 19‫ ※ א‬ιδου εδειξεν ημιν ΠΙΠΙ ο θεος ημων την δοξαν αυτου, και την μεγαλωσυνην493 αυτου, και την φωνην αυτου ηκουσαμεν εκ μεσου του πυρος εν τη ημερα ταυτη ειδομεν οτι λαλησει494 ο θεος μετ ανθρωπου, και ζησεται. 19‫ב‬ και νυν μη αποθανωμεν, οτι εξαναλωσει495 ημας το πυρ τουτο το μεγα, εαν προσθωμεν ημεις ακουσαι την φωνην ΠΙΠΙ του θεου ημων ετι, και αποθανουμεθα. 19‫ ג‬τις γαρ πασα σαρξ, η τις ηκουσε φωνην θεου ζωντος, λαλουντος εκ μεσου του πυρος, ως ημεις, και ζησεται; 19‫ ד‬προσελθε συ, και ακουσον παντα οσα αν ειπη ΠΙΠΙ ο θεος ημων, και συ λαλησεις προς ημας παντα οσα αν λαληση ΠΙΠΙ ο θεος ημων προς σε, και ακουσομεθα, και ποιησομεν ↙ [Attrib. και (ταυ)τα εν τη εκδοσει σαμαρειτικη εβραικη μονον φερομενα] SP Exod 20.19(15496)‫( ד–א‬cf. Deut 5.24–27)497 4Q22 4Q158498 ≠ MT ‫{ הן הראנו יהוה אלהינו את כבודו ואת גדלו ואת‬5.24} 19‫ ויאמרו אל משה א‬19a {5.25} 19‫קולו שמענו מתוך האש היום הזה ראינו כי ידבר אלהים את האדם וחי ב‬

‫ועתה למה נמות כי תאכלנו האש הגדלה הזאת אם יספים אנחנו לשמע את קול יהוה‬ ‫{ כי מי כל בשר אשר שמע קול אלהים חיים מדבר מתוך‬5.26} 19‫אלהינו עוד ומתנו ג‬ ‫{ קרב אתה ושמע את כל אשר יאמר יהוה אלהינו ואתה‬5.27} 19‫האש כמונו ויחי ד‬ ‫ ואל ידבר עמנו‬19b ‫תדבר אלינו את כל אשר ידבר יהוה אלהינו אליך ושמענו ועשינו‬ ‫האלהים פן נמות‬

‫ ואת‬1° (19‫ ו ])א‬om BD4EFW2𝕯 𝕰 𝕴 w del c ‫ חי ]חיים‬4Q22 ‫ ול[וא ]ואל‬4Q158 ‫( קרב‬19‫])ד‬ ‫ בקרב‬sic AB*(‫ ב‬eras s. m.) ‫ ]תדבר—אליך‬om 𝕲 * (‫ תדבר אלינו‬mg s. m.) ‫]כל אשר ידבר יהוה‬ ‫ כל ידבר‬H* (‫ אשר‬et ‫ יהוה‬i. l. s. m.)

|| 493 Field’s reconstruction seems correct in accordance with the hexaplaric tradition of Deut 5.24 (sub ※ in SH) as well as 32.3; μεγαλειος was translated with ‫( ܪܘܪܒ ܐ‬e.g., SH Deut 11.2). 494 The SH translates the Greek hypothetical future with participles for λαλησει, ζησεται, αποθανουμεθα, and εξαναλωσει (see Perkins 1980: 215). Note further that while this technique is repeated in SH Deut 5.24–26, the participial form ‫ ܐܐ‬, here and in v 19‫ג‬, is not instead reading ‫ ܐ‬. (On JExod’s witness, → Table 5.2.1 with note.) The former is unusual; see PS 1.1252 where ‫( ܐܐ‬also found in 4 Kgdms 8.8 and ‫ ܣ‬Ezek 18.13) is described as “forma anom.” Perhaps this indicates a different translator for each passage (?). 495 Field’s reconstruction is correct. SH Num 14.33 used ‫ ܓ‬for αναλωθη while in v 35 ‫ ;ܐܬ‬cp. Aquila at the parallel: ‫ ܐ ̇ ܐ‬SHV “consuming” (φάγ-). εξαναλωθη was rendered by 496 T-F’s designation is expanded to include the Hebrew sub-numerals roughly equivalent to the parallels. Note this sub-division also differs from that in Ben-Ḥayyim 1977: 423–24. 497 T-F lists (p. 758) 24–21 ‫ דברים ה‬based on the traditional Hebrew versification of the Decalogue (e.g., NJPS and KOREN, ad loc). This is inconsistent however as the parallel verses are vv 20–23 in T-F Deut 5. 498 The passage is highly fragmentary in 4Q158 (for the transcription and reconstruction of frag. 6, see Zahn 2011: 251). The plene orthography of Zahn’s reconstruction is not reflected in the above variants.

210 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

19‫“ א‬Behold ‫ יהוה‬our God has shown us his glory anda his majesty. And we have heard his voice from the midst of the fire. Inb this day, we have seen that God speaks with man and (man) lives! 19‫ ב‬And now clet us notc die by reason of this great fire consuming us. If we should continue to hear the voice of ‫יהוה‬ our God again, we also would die. 19‫ ג‬For who (among) all flesh orb who has heard the voice of the living God speaking from the midst of the fire just as we (have) and lives? 19‫ ד‬You draw near and listen to everything which ‫ יהוה‬our God should say, and you (then) tell us everything which ‫ יהוה‬our God says to you; and we will listen and do (it). a

SP ST: > SPMSS STE (maj. var., see discussion)

b

> SP ST

c

SP ST: why (should we)

Attribution: And this is transmitted only in the Samaritan Hebrew edition. Exod 20.(15)19‫ד–א‬: The passage is regular, with a few items meriting comment. Placement: The passage, in SHL, has been indexed within v 19 as follows:

‫ܐ‬

‫ܐ܆ ܕ‬

‫ܬܢ ܐ‬

↘

‫ܘܐ‬

‫※ܘ‬

‫ܐ‬

.‫ܐ‬

‫ܘܐ ܘ ܬ‬ .‫܀‬.‫ܬ‬

There is then nothing which prevents a reader from assuming that the passage, as the majority of SP passages, is meant to be entirely supplementary to v 19, and thus SP begins with “You speak to us and we will listen” after which follows the marked block of text. However this is not how SP reads. The passage rather replaces, or fills out, the “You speak to us and we will listen,” common to G/MT (save the asterisked material).499 Properly, another index marker which should have been set just after “Moses” has ostensibly fallen out. In support of this hypothesis JExod 20.19a–19‫–ד–א‬19b (fol. 149‫ )ܒ‬reads as if his SH MS(S) clarified this: ‫ ܘ‬... 19‫ ד‬... ‫ܐ ܐ ܢ‬ ‫ ܗܐ ܝ‬19‫ א‬.‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ ܘ‬ ‫ܬ܀‬ ‫ܐ ܢܕ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ ܐ‬19b . ‫ܘ ܒ‬. Feasibly, a first index marker should be restored:

... ‫ܐ܆‬

‫ܬܢ ܐ‬

‫ܘܐ‬

↘

‫※ܘ‬

‫ܐ‬

.‫ܐ‬

‫ܬ‬

‫ܘ‬

‫ܘܐ‬

Without the first indicator, Jacob would not have known to omit (or how much to omit of) “You speak to us and we will listen” as being replaced, as opposed to purely supplemented, by the passage in SP.500 || 499 Ceriani noted the incongruity with how SP reads, suggesting it was a simple mistake (1863: 260). Had he known JExod at this point, perhaps he would have proposed as I have. 500 This is not the only case where JPent may be used to correct the indexing of μόνονpassages in SH; cp. below at Num 13.33‫§ →( ו–א‬3.3.1).

Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 211

Narrative context: Another issue related to the passage which further illuminates the way in which the μόνον-collator(s) worked is that SP Exod 20.18, immediately preceding this passage, reads rather differently: ‫וכל העם שמע את‬ ‫)= ראה( כל העם‬501 ‫הקולות ואת קול השופר וראים את הלפדים ואת ההר עשן ויראו‬ ‫וינעו ויעמדו מרחק‬. The elements which the people heard and saw are thus specified unlike how MT(/G) reads for the same verse:

‫ת־ה ָהר ָע ֵשׁן וַ יַּ ְרא ָה ָעם וַ יָּ נֻ עוּ‬ ָ ‫ת־ה ַלּ ִפּ ִידם וְ ֵאת קוֹל ַהשּׁ ָֹפר וְ ֶא‬ ַ ‫ת־הקּוֹֹלת וְ ֶא‬ ַ ‫ל־ה ָעם ר ִֹאים ֶא‬ ָ ‫וְ ָכ‬ ‫וַ יַּ ַע ְמדוּ ֵמ ָרחֹק‬ All the people witnessed [= NRSV, NAB-RE :: “perceived” in NASB, RSV, LEESER, KOREN]502 the thunder and lightning, the blare of the horn and the mountain smoking; and when the people saw it, they fell back and stood at a distance (NJPS).

SP’s v 18, reflected by the μόνον-passage, has been evaluated by scholars as reflecting a tension between the Sinai accounts in Exod 20 // Deut 5; namely, what did the people experience precisely and what was Moses’ role in the mediation of the Decalogue?503 Deut 5.22–23 makes it most explicit that the people heard God’s voice at Sinai (also Deut 4.10–13), whereas (MT and its congeners) at Exod 20.18 state that the people saw the natural effects of God’s speech. Berner has recently proposed a reconstruction of the literary growth of the Decalogue pericopes in light of the debate during the Second Temple period regarding who heard what at Sinai as well as the mediating role of Moses, with specific attention to 4Q158 a requisite member of the pre-SP layer, which as he notes, goes editorially beyond SP.504 He explains there was a shift from Deut 5 with the people hearing the whole Decalogue to (MT) Exod 20.18 where the people see the ‫( קול‬lit. ‘voice’) of the Lord on the mountain. SP reflects this debate reading || 501 Pronounced wyērēʾu from ‫( ראה‬Ben-Ḥayyim 1977: 256, 423). ST confirms with ‫“ וחזו‬and they saw” (but cp. STE ‫“ ודחלו‬and they feared,” implying a lack of uniformity in the tradition). The first part of BHSap note ‘c’ is thus confusing: ⅏ 𝔊𝔖𝔗JP𝔙 ‫ וַ יִּ ְראוּ‬cf 20. G and V appear to reflect a defective form ‫“ וַ יִּ ְראוּ‬and they feared” (see J-M §14c; Wevers, NGTE, 315), while the Jewish Targums read “and they saw.” Differently P, the translator apparently unsure how to construe the Hebrew, has a double translation ‫ܐ ܘܕ‬ ‫“ ܘ ܘ‬the people saw [pl.] and feared [pl.].” 502 Some modern ETs do have “saw” (e.g., NIV, ESV, NET) following, presumably, the KJV/AV and GENEVA. Observe that LEESER (1891, 4th ed.), the first Jewish ET published in the United States, felt the need to explain this and has the following note: “The Hebrew word ‫ ראים‬from ‫“ ראה‬to see,” is evidently used here in the general sense, ‘to perceive,’ ‘to become aware of’ .” 503 Note the traditional reckoning of this by the Rabbis, discussed by Berner 2013: 398 (following M. Segal 1988: 57–58, with literature cited there). 504 Berner 2013.

212 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

‫ שׁמע‬in v 18—they hear!505 SP 20.18 was seemingly not collated by the Caesarean critic; perhaps the quantitative variation was not sufficient to warrant attention. Nevertheless, the fact that this specific passage, transmitted by both 4Q158 and SP, accentuates the people’s hearing of God’s very voice, and thus requests Moses to act as intermediary, brings about this tension into view.506 Indeed, early Christian readers of Exod 20 vis-à-vis Deut 5 (a connection this passage makes explicit), were sensitive to the notion of seeing a sound in (MT/G) Exod 20.18. Thus an anonymous remark in the CatNic pointed out that one cannot see sound:507 Αδηλου. Σημειωτέον, ὅτι ἀδιαφόρως ἡ Γραφὴ τάττει τὸ τῶν αἰσθήσεων, ἀντἰ ἀκοῆς ὄρασιν εἰποῦσα. οὐδεὶς δἐ ὁρᾶ φωνήν. Πλὴν δύω φωνῶν μέμνηται, καὶ μᾶλλον τὴν μίαν φωνὴν λέγει, τὴν δία τὸν θεοῦ λόγον. Τὴν δʼ έτέραν τὴν τῆς σάλπιγγος, βροντήν. Anonymous. It is right to know that the Scripture expresses those (matters related to) the faculties without distinction, having (here) said “seeing” in place of “hearing.” Yet no one ‘sees’ sound. Nevertheless, (Scripture) mentions two sounds: indeed the one sound, the thunder on account of the word of God, and the other, (the sound of) the trumpet.

Origen himself approached the matter rather differently, interpreting this “seeing” as having a spiritual sense in accordance with scriptural expression (see Contra Cel. 6.62).508 However each individual reader may have reacted, if there was any qualm about this apparent contradiction in 20.18, the Samaritan reading could have afforded a textual solution to an exegetical question. On the other hand, if the figurative notion of “seeing” sound was entrenched enough in the early Christian exegetical milieu, then perhaps the juxtaposition of both Exod 20 and this passage would not have presented any such problem. Whatever the case, it does appear that the Caesarean critic(s) was more concerned with

|| 505 2013: 387–88. See also his discussion of the connectedness of Exod 20.19 to the fuller account in Deut 5.22–31 (p. 385). For a discussion of the effect the whole people’s having heard the Decalogue—without Moses serving as intermediary—in Samaritan theology, see Bóid 1988: 600. Wevers, in discussing GExod’s rendering, unfortunately did not appreciate (or show appreciation for) the exegetical viewpoint represented by the pre-SP layer and glibly accused SP as displaying “a fit of rationalistic prudery” (NGTE, 315). 506 Thus Berner (on 4Q158 specifically): “[Exod 20.19‫ ]ד–א‬strengthens the view that the Decalogue was revealed to the people without a mediator” (2013: 391–92). 507 1/2.782. 508 Procopius also noted that this was a peculiarity of scriptural style (Comm. ad loc; see CatNic 1/2.782; PG 87/1.613–14).

Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 213

larger quantitative variants, even if at times this could potentially overlook important, smaller variants. Exod 20.19‫א‬: The verse comprises the regular mix of Samaritan and septuagintistic elements. ► ‫ =( ܘ ܒ ܬܗ‬JExod, om. -‫ )ܠ‬/ και την μεγαλωσυνην αυτου : The MS support for the hexaplaric addition in the G parallel is substantial, suggesting that the translator(s) used it.509 Granted the Hebrew is not difficult and could easily have been managed. There is a majority variant in the Samaritan tradition in which the conjunction is omitted (see above note).510 Since the hexaplaric addition likely guided the hand of the collator(s), the μόνον-passage cannot be used in support of one or the other. ► ‫ܐ‬ ‫ =( ܒ‬JExod) / εν τη ημερα : The SP (= ST) reads ‫ היום הזה‬without any such preposition. As has been mentioned before, and is corroborated by many instances, the adoption of prepositions is nearly always due to the G parallels in question. However, while Wevers was under the impression that GExod’s parent text read with MT without any such preposition,511 in this case the wider evidence at the parallel argues against his supposition (e.g., 4Q135, 4Q41). ► (= JExod) / μετ512 : In light of the above comment about prepositions, the exceptions to the rule should be pointed out. Here the G parallel unequivocally and without exception reads προς (+ acc.).513 What led the translator(s) to change this is unclear. Certainly it was not a familiarity with how the Samaritan reading tradition understood ‫ =( את‬at514, viz. ‫ ֵאת‬II = ST ‫)עם‬. More probably, the translator was guided by the Hexapla Maior at the parallel. Since MT reads there as SP here, viz., ‫ את האדם‬as opposed ‫( אל האדם‬cp. Gen 3.9), it is possible that one of the recentiores read thus. Note that this is the only instance within the μόνον-collation where ‫ את‬follows a verb of speech. Otherwise, it could perhaps be reckoned as an educated guess, at the very least demonstrating restraint in, or rather intelligent usage of, septuagintism. Exod 20.19‫ב‬: One septuagintism and one irregularity occur.

|| 509 AppI: + (※ SH) και την μεγαλωσυνην (-λος. 376 767) αυτου O–82-58 108mg b 106d 767n 85mg s t 28mx Arab Arm SH. Wevers felt that perhaps it had been omitted in MT by homoioteleuton (NGTD, 106). 510 Presumably, this was a mechanical error inspired by the ‫ כבדו‬just previous. 511 NGTD, 106 (referring to his discussion at p. 97). (1980: 89). 512 As Perkins observes, SH always renders μετα + gen. with 513 MS 30s omits; see AppI. 514 Ben-Ḥayyim 1977: 424, 43.

214 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

► ‫ =( ܐ‬JExod) / μη : The rending of Hebrew ‫למה‬, septuagintistic as Ceriani noted,515 was translated “freely but correctly.”516 ► ‫ =( ܪܐ ܗܕܐ ܪܒ ܐ‬JExod) / το πυρ τουτο το μεγα : The word order “fire– this–great” is strange since, in addition to wavering from SP(/ST), it also deviates from the GDeut parallel. No witness in the MS history (see AppI) transposes in this manner. It is difficult to know how this happened. The parallel in PDeut reads in this word order, so it is not impossible the Syriac scribe(s) is guilty. However, it does seem too far removed from the present context for such a infrequently occurring phrase to exert such influence. Further still are very few select GDeut witnesses which alter the word order at 18.16 (see AppI). The error was likely unthinking. Exod 20.19‫ג‬: An error in transmission is also apparent in v 19‫ ג‬as well as assistance from the hexaplaric text. ► (= JExod) / πασα : The “all” was not originally supplied in G but was added in by the hexaplaric tradition.517 Irrespective of the assistance, the translator(s) would have had to make a conscious break with his rampant septuagintism to add it in. ► ‫ =( ܐܘ‬JExod) / η τις (mend!) ≠ ‫ אשר‬SP: The reading, suspected by Field,518 is a word division error rightly explained by Ceriani as resulting from misreading the Greek, which in the older codices would be written in scriptio continua.519 As a result ἥτις and ἢ τίς could (and would) be easily commixed. The same error occurred not only here but also in at the parallel as found in OL, SH, and Coptic.520 SH Exod was not influenced by PDeut as the corresponding portion reads ... ). ‫ܓ ܒ ܒ ܐ( ܕܐ ܬܢ ܕ‬ Exod 20.19‫ד‬: Like that in v 19‫ג‬, the translator(s) likely utilized assistance from the hexaplaric tradition. ► (= JExod) / παντα : While transmitted in a great many MSS, the addition of “all” to GDeut is of hexaplaric origin.521 Attribution: For analysis of those elements found in this attribution (identical to those at Exod 18.25‫ג–א‬, 20.17‫ו–א‬, and 20.21‫)ט–א‬, see above at 18.25– 25‫§ →( ג–א‬2.3.2) as well as the discussion of the SH Exod colophon (→ §2.2). || 515 1863: 260. 516 Thus Wevers, NGTD, 106. He observed that GDeut translated similar expressions in Deut 4 with μη + the subj., although the particle there is ‫פן‬. 517 AppI: (※ SH) πασα O–82-58oII 108mg b 767n CyrHier SH. 518 1.115, with the Syriac supplied in parentheses. 519 1863: 260. 520 AppI: ἥτις] aut quis Latcod 100 Co SH. Each is an older translation using uncial MSS. 521 Wevers, NGTD, 107. The addition is sub ※ in SH and 344s.

Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 215

Exod 20.(17)21‫ט–א‬: A Prophet Like Moses SH (L fol. 66b top mg sub ※; > V → EXCURSUS B)

̇ ‫ܐ ܐ̇ ܆‬ ‫ܐܕ ̈ ܐܕ ܐܗܐܐ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ‫ ܘ‬21‫א‬ ‫ܠ ܕ ܘܐ ܗ ܐ ܒܐ‬ 21‫ ב‬. ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܬܟ ܬܪ ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ̣ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫̈ ܐܕ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܕ ܘܢ ܗ ܐ ܕܒ ܘܢ܇ ܐ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ ܒ ܐ ܐ‬21‫ ג‬. ‫ܘܐ ܘܢ ܘ ܒ ̈ ܐ ܕ ܘܢ‬ ‫̈ ܐ܇ ܐ ܐ ܕ‬ ̈ . ‫ܐܕ‬ ‫ܐܕ ܒ‬ ‫ ܘܐܬܠ‬.‫ܐ ܕܐ ܐ ܕ ܘܢ ܐ ܬܟ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ : ‫̈ ܐܕ‬ ‫ܒ ܐ ܐ ܐ ܕ ܐ‬°‫ ܘ‬21‫ ד‬.‫ܗܝ‬ ‫ܘܢ ܐ ܐ ܕܐܢ ܐ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ ܒ ܡ ܒ ܐ‬21‫ ה‬. ‫ܐ ܕ ܆ ܐ ܐ ܐܬܒ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫̇ܗܘ ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܕܐܢ‬ ̇ ‫̇ܗܘ ܕܐܢ‬ : ‫ܬ‬ ‫̇ܗܘ ܐ ܕ ܐ‬ ‫ܐܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ̈ ̇ ‫ ܐܢ ܕ‬21‫ ו‬.‫ܬ ܒ ܐ ܗܘ‬ ° ‫ܐ ܕܐ ܐ ܐ ܐ܆‬ ‫ܘ ̇ܗܘ ܕܐܢ‬ ̇ ̇ ‫ܕܐܢ‬ ‫ ܐ‬21‫܆ ז‬ ° ‫ܐ ܗܝ ܕ ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ ܐ ܥ‬: ‫ܬܐ ܒ ܒܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܐܦ ܐ ܬܓ ܫ܆ ܗܕܐ ܗܝ‬ ‫ ܘ ܐ ܬܗܘܐ‬: ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܒܐ‬ ‫ ܐ ܬܬܪ ܢ‬.‫̇ ܒ ܐ‬ ‫܆ܒܘ ܐ‬ ° ‫̇ܗܝ ܕ ܐ‬ ̣ ‫ ܗ ܐ‬21‫ ח‬. ̈ ‫܆ ܘܐ‬ ‫ ܐ ܕ ܗܪ ܐ ܡ‬21‫ ט‬.‫ܢ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܢ ܒ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܘܢ܆ ܗ‬ ‫ܕܬ ܐ ܢ ܘ ܒ ܘܢ܇ ܒܐܪ ܐ ̇ܗܝ‬ ‫̈ ܐ ܘܙܕ ̈ ܐ ܘܕ ̈ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܬܟ‬ ↘ ‫ܘܢ ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܕܐ ܐ ̇ ܒ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܒ ܐܒ ܕ ̈ ܬ‬ ‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ ܘܗ ܒ‬Attrib.

Field’s Reconstructed Greek [Revised] 21‫ ※ א‬και ελαλησε ΠΙΠΙ προς Μωυσην, λεγων ηκουσα την φωνην των λογων του λαου τουτου, οσα ελαλησαν προς σε ορθως παντα οσα ελαλησαν. 21‫ ב‬τις δωσει ειναι522 ουτως την καρδιαν αυτων ταυτην εν αυτοις, ωστε φοβεισθαι με, και φυλασσειν πασας τας εντολας μου πασας τας ημερας, ινα ευ η αυτοις και τοις υιους αυτων δι αιωνος; 21‫ ג‬προφητην αναστησω αυτοις εκ μεσου των αδελφων αυτων, ωσπερ σε και δωσω το ρημα μου εν τω στοματι αυτου, και λαλησει αυτοις καθοτι αν εντειλωμαι αυτω. 21‫ ד‬και ° ο ανθρωπος ος αν μη ακουση [των λογων μου]523, οσα εαν λαληση εκεινος524 ο προφητης επι τω ονοματι μου, εγω εκδικησω εξ αυτου. 21‫ ה‬πλην ο προφητης, ος αν ασεβηση λαλησαι ρημα επι τω ονοματι μου ο ου προσεταξα αυτω λαλησαι, και ος εαν λαληση επ ονοματι θεων ετερων, ° αποθανειται ο προφητης εκεινος. 21‫ ו‬εαν δε ειπης εν τη καρδια σου πως γνωσομεθα το ρημα ο ουκ ελαλησε ° ΠΙΠΙ; 21‫ ז‬οσα εαν λαληση ο προφητης επι τω ονοματι ΠΙΠΙ, και μη γενηται το ρημα, και μη συμβη, τουτο το ρημα ο ουκ ελαλησε ° ΠΙΠΙ, εν ασεβεια ελαλησεν αυτο ο προφητης ουκ αφεξεσθε αυτου. 21‫ ח‬βαδισον, ειπον αυτοις αποστραφητε υμεις εις τους οικους υμων. 21‫ ט‬συ δε

|| 522 For SH’s use of the imperfect to render an inf., see Perkins 1980: 292–303. 523 The accusative (τους λογους) is perhaps also possible (BDF §173.2 and BDAG, s.v., ⓑ α). Field’s τον λογον αυτου is incorrect (1.116; cp. Ceriani 1863: 262). See also JExod 20.21‫ד‬: ‫ܕ ܐ‬ ... ‫̈ ܗ‬ (fol. 150‫)ܐ‬. The Greek in Deut 18.19 is presently retained being without lexical variant. See comment below at Exod 20.21‫ד‬. 524 So Field (1.116) based on Ceriani’s translation (ille propheta [1863: 262]). See discussion at 20.21‫ד‬.

216 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

αυτου στηθι μετ εμου, και λαλησω προς σε πασας τας εντολας και τα δικαιωματα και τα κριματα, οσα διδαξεις αυτους, και ποιειτωσαν εν τη γη, ην εγω διδωμι αυτοις εν κληρω ↙ [Attrib. και (ταυ)τα εν τη εκδοσει σαμαρειτικη εβραικη μονον φερομενα] SP Exod 20.21‫( ט–א‬cf. Deut 5.28–29; 18.18–22; 5.30–31) ⟨4Q22⟩ (DJD 9.102– 103) 4Q158 4Q175 (5.57–60) ≠ ΜΤ525 ‫{ וידבר יהוה אל משה לאמר שמעתי את קול דברי העם הזה אשר‬Dt 5.28b} 21‫א‬ ‫{ מי יתן והיה לבבם זה להם ליראה אתי‬5.29} 21‫דברו אליך היטיבו כל אשר דברו ב‬ ‫{ נביא‬Dt 18.18} 21‫ולשמר את מצותי כל הימים למען ייטב להם ולבניהם לעולם ג‬ 21‫אקים להם מקרב אחיהם כמוך ונתתי דברי בפיו ודבר אליהם את כל אשר אצונו ד‬ 21‫{ והיה האיש אשר לא ישמע אל דבריו אשר ידבר בשמי אנכי אדרש מעמו ה‬18.19} ‫{ אך הנביא אשר יזיד לדבר דבר בשמי את אשר לא צויתיו לדבר ואשר ידבר‬18.20} ‫{ וכי תאמר בלבבך איך נודע את‬18.21} 21‫בשם אלהים אחרים ומת הנביא ההוא ו‬ ‫{ אשר ידבר הנביא בשם יהוה לא יהיה הדבר‬18.22} 21‫הדבר אשר לא דברו יהוה ז‬ {Dt 21‫ולא יבוא הוא הדבר אשר לא דברו יהוה בזידון דברו הנביא לא תגור ממנו ח‬ ‫{ ואתה פה עמד עמדי ואדברה‬5.31} 21‫ לך אמר להם שובו לכם לאהליכם ט‬5.30}

‫אליך את כל המצוה החקים והמשפטים אשר תלמדם ועשו בארץ אשר אנכי נתן להם‬ ‫לרשתה‬ ‫( שמעתי‬21‫ שמעת ])א‬4Q175 ‫( והיה‬21‫ ויהיה ])ב‬4Q175 ‫( לבבם זה‬21‫ הלבב הזה ])ב‬4Q158 ‫( מצותי‬21‫ ])ב‬pr ‫ כול‬4Q175 21‫ ]ג‬pr ‫]ועתה לוא ישמעו עוד)?([ את קול דברי אמו]ר[ להמה‬ 4Q158526 ‫( בפיו ודבר‬21‫ בפיהו וידבר ])ג‬4Q175 ‫( אל‬21‫ }ע{אל ])ד‬4Q175 ‫( דבריו‬21‫דברי ])ד‬ 4Q175 ‫( בשמי‬21‫ ])ד‬pr ‫ הנבי‬4Q175 ‫( ואשר‬21‫ או אשר ])ה‬4Q158

21‫ א‬And ‫ יהוה‬spoke to Moses, saying: “Ia have heard the sound of the words of this people, which they spoke to you; bthey spoke correctly (in) everythingb. 21‫ ב‬Whoever might grant thatc theird heart be thuse, this withinf them, so to fear me and to keep eall ofe [= 4Q175] my commands always, in order that it might be well for them and their children forever! 21‫ ג‬gA prophet I will raise up for them from amongst their brothers like you. And I will give my wordh in his mouth; and he shall speak to them ijust asi I command him. 21‫ ד‬Andj the man who should not heed myk words, which ethat prophete [= 4Q175] might speak by my name, I will exact (it) from him. 21‫ ה‬However, the prophet who should act impiously speaking something by my name, something which I did not command him to speak, andl if he should speak by the name of other godsm—mthat prophet shall die! 21‫ ו‬Now if you should say in your heart: ‘How shall nwe known the thing which ‫ יהוה‬has not spokeno?’ 21‫ ז‬Whatever a prophet might speak by the name of ‫ יהוה‬ande the matter not happen nor come about: this is

|| 525 11Q19 (col. 61) is not collated as there is no evidence of a direct connection with the Decalogue as 4Q175. While the latter may not be properly descrbed as a “biblical” MS (e.g., Dayfani 2022: 689, n. 40), its connection to the Decalogue is still worth juxtaposing here. 526 For the reconstruction and accompanying literature, see Zahn 2011: 31–32. She discusses (p. 32, n. 18) Strugnell’s two hypothetical reconstructions: 1) ‫ועתה למען ישמעו‬, and 2) ‫ועתה‬ ‫כאשר שמעתה‬. Though her own reconstruction differs, she is more convinced of the latter (cf. Strugnell 1970: 172). Zahn (mistakenly?) omits the initial waw of Strugnell’s first reconstruction.

Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 217

the thing which ‫ יהוה‬did not speako. With impiety the prophet spoke it. You shall not pwithhold yourselvesp from him. 21‫ ח‬Go say to them: ‘(Re)turn youq to your housesr.’ 21‫ ט‬Yet you stand here with me. And I will tell you all the commandss ande the regulations and the judgments which you shall teach them and they will do (them) in the land which I am giving to them tby lott. a

4Q175: You b SP ST: they did well (by) all (STA: in what) which they spoke c SP ST: and (> STB) d > 4Q158 e > SP ST (“he” in v 21‫ )ד‬f SP ST: to g 4Q158: pr ⟨And now they shall not still hear⟩ the sound of my word. Say to them527 h SP STAB: ? see discussion; STJ: words i 4Q175 SP ST: all which; STA: (lit.) in all what j SP ST: + it shall be k “my” so 4Q175; SP ST: his l 4Q158: or m SP ST: then n SP, Sam. vocal., and ST: it be recognized (see below) o SP ST: + it p SP STJ(A; see note below): you(sg.) shall not fear q SP ST: yourselves r SP ST: tents s SP ST: sg (STA: pl) t SP ST: to inherit it

Attribution: And this is only transmitted in the Samaritan Hebrew edition. Exod 20.(17)21‫ט–א‬: As before, the μόνον-translation’s rote septuagintism is demonstrated here both in lexical decisions and deviations from SP which agree with GDeut. Additionally, with respect to the pre-Samaritan text-type, the present exhibits continued disagreement, especially with the text as represented by 4Q158. Aside from whatever one may reconstruct just previous to v 21‫ג‬, both ‫(הלבב‬21‫ )ב‬and ‫( או אשר‬21‫ )ה‬disagree with the μόνον-reading. Lastly, in accordance with Zahn’s reconstruction of the fragments, 4Q158 places the corresponding request for the prophet, i.e., Exod 20.19‫ד–א‬, before the end of the Decalogue, not after as SP and μόνον-collation.528 Further, the ostensible agreements with 4Q175: ‫( וידבר‬21‫)א‬, ‫( לאמור‬21‫)א‬, ‫( כול‬21‫)ב‬, ‫( דברי‬21‫)ד‬, and ‫( הנבי‬21‫)ד‬, are balanced by a couple of discrepancies ‫( שמעת‬21‫ )א‬and ‫( כול‬21‫)ג‬. Unless 4Q175 was Samaritan, the agreement with the present passage should be viewed as circumstantial.529 Exod 20.21‫א‬: ► ‫ ܘ‬/ και ελαλησε and ‫ ܐ‬/ λεγων : Both are veritable evidence of the translator’(s) use of a SP MS, as the lexical disagreement with the former (vs. ‫ )אמר‬and the lack of the latter in all parallel textual witnesses530—

|| 527 On 4Q158’s reading here, see Berner 2013: 395. 528 See Zahn 2011: 63–67; also Berner 2013: 399. 529 See J. Fitzmyer’s discussion of the “Septuagintal tendency” of 4QTestimonia (1957: 536–37 and literature). Such likely renders any such agreement coincidental, especially as the μόνονtranslation is otherwise shown to septuagintize, not based on some Hebrew text other than SP, but by means of cribbing the GDeut parallel. Therefore, both the μόνον-passage and 4Q175 produce septuagintized readings but by different means. 530 ‫( וידבר‬21‫( ויאמר ])א‬Deut 5.28) MT 4Q41 4Q129 4Q135 G P V TgO N PJ CGD; 4Q137 is reconstructed [‫וי]ואמר‬. None include ‫ לאמר‬where extant, though TgN CGD add ‫ אמר משה‬after ‫לי‬.

218 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

including SP Deut—attests, save 4Q175 which reads both here with SP and the μόνον-passage. ► ‫ ܬܪ ܐ‬/ ορθως : The rendering exclusively reflects the Septuagintal technique of translating ‫ יטב‬adverbially against the verbal renditions of the recentiores.531 Exod 20.21‫ב‬: ► ‫ ܗ ܐ‬/ ουτως and -‫ ܗ ܐ ܕ‬/ ταυτην : Wevers discussed GDeut’s treatment of MT/SP’s ‫זה‬, which was translated adverbially: ουτως (την καρδιαν αυτων …).532 The μόνον-translator(s) adopted this but mechanically. Thus, when this same ‫ זה‬was seen after ‫ לבבם‬in SP, it was translated again leading to a second “this.” However, it does not truly represent a second ‫ זה‬but is merely a by-product of the translator’(s) cribbing GDeut and trying to render SP as he read it. As such, this double attestation for ‫ זה‬is ironically both a septuagintism and a true effort to render the Samaritan Hebrew text. Note also that the passage supports the order ειναι ουτως not the majority variant which transposes the two (see AppI ad loc).533 ► ‫ ܕܒ ܘܢ‬/ εν αυτοις : Correctly identified by Ceriani as a septuagintism.534 Wevers argued GDeut selected this equivalent for ‫ להם‬in order to avoid dative confusion with that which followed in the ινα clause.535 ► ‫ܘܢ‬ / πασας : Unfortunately, there are two possibilities here: 1) It seems reasonable to presume the addition could come from the Greek scribe(s) or collator(s) responsible for the hexaplaric MS(S) SH Exod was translating. After all, a scribe would likely include πασας out of habit from the stock phrase during transmission.536 It is not impossible that the SH translator(s) could have committed the same error. 2) Alternatively, given the above demonstrated, albeit inconsistent, consultation of the hexaplaric data in the parallels by our translator(s), it is possible they did so again here.537 Either way, concord with 4Q175 is coincidental and does not represent a variant Samaritan reading.538

|| 531 Wevers, NGTD, 108; AppII at Gen 4.7, Deut 5.28, and 18.17. 532 Also earlier Ceriani 1863: 262. 533 Wevers expressed uncertainty concerning which order was original (NGTD, 109). 534 1863: 262. 535 NGTD, 109. 536 E.g., πασας τας εντολας is found in GDeut 15 times (all after ch 6). Hence, the suggestion this was added during transmission, even in Exod, as opposed to the initial translation. 537 See Wevers’ AppI. Thus Ceriani (1863: 262), who seems to have suggested so. There are, however, a number of key variants where the μόνον-translator fails to follow the hexaplaric parallel even when it would have equated SP (e.g., Exod 26.35‫ ב‬below → §2.4.1). Because of instances such as these, it is difficult to know. 538 See McCarthy (BHQap) for the fairly equally divided witness for (‫ כל )מצ״‬at Deut 5.29.

Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 219

Exod 20.21‫ג‬: Septuagintism continues. ►‫ܐ‬ / μεσου : Whether or not the translator’(s) text read μεσου as the majority GDeut variant is unknown nor does the MS tradition attribute it exclusively to hexaplaric activity.539 ► ‫ܐܕ‬ / το ρημα μου : Technically speaking, the μόνον-translation renders the unvocalized SP just fine, but as the GDeut MS tradition largely transmits the singular in opposition to MT and others,540 this could also be considered septuagintistic. Wevers argued that GDeut utilized the singular “since it is God’s spoken word [which is specified].”541 See additional comment below (v 21‫)ד‬. ► ‫ ܐ ܐ ܕܐܢ‬° / ° καθοτι αν : As discussed above (e.g., Exod 7.29[8.4]‫ד‬, 10.2‫ד‬, 18.25‫)ג‬, reflections of SP’s ‫ כל‬have a tendency to suffer in the μόνονpassages, though normally this could be explained on the Greek level, be it the G parallel itself, most likely in conjunction with μόνον-translator’(s) method (→ §4.4.1), or successive scribal transmission. The omission is probably due to the GDeut parallel which has surprisingly very little MS evidence including the word.542 Exod 20.21‫ד‬: The verse exhibits much variation from the SP. ► ‫ܒ ܐ‬°‫ ܘ‬/ και ° ο ανθρωπος : The omission of ‫ היה‬conforms to the GDeut parallel.543 No variant SP reading ought to be proposed. ► ‫ =( ̈ ܐ ܕ‬JExod ̈ ) / των λογων μου : The present issue is problematic. GDeut followed a specialized practice whereby divine speech (ρημα) and prophetic communication of that speech (λογος) were differentiated in the Greek.544 However, SH obscures this specification, translating both λογος and ρημα with ‫ܐ‬ .545 This is unfortunate as it prevents further analysis of the μόνον-translator’(s) process in this instance—whether or not he recognized this distinction from GDeut and sought to imitate and perpetuate it. The matter is

|| 539 See AppI. 540 The Samaritan reading dēbā̊ri is ambiguous (Ben-Ḥayyim 1977: 424; note esp. his introductory comments on p. xv); cp. ST MSS: ‫“ מלי‬my words” J; ‫“ ממללי‬my speech” AB. (Perhaps the AB reading reflects this ambiguity. I wish to express my thanks to Martin Tscheu for discussing ST’s readings with me.) Note that Tsedaka’s ET has “my words” here. 541 NGTD, 303. 542 See AppI. It is interesting that nearly all of the witnesses are patristic, suggesting “ex par” or stock phrase. See NGTD, 303. 543 See Wevers’ discussion (NGTD, 302, 118). 544 See the discussion in Dogniez and Harl, BA 5.41–43 and 231 (Deut 18.18). Wevers concurred (NGTD, 303–04). 545 Cp. G and SH Exod 4.15, 28, 30; 5.9; 18.19; 19.6, 7, 8, and 9.

220 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

further complicated since it is difficult to know precisely what the translator’(s) GDeut parallel read here, as the MS tradition is so varied.546 In particular, hexaplaric Greek may or may not factor into the present case (see above); and if CODEX B et al (which omit των λογων αυτου) represent the translator(s) GDeut MS(S), then the variation could be explained at the Hebrew level. The difference between the μόνον-translation and the extant SP is but a single waw. It is not impossible that the translator(s) misread his Hebrew or used a MS which really read ‫ דברי‬/ ‫דברי‬. Alternatively, confusion in Greek transmission, or the Syriac translator’(s) misreading, is possible via scriptio continua. ► ‫ ̇ܗܘ ܒ ܐ‬/ εκεινος ο προφητης επι : The preposition is obviously based on the GDeut parallel (Exod 7.29[8.4]‫§ → ג‬2.3.1, et passim). More difficult is the mention of “the/that prophet.” No surviving SP MS reads ‫ נביא‬/ ‫ נביא‬as 4Q175 and GDeut; presumably the μόνον-translation resulted from GDeut influence.547 Alternatively, it is also possible that NT interference is responsible for ‫ ܗܘ ܒ ܐ‬whether alone or in tandem with GDeut. If the Caesarean collator(s) and the μόνον-translator(s) were one and the same, as the extant scholia claims (→ §§2.6, 3.5), then it is possible that, at the very least, Acts 3.23 may have contributed to the μόνον-translation as a kind of unconscious Christianizing, especially in light of Christian theology (→ §2.6.3). Then again, the translator(s) seem to have resisted NT influence elsewhere (→ §2.3.1 at Exod 9.19‫)ד‬. ► ‫ ܐ ܐ ܐܬܒ‬/ εκδικησω : The use of εκδικεω for ‫ דרש‬is unique here in G; the verb is much more frequently used to render forms of ‫ נקם‬or ‫פקד‬.548 Again, the GDeut parallel was cribbed; perhaps (εκ)ζητεω would have served better (see AppI: εκζητησω 120z: cf M). Exod 20.21‫ה‬: Lexical equivalencies, prepositions, and conjunctions are based on GDeut. ► / ασεβηση : The word choice is clearly that of GDeut, used for ‫ זיד‬only in the present parallel and in 17.13.549 Wevers’ described this rendering as

|| 546 See AppI (for των λογων αυτου) where the hexaplaric witness is split: τον λογον αυτου 72oII; παντα O SH; > oI-707. This variation in the MS tradition supports the notion that several options lay before the Caesarean critic(s). 547 Whether or not Field’s εκεινος should be maintained in this verse is uncertain. If GDeut was cribbed, no extant MS reads εκεινος ο προφητης, and only B 106d Cyr LatCyp Aeth read ο προφητης εκεινος (cf. Acts 3.23). Syriac ‫ ̇ܗܘ‬here could be an error for ‫ ̣ܗܘ‬and correspond to the article; cp. SH Deut 18.19 where ‫ ⨪ ̣ܗܘ ܒ ܐ܌‬equates ο προφητης. Field’s is retained here in part on analogy of that in v 21‫ה‬, which has much better MS support. 548 H-R lists only this occurrence (422). 549 See H-R, 170; note Dogniez and Harl’s comments (BA 5.231).

Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 221

“free, but not incorrect.”550 Note that Aquila’s use of υπερηφανευω ‘act haughtily’ was not employed.551 ►‫ܐ‬ / επι (τω) ονοματι (twice): See above comments for επι at ‫ܗܘ‬ ‫( ܒ ܐ‬v 21‫)ד‬. ► / αυτω : The variant, in agreement with SP here and MT in the parallel, has enormous MS support against Wevers’ reconstructed GDeut. ► (‫ ܘ)ܗܘ ܕܐܢ‬/ και (ος εαν) : The reading conspicuously differs from 4Q158’s ‫או אשר‬.552 ►‫ܬ‬ ° / ° αποθανειται : The omission of the conjunction (conj. = SP MT Tgs ≠ PDeut) equates the GDeut parallel, which no extant witness in the MS tradition has corrected. Exod 20.21‫ו‬: ► ‫ ܥ‬/ γνωσομεθα : The construal of the Hebrew ‫ נודע‬/ ‫ נודע‬here accords with GDeut. While no SP MS (in Exod or Deut) spells the form defectively, it is but one waw’s difference.553 The overall tendency of the translator(s) confirms this as a septuagintism. ► ° / ελαλησε ° : The suffixed ‫ דברו‬was not translated in accordance with GDeut. Compare the same in v 21‫ ז‬below. Exod 20.21‫ז‬: Septuagintism characterizes the verse, especially with respect to lexical selection. ► / επι : See comment above (21‫)ה‬. ► ‫ ܘ ܐ‬/ και μη : As Ceriani earlier noted, the conjunction is due to GDeut infiltration.554 No SP or ST MS supports it. ► ‫ ܬܓ ܫ‬/ συμβη : συμβαινω is not an unacceptable rendering given the context, however, H-R lists GDeut 18.22 as the only place where it represents ‫בוא‬. ► ° / ελαλησε °: See comment at v 21‫ו‬. ► ‫ ܒ ܘ ܐ‬/ εν ασεβεια : As discussed previously ( / ασεβηση at v 21‫)ה‬, the present translation is not wrong so much a demonstrably Septuagintal. As Wevers observed, the use of ασεβεια for ‫ זידון‬occurred only here in G.555 Observe further, the μόνον-translator(s) ignored the reading of the recentiores: οι λ΄ “with

|| 550 NGTD, 285. ‫) ̇ܗܘ ܕ‬. 551 See AppII (Deut 18.20): α΄ υπερηφανευσηται (+ dicere SH) M SHM ([ ] Cp. also Job 22.29. 552 Only MS 58oII reads η. 553 It is naturally a nifal 3rd sg in the reading tradition: nūda (Ben-Ḥayyim 1977: 117, 424). ST largely supports this vocalization: ‫ אתעכם‬JC; ‫ אתחכם‬BA; ‫ חכים‬E. Note, however, MS V producing ‫ נחכם‬which perhaps suggests either an unexpectedly defective Hebrew form, influence from Jewish Tgs (‫ נידע‬TgO PJ), or perhaps even Greek infiltration. 11Q19 (col. 61, ln. 2) reads ‫נדע‬. 554 1863: 262. See AppI: και 1°] > 509mx Aeth Bo. 555 NGTD, 305 and 285; See H-R, 169–70.

222 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

haughtiness” ‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ ܒ‬as in SHM.556 He explained GDeut’s decision: “… a word such as υπερηφανια [from 17.12] was not strong enough to characterize speaking a word which the Lord had not spoken … .”557 Logically, once the μόνον-passage adopted ασεβεω in v 21‫ה‬, it would have been only natural to continue the cribbing as here.558 ► ̇ / ελαλησεν αυτο : Why the μόνον-translator(s) finally decided to translate the suffixed pronoun ‫( דברו‬cp. above) is unknown. Influence from the GDeut parallel, while possible, is unlikely (see AppI). Perhaps this specific instance was deemed necessary for the sake of specifying it is the word (viz., that which the prophet claimed was spoken by the Lord, but was not) which is explicitly impious, as opposed to everything such a prophet might proclaim. But this is purely speculation. ►‫ܢ‬ ‫ ܬܬܪ‬/ αφεξεσθε : McCarthy rightly calls attention to the variation in verbal number, as well as the unique equivalent GDeut used here for ‫גור‬III.559 This is one of the passage’s most forceful septuagintisms.560 Unmistakably, the parallel guided lexical decisions, especially where Hebrew homonyms were involved (→ §2.3.2 at Exod 18.25‫ ;ב‬cp. → §2.3.1 at Exod 9.5‫ )ג‬and most often involves distance from Samaritan exegesis.561 Exod 20.21‫ח‬: ► ‫ ܐ ܘܢ‬/ υμεις and ‫ ̈ܒ ܐ‬/ τους οικους : Both are due solely to the parallel. Note Wevers’ description of GDeut’s handling of ‫לכם‬: “[LXX] found ‫ לכם‬awkward to translate and used an otiose υμεις to show its presence in the Hebrew.”562 Thus, in this verse the μόνον-translation reproduced both a GDeut calque as well as an Alexandrian modernization (τους οικους υμων ≠ ‫)לאהליכם‬, the latter of which obscured the nomadic life proper to the Hebrews’ context in the desert.563 Obviously, the translator(s) did not view rendering ‫אהל‬ || 556 I.e., υπερηφανια (CS, col. 128; see AppII); see PS 2.4292 and Rahlfs comments (1892: 23). 557 NGTD, 305. 558 Compare ST MSS each of which is basically synonymous: ‫“ בזידנו‬with rashness” J; ‫בעצפו‬ “with malice” A; ‫“ באתרשעו‬with insolence” B. 559 See McCarthy (BHQap): “The change to 2 pl. in [11Q19 col. 61.4], and in G [P] T[g], probably reflects an understanding that the implied death penalty will be executed by the community, not the individual.” (See also Wevers, NGTD, 306.) 560 There are some variants in SP Deut MSS, and one MT Deut MS (Kennicott’s MS 13), to which Ceriani earlier referred (1863: 262), reading with the plural. 11Q19 (col. 61, ln. 4) reads ‫תגורו‬. 561 Cp. ST: ‫“ תמור‬you shall [not] fear [him]” (MS J); ‫“ תמרע‬you shall [not] wither” (MS A); ‫( תבאת‬MS V) and ‫( בגת‬MS B) both “you shall [not] fear” (so Tal, DSA, s.v.). 562 NGTD, 109. 563 So Dogniez and Harl (BA 5.152). Wevers held that GDeut’s lexical choice was determined by contemporary concerns as tents in the Jewish quarter of Alexandria would be “an odd statement” (NGTD, 109).

Syriac Readings with Greek Reconstructions and Commentary | 223

‘tent’ with ‘house’ as inappropriate, especially as the recentiores supplied a more literal rendering.564 Exod 20.21‫ט‬: The cribbing of GDeut continues. ► ‫ܘܢ‬ / πασας : Presumably the GDeut MS(S) used by the μόνονtranslator(s) already contained the hexaplaric πασας.565 Certainly, he was capable of adding it, though his record of translating ‫ כל‬is spotty at best (see v 21‫ג‬ above, et al). Either explanation is possible. ► -‫̈ ܐ ܘ‬ / τας εντολας και : Both the plural and the following conjunction disagree with SP (both here and in SP Deut). The first understandably adheres to GDeut’s “correct” rendering, taking the Hebrew singular as a collective.566 As for the conjunction, the GDeut parallel influenced the μόνονtranslation’s prepositions and conjunctions. SP and ST MSS, furthermore, do not support any such variant. Perhaps possibly (a misreading of?) Samaritan script is partly responsible: ‫המצוה והחקים → המצוה החקים‬. ► ‫ ܒ ܐ‬/ εν κληρω : The use of εν κληρω “by lot/portion” for ‫( לרשתה‬or ‫“ )לרשת אתה‬to inherit it” is septuagintistic.567 This is particularly so in GDeut where repetition abounds and the phrase follows διδωμι 17 times.568 Wevers previously stated569 the word usually represents ‫ ירשה‬or ‫ ;נחלה‬however, in Deut 3.18, 5.31, and 12.1, it was used to render ‫לרשתה‬.570 Observe also that the Samaritan reading tradition vocalized alrišta (= ‫ ְל ִר ְש ָתּהּ‬in the MT parallel).571 Compare Exod 20.17‫ א‬above and Num 21.11‫ א‬below (→ §3.3.3). Attribution: See comments for the attribution at Exod 20.17‫ו–א‬.

|| 564 AppII: οικους υμων] σ΄ (+ in SH) σκηνας υμων 108b SH. 565 See AppI (τας εντολας); note the hexaplaric MSS are divided only in the word’s placement. In any case, the recentiores would have read πασας. 4Q158 cannot be determined (at 21‫)ט‬, though Zahn reconstructs with ‫( כל‬2011: 252). 566 Wevers, NGTD, 110. Compare also McCarthy’s comment (BHQap). 567 Wevers: “… in the context of God’s gift of land, the set idiom is simply εν κληρω” (NGTN, 568 [for ‫ לרשת אתה‬in Num 33.53]). 568 See Wevers’ list #56 (THGD, 99). 569 NGTD, 30. 570 NGTD, 60 and 206. Wevers did not list the instance in 5.31 nor comment on this ad loc (p. 110). He judged the majority variant εν κληρω at 19.14 to be ex par (p. 315; based on MS 848, p. 79; see AppI). 571 Ben-Ḥayyim 1977: 424 and 130; ST: ‫( למירתנה‬without variant).

224 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

2.4 (Syro)Hexaplaric Collation Notations with Commentary In addition to the μόνον-passages themselves, SHL also bears a number of collation annotations whereby the “Samaritan Hebrew ἔκδοσις” was compared to the hexaplaric text of the Seventy. These include notes discussing “omissions” and one, large-scale transposition.572

2.4.1 The Samaritan Text Transposes First examined is the notice stating that SP places the instructions to build the incense altar (Exod 26.35‫ )י–א‬in a location different from that in GExod. Exod 26.35‫י–א‬: The Incense Altar Transposition Notation SH (L fol. 84b lower mg ind

‫ܐ‬

̈ ‫ܒ ܐܒ ܒ‬

post v 35; > V → EXCURSUS B) ‫ ܘܬ ܒ‬35‫̇ܗܝ א‬ ‫ ܒ ܪ ܗ ܐ ܒ‬.‫ܐ‬

‫ܒ ܐܕ‬

|| 572 Omitted from the present analysis is the annotation at Exod 22.4(5; fol. 70a, top mg):

‫ ܗ‬: [ ] ‫ܡ ܕ ܐ ̇ܗܝ ܕܐܬܬܪ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܢ ܕܨ ̈ ܐ ̈ܐܬ ܐ‬

‫ܕ‬

. ̇ ‫ܐܪܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܐ‬ ‫ܗܘܐ ܒ ܒ ܐ ܀ ܗ‬

‫ ܐ‬.‫ܘܥ‬ ‫ܥ‬ ⨪ ‫ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܕܒ ܘ‬ ‫ܐ‬ .‫ܓܐ̈ܪܘ ܐ‬

“⨪ He shall certainly repay according to the field and its produce; with everything of the field which was fed upon.” This [sentence] was in the Hebrew, in a supplement; it is (transmitted) in some exemplars sub obeliscis. Ceriani believed that somehow a scribe had “incautiously omitted” ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܕ‬in the attribution/collation note (1863: 273). His suggestion is rejected here because it contradicts the chief criterion of the μόνον-readings (→ §1.3.2.2). (Also insisting this was part of the μόνον-collation, requires one to explain the translation’s departure from the G parallel.) Given the reading’s presence in wider Hebrew MSS (e.g., 4Q158, 4Q22, 4Q366, 4Q418 [frag. 172?]), assuming omission of τῶν Σαμαρειτῶν feels forced. Probably, it is a Theodotion (or Symmachus?) reading which lost its attribution; cp, e.g., the note for θ΄ at SH 4 Kgdms 2.24 (fol. 14b RH mg, ind at ‫)? ܐ‬. Kim (1994: 87, 149) holds this was mistakenly omitted by MT. That MT is in error here is not an uncommon opinion in modern scholarship (e.g., B. Childs 1974: 449; W. Propp 2006: 124; albeit one failing compete consensus see, e.g., C. Houtman 2000: 194–95). If so, then some (θ΄/σ΄ or θ΄σ΄) or all (οι λ΄ / οι γ΄) of the recentiores could have supplied it even if the first column did not, hence the obeli. Unfortunately, SHV lacks the reading. Compare the below regarding Origen’s treatment of Hebrew variants (→ §6.2.1, Origen’s Textual Praxis).

(Syro)Hexaplaric Collation Notations with Commentary | 225

‫ ܘܕܐ‬° ‫ ܕܐ ܐ ܐܘܪ ܐ‬35‫̈ ܐ ܐ ̈ܒ ܐ܆ ܘܬ ܒ ܗܝ ב‬ ‫ܕܒ ̈ ܐ‬ ̈ 29.46 ‫ܐ ܆ ܒ ܪ‬ ‫ ܗ ܕܐܦ ܗܪ ܐ ܒ ܪ ܗ‬.‫ ܕܐ̈ܪܒ ܓ ܬܗ‬° ‫ܐ‬ ̇ ‫ܐ ܐ ܐ ܕ ܘܢ܇‬ ‫ܐܪ ܐ ܕ ܪ ܇‬ ‫ܗܘ ܕܐ ܐ ܢ‬ ‫ܢ ܕܐ ܐ ܐ ܝ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ̇ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܀‬.‫ܘܐܗܘܐ ܐ ܐ ܕ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܕܐܬ ܐ‬

‫ܐ‬

Ceriani’s Retroversion and LT {with Field’s variations} ({Exemplar}ia) Hebraea {-aeum} Samaritanorum.573 Post ista {haec} est in eo (exemplari {>}) exinde a: 35‫ א‬και ποιησεις θυσιαστηριον θυμιατηριον574 θυμιαματος εκ ξυλον ασηπτων. και ποιησεις αυτο 35‫ ב‬πηχεως το μηκος °, και πηχεως το ευρος ° τετραγωνον [αυτου?]. Quae etiam hic {“[nempe in textu LXXvirali]”}575 post ista reperies, post 29.46 και γνωσονται, οτι εγω ειμι κυριος ο θεος αυτων, ο εξεγαγων αυτους εκ γης αιγυπτου, [οτι επικληθησομαι επ αυτους], και [εσομαι θεος αυτων]576. SP Exod 26.35‫( ב–א‬Exod 30.1–2…577) ⟨4Q22⟩ (DJD 9.113, see col. 30.2–13) ≠ MT ‫{ אמה‬30.2a} 35‫{ ועשית מזבח מקטיר קטרת עצי שטים תעשה אתו ב‬Ex 30.1} 35‫א‬ ... ‫ארכו ואמה רחבו רבוע יהיה‬ After this [v 35 in the Seventy] the Hebrew (copies, sic rd. copy, see notes) of the Samaritans reads from this (part): “26.35‫ א‬And you shall make an altar, aa censer fora incense, fromb cwood not liable to decay. Andb you shall make itc 26.35‫ב‬: a cubit longd and a cubit widee: ffour of its cornersf […].” You will find here also those which follow, after: “(Exod 29.46) And they shall know that I am the Lord their God; he who brought them from the land of Egypt. That I may be called upon them, and I will be their God.” a SP ST (see note): burning b > SP ST c-c SP ST: (…; with) acacia wood you shall make it. d SP ST: its length e SP ST: its width f SP ST: square it shall be

|| 573 Ceriani preferred the singular (“correcto ‫ ܒ ܐ‬in ‫ )” ܒ ܐ‬by comparison with ‫ ܨ ܐ‬in Exod 29.20 (1863: 304). There is no reason to interpret the plural as representing multiple SP exemplars used by the collator(s); cp. Ceriani at “SP Omits” Note for Exod 8.6–7 below (§2.4.2). 574 ‫ ܒ ܒ ̈ ܐ‬is rare; see PS 1.583 (≈ ‫ܐ‬ ‫[ ܒ ܬ ܒ‬1.550]) and Brockelmann-Sokoloff, Lexicon, s.v. Ceriani’s (1863: 304) retroversion θυμιατηριον is sound though SH Ezek 8.11 translates as SH Exod for ‫ ܣ ܬ‬at 30.1; cp. Hark Heb 9.4. See comment at 26.35‫א‬. θυμιατηριον with ‫ܐ‬ 575 Field 1.128, n. 28. 576 Ceriani and Field reproduce GExod’s επικληθηναι αυτοις and ειναι αυτων θεος here, respectively. According to Perkins the Greek inf. can be rendered either with the corresponding inf. or with -‫ ܕ‬+ imperf (1980: 290–95). Either retroversion is then possible. Note, however, that SH Exod 29.46 itself reads differently:

‫ܐ ↘ ܐ ܐ ܕ ܘܢ ܀‬ ※ ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܘܢ ܘ‬ ... 577 The reading is abbreviated. Use of και οι λοιποι /‫ܕ ܐ‬ ‫( ܘܗ‬or similar) would have been clearer (cp. Exod 6.9‫ א‬at attribution); v 35‫ ב‬is obviously incomplete.

226 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

Exod 26.35‫י–א‬: The incense altar notice is important578 in that in addition to the collation annotation, it also supplied some of the Samaritan passage. This too, however, despite its brevity, contains the septuagintism typical of the μόνονpassages. Attribution: The reading is sandwiched between two halves of the attribution (→ §4.3.2 at Deut 10.6–6‫–א‬7–7‫–א‬6, Jacob’s attribution), producing the following form: 1) Source at variance with GExod; 2) present variant location; 3) abbreviated reading; 4) location of reading in GExod, demarcated by the verse just previous to the proper GExod placement. It is odd that the Caesarean collator(s), after having filled the margins with so much repetitious text, would have contracted this one. Perhaps the reading was abridged because of the somewhat cumbersome attribution note, thankfully no longer required with modern versification schemes.579 ► ‫ ܒ‬: Ceriani interpreted this as shorthand for ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬.580 Generally when ̇ ‫ ܨ ܐ‬is intended in the μόνον-attributions, ‫ ܒ ܘ‬obtains as in those in SH Num (→ §3.3.2 at Num 10.10‫ג–א‬, attrib.). Probably, by analogy of the colophons in SH Dan and MS 88 (cp. also Isa CODEX Q), ‫ܒ‬ ‫ ܐ‬should represent εχον (→ APPENDIX). Thus, the Syriac likely stands for το εβραιον (sc. αντιγραφον?) των Σαμαρειτων μετ τα(υτα?) εχον εξ της … or something similar. Ceriani’s supposition of ‫ ܨ ܐ‬from ‫ ܒ‬is not necessary (though it may be implied by ‫) ܒ ܐ‬, and thus Field is more accurate on this point. The data from SH Exod never refer to Samaritan materials with ‫ ܨ ܐ‬/ ἀντίγραφον,581 although the collation, attribution, and colophonic materials collectively in Num (→ §3.3.1 at Num 13.33‫ו–א‬, attribution) and Deut (→ §4.3.2–4) regularly do. Samaritan reading: As Ceriani582 earlier observed, the Samaritan passage is peppered with septuagintism.

|| 578 For the use of this passage in criticisms of Gesenius’ theory regarding the relationship between G, MT, and SP, see Kim (1994: 16, 150; earlier Wiener 1911: 217). 579 Was this a decision made by the original collator(s) or later scribes? (See below discussion → §2.6.) Strictly speaking, no Samaritan readings are provided in SH’s branch of the hexaplaric tradition after the Decalogue, excepting this verse and a half. 580 1863: 304. 581 Ceriani thought that the note at Exod 22.4(5, see above n. 572) was part of the Samaritan collation. As the collation scholion there uses ‫ܨ ܐ‬, that possibly led him to his interpretation. 582 1863: 304.

(Syro)Hexaplaric Collation Notations with Commentary | 227

► ‫ ܒ ܒ ̈ ܐ‬/ θυμιατηριον (35‫)א‬: The reading is at variance with the Samaritan Hebrew, as confirmed by the Samaritan reading tradition as well as ST. The μόνον-translation reads “and you shall make an altar, a censer of incense”; however, SP’s is a hifil ptc. ‫( ַמ ְק ִטיר‬måqṭər),583 viz., “an altar burning incense.”584 Since the GExod parallel was insufficient to provide this, one of the recentiores was surely consulted, explaining the agreement with MT’s ‫“ ִמ ְק ַטר‬incense altar (n.).”585 In light of the μόνον-translation’s occasional reflection of hexaplaric data, e.g., Exod 23.19‫§ →( א‬2.5.1) et al, Theodotion’s reading was adopted, perhaps formally given the apparent quantitative variation between GExod and SP/MT here. The use of a different Syriac equivalent in Exod 30.1 for θυμιατηριον need not cast significant doubt586 on this analysis. ► / εκ (35‫)א‬: As before, prepositions often come directly from the G parallel. ► ‫ ܘܬ ܒ ܗܝ‬/ και ποιησεις (35‫)א‬: The Syriac punctuation makes clear that the μόνον-translation, in agreement with the GExod parallel, construed ‫תעשה‬ ‫ אתו‬as introducing the next verse (≠ SP, MT parallel).587 As such, και is unrepresented in MT/SP. ► ° ‫ ܐܘܪ ܐ‬/ το μηκος ° and ° ‫ܐ‬ / το ευρος ° (35‫)ב‬: Both pronouns are missing; this too is septuagintistic. The first may have been missed via parablepsis, but this could hardly have happened twice by accident. The MS evidence shows the hexaplaric text added both of the missing αυτου’s—something

|| 583 Ben-Ḥayyim 1977: 430, 247; also T-F, 681. Note that many SP MSS read defectively with MT; von Gall, who was widely criticized for adopting readings in SP MSS which agreed with MT’s spelling (thus, e.g., Tov, TCHB3, 78, and many others), adopted the defective reading for his edition (see ad loc). 584 See ST MSS: ‫( מדבח מועדה אועדו‬J; ‫ מתואד אועדו‬A) “an altar of the burning of incense” (so Tal, DSA, ‫)יעד‬. Further variants: ‫( מועד ]מועדה‬VC); ‫( מועאד‬B); ‫( מתועד‬N); but cp. ‫( מועדו‬E). Tal defines the latter as “incense” (DSA, s.v.). 585 See the hexaplaric tradition’s strong support of θυμιατηριον; see AppI II: θυσιαστήριον] θυμιατηριον αγιον 72O; + (※ 344 Armmss SH; + ※ 85) θυμιατηριον (θυσιαστ. 85*; θυμηατ. 376) ‫ ܕ‬.‫“ ܐ‬of inMmg 376O … 85-343′s Latcod 100 Arm SH = M. Observe that Aquila’s reading (‫ܐ‬ cense”) differs from the μόνον-translation (Wevers, NGTE, 489; Field 1.137, n. 2). For the Aquilan reading, some form of -θυμιαμασις seems required (PS 2.2864). 586 Perhaps the variation could be explained as θυμιατήριον is rare in G. Assuming Paul of Tella began with Genesis and proceeded (roughly) in canonical order, this would be the first such instance of the word, even before the first in-text occurrence (hexaplarically speaking) at Exod 30.1 (n. 574). The more “Semitic” ‫ ܒ ܒ ̈ ܐ‬was adopted here, and then a more formal, i.e., one Syriac word for one Greek word, approach was adopted for those later instances. 587 Wevers held this as a translational decision made to give v 2 a verb (NGTE, 489; also Le Boulluec and Sandevoir, BA 2.305).

228 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

the translator(s) did not adopt, despite use of the hexaplaric equivalency for ‫מקטיר‬.588 If the procedure hypothesized below for the μόνον-collation is upheld (→ §4.4.1), then the layout of the Hexapla Maior with respect to Hebrew bound pronouns, likely explains the omissions. ̈ ► ° ‫ ܐ̈ܪܒ ܓ ܬܗ‬/ τετραγωνον ° (35‫)ב‬: Field represented the end of the reading with an ellipsis (τετραγωνον …),589 implying the passage was truncated purposefully. As Ceriani observed, little Hebrew evidence supports the absence ̈ of ‫יהיה‬.590 The second half of the attribution immediately following ‫ܓ ܬܗ‬ supports Field’s presentation. The GExod anchor: Lastly, there is the verse indicating the location where the corresponding μόνον-passage is found in GExod proper. Ceriani pointed out the discrepancy between the text of the note and GExod 29.46 itself.591 No known variant for v 46 equates the Syriac (see AppI). There seems to have been a blending of GExod’s 29.45’s verbal forms with v 46—a bizarre commixture. It is perhaps best viewed as a confused fusion of vv 45 and 46 by subsequent scribe(s) and not a proper textual representation of GExod 29.45.

2.4.2 The Samaritan Pentateuch “Omits”

‫ ܒ ܐ ܕ‬, there In addition to the annotation indicating a transposition in ‫ܐ‬ are two other collation notes in SHL which describe occasions where the SP “lacks” a given portion of text. The “SP Omits” Notation at Exod 29.20 SH592 (L fol. 93b RH mg, encircled; > V → EXCURSUS B); cf. MT 29.21 // SP 29.28‫)א‬

‫ܐ܀‬

‫ܒ ܒ ܐܕ‬

̈ ‫ܕܐ‬

Ceriani’s Retroversion (> Field)

̇

‫ܓܐ̈ܪܘ ܐ ܒ ܒ ܐ܆ ܐ‬

‫ܕ‬

‫ܗ‬

593

|| 588 See AppI II. The pronouns were adopted in-text in SH’s exemplar. 589 1.128. The seyame is perhaps extraneous here (PS 1.684). SH also transliterated the form (e.g., Exod 28.16; 30.2). 590 1863: 304; he noted only two Kennicott MSS (181 and 294) lack ‫ יהיה‬in Exod 30.2. Von Gall records two MSS missing ‫יהיה‬, one of which records it in the margin (see ad loc). 591 1863: 304. 592 Ceriani’s edition very accurately depicts the layout (1863: 323). 593 The editions vary on whether or not this scholion is reported. Ceriani (1873: 323), de Lagarde (1892: 84, n. 20), and Brooke-McLean (1/2.254) all report the notation, while Field

(Syro)Hexaplaric Collation Notations with Commentary | 229

[(ταυ)τα]594 ωβελισμενα εν τω εβραικω, ως μεν595 μη κειμενα εν τω των σαμαρειτων εβραικω fol. 93b, referenced running text:

.‫ܐ‬

‫ܘܢ ܕ‬

‫̈ܪ ܐ ܕܐ ̈ ܐ ܕ‬

‫ ܘ‬.‫ܐ‬

̈ ̈ ‫ܕܐܕ ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܕܒ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫⨪ܘ‬ ↘ .‫ܐ‬ ‫̈ܪ ܐ ܕ̈ܪܓ ܐ ܕ ܘܢ ܕ‬ ‫ܘ‬

This has obeli set upon it in “the Hebrew,” since it is indeed not extant in the Hebrew of the Samaritans. To what portion of Exod 29 does the annotation apply? Previously Ceriani explained the scholion by theorizing that the notation originally did not apply to the portion of v 20 to which it is aligned; rather he argued that it may have meant to designate the SP’s lacking v 21, which a later scribe confused due to the note’s mention of ‫ܓܐ̈ܪܘ ܐ‬.596 However, his reconstruction is problematic for the following reasons: ► Verse 21 is not missing in the SP—the verse is transposed, being Exod 29.28‫א‬.597 Since the hexaplaric method of marking transposition is known from the notation concerning the incense altar (i.e., Exod 26.35‫י–א‬, occurring before this note in the MS), if v 21 was that which the Caesarean collator(s) meant to ̈ ‫ ܐ‬, the notation should not only have been indicate as ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܒ ܐܕ‬ differently expressed, but also probably598 ought to have been in the margins at 20.29, a folio later, where the verse is actually located in SP. ► This is not the first “SP Omits” annotation; the first occurs at Exod 8.6–7 (10–11). There the range of the passage SP lacks (in comparison with GExod) is denoted by unique in-text markers (‫“ ܨ ܒܐ‬a cross”). However, the present annotation is missing any special marks precisely describing the extent to which the SP omits. Furthermore, the ‫( ܓܐ̈ܪܘ ܐ‬mentioned in both notes) meant to define the limits of SP’s omission are not present in the running text of 8.6–7. Presumably, scribes understood this and made no effort to supply them or move the note to the nearest location already sub ⨪.

|| (1.136) and Wevers’ AppII omit. Field and Wevers’ omission is strange given their inclusion of the same at Exod 8.6–7 (10–11). 594 Omitted by Ceriani; cp. with above attribution reconstructions and notes there. 595 On -‫̇ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬, see Nöld. Gram. §364a and PS 1.146. 596 1863: 323. 597 Sanderson is confident that 4Q22 also witnesses this order; see her analysis of col. 34 (DJD 9.118). 598 Would the note have occurred at the place where Samaritan reading is located, or the corresponding GExod location, if the latter came first in the running text? As there is only one μόνον-transposition, the methodology of the collator(s) cannot be verified.

230 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

► When the already established transposition and omission collation notes are compared, only that which alerts the user of the MS to an omission, states that text is “missing” or “not there.” The form of the transposition note does not state SP is “missing” anything—it only transposes. Thus, as the evidence stands, there is nothing to suggest that the text of vv 21 or 28‫ א‬was the subject of the note.599 Therefore, the question remains: If the present annotation, like that at Exod 8.6–7 (10–11) before it, meant to denote a Samaritan “omission,” why was the omitted text not explicitly demarcated as before? Why would the hexaplaric collator(s) change the already established method of marking the text? In reality, anyone reading the hexaplaric text is in fact reading two texts continuously juxtaposed, with which several other ἐκδόσεις were collated/annotated. One of these ἐκδόσεις in (SH) Exod was the Hebrew SP. As a result, when there is any ambiguity, the annotation should be viewed within its immediate context as it concerns the constructed hexaplaric text. For, the Samaritan collation was secondary, i.e., added on top of an already established hexaplaric text, as the SH Exod subscription explains (→ §2.2). Thus, the text of 29.20 must be unknotted before the adjoining μόνον-note can be clarified. Wevers believed Origen was “somewhat lost” with respect to the first part of the verse: He placed the entire section about the sons under the obelus, i.e., as not being in the Hebrew. Then he tried to fix up the extra text dealing with Aaron by adding additions. … What he should have done is to have placed του 3°… δεξιου 2° under the obelus, and nothing more.600

While Wevers’ criticism is fair (the hexaplaric reading here is cumbersome), the text as it stands can still be understood with reference to Origen’s expressed purposes and modus operandi, viz., 1) “to heal” the Septuagint with the aid of the recentiores in order to approximate “the Hebrew” and 2) to never omit any of the

|| 599 Ceriani’s attempt to explain the annotation came from the difficulty of the phrase ‫ܓܐ̈ܪܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܒ ܐ‬. How could an obelus ‫ ÷( ܓܐܪܘ ܐ‬/ ⨪) be “in the Hebrew”? Such would contradict the very character of the siglum in typical hexaplaric use. He suggested, in conjunction with his hypothesis that the note originally applied to v 21, that the MT and SP were collated against each other, and in this comparison, the MT was marked with ⨪ where MT > SP. This meaning cannot apply here as the annotation applies to v 20 only, for the text sub ⨪, itself = G ≠ MT(!). Ceriani’s hypothesis, including the mention of ‫ܓܐܪܘ ܐ‬, will be addressed in full below at Exod 8.6–7 (10–11). 600 NGTE, 474.

(Syro)Hexaplaric Collation Notations with Commentary | 231

G text as he received it.601 When Origen came to Exod 29.20, he surely took note of the divergent traditions GExod and MT transmitted. His duty and expressed goal, however, was to preserve both. This resulted, according to SH Exod, in a double reading (underline = MT only; bold = G only; my ET here is meant to “mirror” SH’s specific word order; see fols. 93a–b): And you will slay it, the ram; and you will take from the blood of it, and you will put (it) upon the lobe of the ear of Aaron. ※[θ΄]And upon the lobe of the ear of the sons of his,↙ the right. And upon the thumb [mg: ακρον] of the hand ※[εβρ.]of them,↙ the right. And upon the big | toe ※of them,↙ the right. ⨪And upon the lobes of the sons of his, the right. And upon the thumbs of hands of theirs, the right. And upon the big toes of theirs, the right.↙ ※[θ΄]And you shall dash the blood upon the altar all around.↙

What must be kept in mind is that the Caesarean ἔκδοσις was meant to be an edition of G which comparatively represented “the Hebrew” and G as much as possible. Assuming the user of the MS understood the sigla, this goal was accomplished. If the reader wanted to know only how the Seventy read (or “the Hebrew”), omitting all words sub ※ (or ⨪) would reveal as much. Yet the SH Exod colophon states there was another, further collation—one with SP. And when the collator(s) responsible came across this verse, the Samaritan text was diligently, quantitatively compared with the running text of the already established hexaplaric edition of the Seventy (see ln. 5 of the colophon → §2.2). As a result, all text sub ⨪ would be “lacking” in SP, because SP agrees with MT for v 20. This meant that the Caesarean collator(s) had a ready-made demarcation within v 20 to which he could attach his collation note. Thus, the specially made distinction (‫ܒܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ) ܨ ܒܐ‬from the “SP Omits” note at 8.6–7 (10–11) was not supplied because it was not required: the hexaplaric text already had a built-in system upon which to “piggyback.” Why this particular sub ⨪ section would be compared with SP as such is difficult to determine. It must be stressed that sub ⨪ portions of the running hexaplaric text are not meant to indicate any information vis-à-vis SP (e.g., ↘‫ ⨪ ܒ ܐ‬at Exod 1.22, ↘‫ܢ‬ ‫ ⨪ܒ ܬܗ ܕ‬at 2.6, and ↘‫ ⨪ܘܕܓ ܓ ܐ‬at 3.8, all which agree with SP). Perhaps the collator(s) sought to avoid confusion should an attentive reader presume that the repetitious or expansive nature of SP (i.e., as in the Plague Narrative and Decalogue) extended into the latter part of the

|| 601 Of course that Origen specifically edited this part of the text in Exod is an assumption. Though his mention of the complexities in GExod in his Ep. ad Africanum (SC 302, §7; PG 11.57, §4) does support the notion he was ultimately responsible for at least the basic reading of the running text (→ §6.2).

232 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

book. Alarmingly, the present interpretation of the note ostensibly violates the μόνον-typology. However, this annotation does not make the same claims the attribution notes do—the annotation does not claim SP “only” omits this portion of text. For discussion on the relationship between these collation notes and the μόνον-collation and translation process, see further below (→ §4.4.1). Even more opaque is how the transposition in Exod 20.21 / 28‫ א‬was seemingly ignored given it follows immediately after v 20. Unquestionably, there were more μόνον-type eligible passages than the extant SH branch of the hexaplaric tradition records (→ §§2.5; 2.6). One wonders whether or not scribes would have bothered to faithfully transmit all of the μόνον-texts and collation notes given the complex chain of transmission and collation leading up to the Vorlage of SH Exod (→ §2.2). Perhaps, the transposition annotation regarding the incense altar was viewed as more worthy of transmission than that recording the transposition of a verse describing further sprinkling of blood and anointing with oil, especially as SP’s location is in the same chapter. The “SP Omits” Notation at Exod 8.6–7(10–11) SH (L fol. 28a LH mg ind ※; V fol. 26a LH mg ind ☩) ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܠ ܕ ܒ ̈ܪܢ ܒ ̇ ܝ ܕ‬ V s sey. SH ]‫ܐ ܒ ܒ‬

‫܆‬

‫ܒܐ܆ ܒ ܒ ܐ ܓܐ̈ܪܘ ܐ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܨ ܒܐ‬

Ceriani’s LT {Field’s variations} A cruce usque {>} ad crucem in Hebraeis (exemplaribus?) obeli superponuntur eis, quia desunt in eo (textu) {in editione} Samaritanorum corresponding running text, vv 6–8 (10–11) ... ※602 8.8 ‫ ܀‬. ‫ ܒ ܡ ܒ ܪܐ‬... ‫ ܐ‬8.6 ※ ‫ܗܘ ܕ‬ From the (one) cross until the (other) cross, in the Hebrew [sg., read w/ SHV] obeli are set upon (the text), since it is omitted (or: lacking) in the [edition] of the Samaritans. Ceriani discussed the annotation and its implications at length.603 Two elements prompted evaluation: 1) the mention of two “crosses” ‫ ;ܨ ܒܐ‬and 2) the idea that there could be obeli (!) “in the Hebrew” ‫ܒ ܒ ܐ ܓ ܐ̈ܪܘ ܐ‬. The latter is of interest as it relates to the history of the μόνον-passages and the collation from which they were drawn (→ §4.4.1).

|| 602 SHV places an ind marker ☩ before the påsôqå. De Lagarde added crosses to his text (1892: 58, nn. 6 and 8). 603 1863: 166.

(Syro)Hexaplaric Collation Notations with Commentary | 233

► What does ‫ ܨ ܒܐ‬mean? Ceriani held the cross ‫ ܨ ܒܐ‬corresponded to the stray asterisks present in the MS just previous to vv 6 and 8 (10 and 12). This, he stated, was exceptional, for SH describes the asterisk as ‫ܣ‬ ‫( ܐ‬trans604 605 literated) and ‫ܒ ܐ‬ (“little star”) but never ‫ ;ܨ ܒܐ‬he blamed an amanuensis for the alteration, stating he must have erred in changing the cross into an asterisk.606 Indeed, SH MSS are peppered with various indexing sigla including small crosses. And the circumstances under which the present markers had been altered are unclear. One is tempted to propose that during the course of transmission, perhaps a scribe was influenced by the constant association between the μόνον-passages and the (albeit marginal) asterisk throughout the Plague Narrative. Surely, the alteration must have been intentional. ► Why/how are there ‫“ ܓܐ̈ܪܘ ܐ‬in the Hebrew”? Most disconcerting in this note, as with the notice at Exod 29.20 above, is that the annotation ostensibly claims that obeli were placed in “the Hebrew”! How is this so, if the usual hexaplaric rubric for the obelus (÷/⨪/―)—ubiquitous throughout the whole of the hexaplaric text—indicated readings exclusive to the Seventy? In response Ceriani formulated a clever hypothesis: the hexaplaric sigla usually applied to “the Hebrew” vis-à-vis “the Seventy” were “adapted” for the purpose of juxtaposing “the Hebrew” (i.e., the MT) vis-à-vis the SP (cp. Voss, → §1.2.1.1). Thus, the repurposed asterisks and obeli represented Samaritan passages exceeding MT (“Hebraeus”) sub ※, while those elements lacking in the SP were marked sub obelo “in Hebraeo textu.” He admitted this process could have taken place at any stage of the hexaplaric endeavor, be it in the Hebrew column of the Hexapla Maior, Secunda, “sive horum recensorem Eusebium,” though his discussion favored the first.607 This process, Ceriani held, was reflected in the μόνονcollations integrated into the SH texts of Exod, Num,608 and Deut—but especially here and at Exod 29.20. There is however evidence from the Samaritan texts in SH Deut which militate against Ceriani’s theory vis-à-vis the obelus. Specifically, the μόνονpassages recorded at Deut 10.6–6‫–א‬7–7‫–א‬6 (recoverable jointly from JDeut and SHV → §§4.3.1–2) and Deut 34.(1b–)1‫–א‬2 (thus SHM → 4.3.2) both make mention || 604 E.g., the annotation at SH Jer 34.15 (27.18). 605 See the collation note at SHL Exod 23.22 (fol. 75a; see AppII), and at 25.16(18) (fol. 79b). 606 1863: 167. 607 1863: 167. Ceriani was clearly unaware of the SH Num colophon which indicates the latter. 608 Ceriani recognized his theory’s biggest issue—that SH Num records the μόνον-passages sub (→ §4.4.2). He blamed the inconsistency on scribal error (1863: 167). While “scribal corruption” is perhaps too facile an explanation, in defense of Ceriani, MS 344, which records two μόνον-passages sub ※ in Num (→ §3.3.3), would later surface suggesting as much.

234 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

of “obeli,” the former case specifying such “in the Hebrew”609 in reference, not to an omitted passage,610 but rather a large-scale variant reading from SP which is both qualitative and quantitative. Thus, the use of the “obeli” need not apply to an omission only, but may indeed refer to an alternative reading for a particular length of a given passage.611 Thus, the obelus was used in the μόνον-collation for both omissions and qualitatively significant replacement text vis-à-vis GPent. Despite this proviso, the notion that said marks are ‫ ܒ ܒ ܐ‬seems odd. What does ‫ ܒ ܒ ܐ‬mean in this context? Ceriani proposed that perhaps SHL’s plural ‫( ܒ ܒ ܐ‬contra SHV, which is preferable) stood for a two-fold Hebrew source, “one Hebrew, (and) another in Greek [Secunda?] … both of which were in the Hexapla [Maior].”612 This is possible, but unlikely and certainly not the only way of construing the data. Undoubtedly his suggestion requires a Samaritan column; using any such siglum in the first column of the Hexapla Maior without supplying the corresponding Samaritan Hebrew, also marked with the complementary sigla, would have been confusing. It bears pointing out that no evidence supports the presence of a Samaritan column in the Hexpla Maior; unless it had been included in the original product, it would have been very difficult and enormously cumbersome to add SP to the massive synopsis (→ §6.1). Further, none of the μόνον-annotations require such an interpretation— indeed the note at 29.20 completely contradicts it.613 There “the Hebrew (= col. 1)” cannot have been “obelized” because the LXX text, according to the hexaplaric siglum, alone transmits the sentence in question. But most importantly, the colophons suggest that “Hebrew” in the context of these data refers to the quantitative nature of the collation of SP against the hexaplaric LXX (→ §2.2, ln. 5). Undoubtedly, ‫ ܒ ܒ ܐ‬then in these “SP Omits” notations is best understood as referring to the source collation itself from which the μόνον-data, having been quantitatively compared, was then taken (→ §4.4.1). When Eusebius (and/or

|| 609 Technically, only the attribution for the Samaritan Itinerary explicitly states this. That at Deut 34 does, however, mention obeli, and in any case, Masius only described the note as opposed to quoting it so one cannot be absolutely certain. 610 There is however omission-like language in the collation note accompanying the Samaritan Itinerary (Deut 10.6–6‫–א‬7–7‫–א‬6) as extant in SHV. However, Jacob’s presentation shows that SHV’s annotation is incomplete. 611 Masius’ description (CS col. 285) of SHM at Deut 34.1b–1‫–א‬2 probably mislead Ceriani. While technically v 3 is “missing” in SP, the character of the reading can hardly be described as only an omission (→ §4.3.2). For a comparative case, see above n. 572. 612 “… imo duplicem fortasse Hebraeum, unum Hebraeis literis, alterum Graecis … uterque in Hexaplis erant” (1863: 167–68). But why would these sigla be placed in both columns? 613 This is, of course, why Ceriani argued the notation there had suffered scribal corruption.

Greek-only μόνον-Type Evidence | 235

student[s]?) added the data to his edition (→ §3.2), he probably assumed the use of the asterisk in the margins as self-explanatory, but rightly did not reproduce or otherwise represent the “obeli” as used in the separate Samaritan collation materials so as to avoid confusion with the regular usage of the siglum. For further analysis on this point, see the reconstruction below (→ §§4.4.1–2; 6.1). ► What textual value does the note have? Later scholars, with the exception of de Lagarde and Brooke-McLean,614 have referenced Ceriani’s interpretation of the present case.615 Ceriani asserted that while no SP MS (known in his time) read as such, two Masoretic MSS from Kennicott’s collations616 exhibited the omission of vv 6–7 via homoioteleuton; he suggested that perhaps a similar error obtained in the present case.617 Most recently, Pummer interpreted the situation as a mistake on the part of the collators who misread their Vorlage.618 When compared with modern SP collations, there is at least one extant MS which displays this very, haplographic error, corrected interlinearly by a second hand.619 Therefore, it is certainly possible that the Samaritan MS used in the Caesarean μόνον-collation did contain this error (→ §7.1.1).

2.5 Greek-only μόνον-Type Evidence In addition to those found in the margins of SH, there are some scattered passages, reading in agreement with SP, which were at some point integrated into the running text of select Greek MSS. Though these readings lack attribution, they can be confidently ascribed to the same Caesarea-based, Greek hexaplaric activity which produced the attributed Samaritan readings in SH (→ §1.3). This supposition is based not only on their concord with μόνον-typology (i.e., septuagintism, lack of Samaritan exegesis), but also on the fact that the readings are primarily transmitted by hexaplaric witnesses.

|| 614 Br.-M. merely note: “10, 11 om ed. Sam. S” (1/2.177). 615 See Wevers’ AppII. 616 The MSS (Kenn 2 and 75) were not listed by Ceriani. 617 1863: 167. 618 1998: 305. 619 Thus von Gall; see his AppI: “6 et 7 om G1* (int. l. s. m. vid).” Schorch differs judging this interlinear insertion as added by the original scribe (private communication, Nov, 2022).

236 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

Table 2.5: Summary of Unattributed μόνον-Type Readings in GExod MSS

Samaritan reading

MS(S)

Parallel

Exod 3.22+

58O (partially)

Exod 11.2

Exod 23.19‫א‬

58-767O

? cp. Deut 14.20(21) (some MSS)

Exod 27.19‫ א‬4Q22

58O 707oII f−56txt 527y

Exod 32.10‫ א‬4Q22

O

58-767 318

y

→ §2.5.2 ad loc Deut 9.20

Of course there is not always a direct relationship between the marginalia of a MS and its text-type. MSS of various groups often incorporated hexaplaric readings in their margins (e.g., the C or s-groups) without having a genetic relationship to the Caesarean text. The same can also be said of the reverse, viz., just because a MS’ running text is hexaplaric does not then mean that its marginalia need be hexaplaric (or exist at all, cp. CODEX G). Scribal sources for marginalia varied and became more complex with the passage and vicissitudes of time and circumstance. Nevertheless, the below argues these passages can be confidently restored to the original μόνον-collation even if their present textual state has been affected by subsequent scribal activity. Before detailing specifics for each reading, several facts may be observed based on the data presented in Table 2.5: 1) The typology of these readings clearly aligns with the μόνον-collation as illustrated by those in SH’s exemplar(s). Namely, the passage in question may be defined as a “plus” to which G does not attest but is “only in SP.” 2) MSS 58 and 767 each exhibit an unattributed, integrated μόνον-passage in Num (→ §3.3.2); both of these are also found attributed in the margin of SH. 3) 767 is the sole surviving Greek MS transmitting (integrated) μόνον-readings in each of Exod, Num, and Deut—a phenomenon paralleling only that of the margin of SH’s exemplar(s). (JPent’s are mostly integrated and taken from SH; → §5.) Each of 767’s μόνον-passages in Num (→ §3.3.2) and Deut (→ §4.3) correspond to the same in SH (the latter reading is restored via JDeut). This construal of the data is much more straightforward than what was earlier proposed by Kahle (→ §1.2.3.3, B). Aside from his theory’s unfounded presumptions, the collation data for the MSS in question is now much more complete due to the research undertaken by the Göttingen Septuaginta-Unternehmen. As a result, the pedigrees of the important MSS in this section have been identified, and they are all bearers of the hexaplaric legacy.

Greek-only μόνον-Type Evidence | 237

2.5.1 Samaritan Pentateuch Snippets in Other Hexaplaric Witnesses The first two readings listed are found exclusively in hexaplaric MSS. Exod 3.22+: “… and every man his neighbor …” 58O (in-text and unattributed) 22 αλλα αιτησει 22+ ανηρ παρα του πλησιον αυτου 22 και γυνη παρα γειτονος και συσκηνου αυτης σκευη αργυρα και χρυσα και ιματισμον, και επιθησετε επι τους υιους υμων και επι τας θυγατερας, και σκυλευσετε τους Αιγυπτιους. SP Exod 3.22+ (cf. Exod 11.2; → §3.3.2 at Num 21.24+) ≠ MT ‫ משכינתה‬22 ‫ מאת רעותה‬22+ ‫ ואשה‬22 ‫ איש מאת רעהו‬22+ ‫ ושאל‬22

‫ומגירת ביתה כלי כסף וכלי זהב ושמלות ושמתם על בניכם ועל בנתיכם ונצלתם את‬ ‫מצרים‬ 22 but (each) shall ask, 22+ a man from his neighbor 22 and a womana from her cohabitant and tent-mate, (for) vessels of silver and gold and clothing, and you will set (them) upon your sons and daughters and you will plunder the Egyptians a

SP ST: + from her neighbor

Exod 3.22+: This particular integrated segment prompted one of Wevers’ few comments regarding SP readings in G MSS. After briefly describing the addition, he pronounced: “[A] stemmatic connection between MS 58 and [SP] is, however, most unlikely.”620 Notwithstanding Wevers’ assessment, the following will attempt to illustrate that while Wevers’ judgment is strictly correct, a connection between the SP and 58 can be established, indirectly, via the hexaplaric, Caesarean μόνον-collation. The reading itself presents a few philological issues and compares well to the overall μόνον-typology. (For a profile of MS 58 → §5.3.2.) ► Why is 22+ incomplete? The reading in 58 represents only a part of the quantitative variation between SP and GExod, viz. ‫ מאת רעותה‬is absent. Presumably, the original passage read ανηρ παρα του πλησιον αυτου και γυνη παρα της πλησιον αυτης (ind at in-text αιτησει) along with an attribution formula. Yet, it would appear that 58’s ancestor MS621 integrated only the first part of this reconstructed reading, an act all the more odd when compared with those other μόνον-integrations the MS preserves at Exod 23.19‫א‬, 32.10‫א‬, and Num 21.24+ (→

|| 620 NGTE, 38–39. 621 The haplography in 58 at Exod 23.19‫( א‬see below) makes it more likely the integration occurred before 58 itself was copied.

238 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

§3.3.2), each of which were provided in full, as well as that at Exod 27.19‫א‬, where 58 further interpolated the μόνον-reading with glosses taken from the recentiores. In this case, either a) the scribe responsible for the integration intentionally added only that part which was conceptually lacking, reckoning της πλησιον αυτης as more or less equivalent to γειτονος και συσκηνου αυτης;622 or b) the passage had been integrated in full in 58’s Vorlage, and the scribe of 58 himself committed an haplography (παρα ∩ παρα): … [22] και γυνη [22+] παρα της πλησιον αυτης [22] παρα γειτονος … .623 ► ανηρ : In view of the septuagintism of the μόνον-type, 58’s ανηρ appears overly literal (cp. typical “καιγε” practice). In accordance with the parallel at 11.2, εκαστος ought to have been used as it occurs in all GExod MSS together with γυνη. The μόνον-translator(s) here probably desired to juxtapose male and female, as does SP, perhaps in parallel with “sons and daughters” later in the verse. Thus, the use of ανηρ in 3.22+ need not militate against the septuagintism which ubiquitously characterizes the μόνον-group. After all, ‫ אישׁ‬was one of the Hebrew words commonly known amongst Christians, as Eusebius himself showed (P.E. 11.6.14–20; → §6.2).624 Thus, this clearly represents a further limit to the translator’(s) septuagintism as evidence indicates elsewhere. ► Relation to the σαμ΄ passages : Lastly, it should be stressed that while an hexaplaric source presently preserves this reading, the exegetically distinctive— and fundamentally more meaningful—σαμ΄-reading from this same verse, found in Christian sources elsewhere, is nowhere to be found in hexaplaric sources (→ §§1.2.3.9; 1.3.1.1). Exod 23.19‫א‬: “…a kid in its mother’s milk, for one doing so …” (Sam. location) 58-767O (in-text and unattributed; > SH, cp. below) 19 τας απαρχας των πρωτογενηματων της γης σου (> 767) εισοισεις εις τον οικον κυριου του θεου σου. ⸋ουχ (ουκ 767) εψησεις αρνα εν γαλακτι μητρος αυτου.⸌ (⸋ 58: -ου ∩ -ου) 19‫ א‬οτι ο ποιων τοιαυτην (-τας 767) θυσιαν (-ας 767) μισος και παραβασις εστιν τω θεω ιακωβ. SP Exod 23.19‫ ;?( א‬cf. Deut 14.20[21]; cp. Exod 34.26) 4QMMT?625 ≠ MT

|| 622 As Tov as recently remarked, the reading in SP “creates a tautology” (2017: 13). 623 Again, compare 58 at Exod 23.19‫א‬. 624 See Kantor’s analysis of the passage (forthcoming, B.II.3.3.2, with Greek and ET). 625 Teeter believes the text referred to as the authority for the halakhic discussion there reflects one with the addition “… or at least some form of it” (2009: 62; see 38–40 [transcription and translation] and 63).

Greek-only μόνον-Type Evidence | 239

‫ כי‬19‫ ראשית בכורי אדמתך תביא בית יהוה אלהיך לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו א‬19 ‫עשה זאת כזבח שכח ועברה היא לאלהי יעקב‬ 19 The first offerings of the first fruits of your land you will bring to the house of the Lord your God. aYou shall not boil a kid in the milk of its mothera; 19‫ א‬for the one doing bsuch a sacrificeb (is) ca hated (thing)c and is a transgressiond to the God of Jacob. a

> 58 b 767: pl; SP (and vocal.): this (is) as one sacrificing; ST: as a sacrifice c SP and STJ: a forgetting; STAN: a delaying (see discussion and at Deut 14.20[21]‫ )א‬d SP (and vocal., Ben-Ḥayyim 1977: 427 and 200) ST: enragement (see discussion)

Deut 14.20(21)‫א‬: “… a kid in its mother’s milk, for whoever …” (Deut. parallel) Version 1: Fa mg Mmg n 71′-527y 55mx || Version 2: SH JDeutmg C′’ s–30′ 28mx 319mx 407mx (N.B.: all MSS in-text [marginal in Fa, CODEX M, JDeut] and unattributed) Ver. 1: ος γαρ ποιει τουτο ωσει θυσει ασφαλακα μηνιμα εστι(ν) τω θεω ιακωβ ος: ως 458n ποιει: ποιη 54*n; ποιησει 71′-527; inc Fa ωσει: ωσε 458 θυσει: θυσι WI-75′; θυει 127n 55mx ασφαλακα: ασπ. 54-75′ μηνιμα: μινημα 75n εστι(ν): επι 458; inc Fa; tr post ιακωβ 71′-527

Ver. 2: ος γαρ ποιει τουτο ωσει ασπαλακα θυσει οτι μιασμα εστι(ν) τω θεω ιακωβ γαρ: + αν 407mx ποιει: ποιη 407c ωσει: ως 407 ασπαλακα: ασπλλακα 528cI; tr post θυσει SH JDeut θυσει: θυει 761cI 407 οτι: > SH JDeut μιασμα: μιαμμα 407; μηνιμα 85mg-321′mg εστι(ν): + κ̅ω̅ 16C

Deut 14.20(21)‫( א‬cf. Ex 23.19‫ )א‬1Q4 (DJD 1.55)626 ≠ SP! 4Q45 (9.141)627 MT 20‫ א‬Fa Mmg et al: For whoever does (71′-527: will do) this, is as one sacrificing a molea; itb is a cause of enragement to (458: against) the God of Jacob a

Exod SP and STJ: a forgetting; STAN Exod: a delaying (so Teeter)

b

SP Exod: pr and

20‫ א‬SH JDeut et al: For whoever does this, is as one sacrificing a moleb; forc it is a defilementd to thee God of Jacob mg

a

a

407: should do b Exod SP and STJ: a forgetting; STAN Exod: a delaying (thus Teeter) > SH JDeut; SP Exod: and d 85mg-321′mg: a cause of enragement (see Fa Mmg et al = Exod SP, ST) e 16: + the Lord

c

|| 626 Barthélemy: “‫ ב‬peut corresponde à une glose comme en ont ici Ps-Jon et Lxx. Les autres témoins terminent ici le verset et la parashah.” McCarthy disagreed with the reconstructed ‫ב‬ suggesting that 1Q4 may have read, similar to the G MSS here and the SP at Exod 23.19‫א‬, ]‫אמו כֿ‬ with kaf instead of beth since the photograph (plate IX, frag. 11) could be construed either way (BHQap). Teeter concurred (2009: 53, n. 40). 627 Ulrich and Sanderson: “The spacing … indicates that the MS agreed with MG and lacked the expansion ‫ יעקב‬... ‫ כי עשה זאת‬reflected in Gmss.” Also: “4QpaleoDeutr appears to have agreed with MG in lacking the typological features of the Samaritan Deuteronomy. In minor variants the manuscript most often presents a unique reading, less often agrees with , and least often agrees with M” (p. 134).

240 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

Exod 23.19‫ א‬// Deut 14.20(21)‫א‬: With the exception of the so-called STC (→ §§1.1.2.3; 7.1.2), no Samaritan passage has stimulated more scholarly discussion than that which follows the injunction against “boiling a kid in its mother’s milk.”628 The mysterious sanction prompted numerous comments from early Christian exegetes, as can be seen when surveying early Christian exegetical writings.629 It is then certainly understandable that scribes would have integrated the “Samaritan” addition, both here and in Deut 14.20(21), into their MSS. However, in light of the categories established by the present study, both readings require revisiting, especially with respect to the “Samaritan-ness” presumed by previous studies. Exod 23.19‫א‬: The passage neatly aligns with the demonstrated characteristics of the μόνον-translation as found in the Caesarean collation; namely: 1) an absence of proper Samaritan exegesis, as identified by the reading tradition and ST, and 2) the hexaplaric pedigree of the MSS transmitting the reading. MS attestation: It is important to observe that both MSS 58 (see above) and 767 are wholly630 hexaplaric. Additionally, as noted above, each witness separately attests at least one other μόνον-reading in both Exod and Num; those in Num, parallel attributed μόνον-passages preserved in the margins of SH.631 Moreover, 767 itself transmits two μόνον-readings in Deut also corresponding to the same in SH (restored via JDeut). This calls into question the classification “Sam.-Gk. [= το σαμ΄]” (and the implications thereof) used for the present reading in previous scholarship.632 When viewed within the broader context of the μόνον-passages in hexaplaric MSS, it is far more likely that the present passage belongs to the original Caesarean collation described by the SH Exod colophon than representing remnants of either the original GExod reading or some kind of Samaritan Greek translation.

|| 628 The literature regarding this passage is considerable. The best recent study is Teeter’s (2009, with substantial bibliography), who reviews previous scholarly opinion, in addition to performing due diligence with respect to text-critical matters. As such, this whole section is much indebted to his work. 629 For examples, see Boulluec and Sandevoir, BA 2.238. 630 For the shift in 767’s allegiance from the latter half of Exod onwards, see the below profile (→ §5.3.1). 631 For data, see Table 2.5 above and Table 3.3 below. 632 Teeter (2009: 46), unlike Kohn (1885: 177–78; 1894: 58 and esp. 62, n. 1), was more reticent to apply this term to the reading in Exod; however, he supported this designation for that in Deut 14.20(21), on which see below. Field’s listing was neutral in Exod (1.121, n. 17; → §2.1.2); Kahle (→ §1.2.3.3), viewed it as “in accordance” with SP (1947: 145).

Greek-only μόνον-Type Evidence | 241

“Samaritan” quality: In agreement with the μόνον-translation’s character, the present passage fails to provide any evidence that the translator(s) was familiar with or had any knowledge of Samaritan exegesis or reading traditions.633 Observe the following: ► μισος : The μόνον-rendering here differs considerably from both the Samaritan reading tradition and ST. The former vocalizes ‫ שכח‬šå̄ka (qal inf.) “forgetting” whereas the latter attests ‫( אנשהו‬J, “contempt (n.)”634) or ‫( שחי‬MSS A and N, “a delaying” according to Teeter). Of course neither of these can straightforwardly be represented with μισος, unless one understands μισος as a gross “generalization,” originally developed (or devolved) from the corresponding term ασπαλαξ found in Deut 14.20(21).635 However, speculation of such a “generalization” is unwarranted. If the passage is reclassified under the μόνον-type, then one only need explain how the translator(s) arrived at μισος for this specific rendering from their Hebrew exemplar—no connection with the passage’s exegetical development or any presumed knowledge of Samaritan traditions on the part of the translator(s) can be anticipated or developed. Admittedly, the case is difficult, but a mechanical misreading of the Samaritan Hebrew is possible,‫ שכח‬/ ‫ שנא → שכח‬/ ‫שנא‬, via guttural switching ‫ )ח( ח‬/ ‫)א( א‬636 and graphic confusion ‫ )כ( כ‬/ ‫)נ( נ‬.637 And attempts to explain 58-767’s μισος otherwise have proven unsuccessful.638 Most likely (see below), the Caesarean translator(s) lacked a G parallel, i.e., any

|| 633 The similarity between ποιων and the Samaritan reading tradition, ʿāši = ‫( ע ֶֹשה‬BenḤayyim 1977: 427 and 220), is circumstantial. 634 Thus Tal glosses is (DSA, sub ‫)נשי‬. 635 Teeter helpfully summarizes both Geiger’s (1866: 445) and Kohn’s (1894: 58) thoughts. Geiger rather facilely described the Greek: “Das drückt der Grieche (in cod. Bas. [= MS 85s]) aus mit ασπαλαξ, Maulwurf, hier allgemein: … während die Wiedergabe in cod. Vat. [= MS 58] mit μισος verallgemeinert ist.” (1866: 556). How, specifically, μισος follows from (or alongside of) ασπαλαξ as a “generalization” is unclear. Certainly, as Teeter pointed out (2009: 49), the logical development Geiger proposed from ‫ שכח‬to ασπαλαξ does make sense in the context of a “found” fetus (see below); but how μισος is supposed to be related is obscure (see below). 636 Or is ‫ )ח( ח‬/ ‫ )ה( ה‬more probable, leading to ‫?שנאה‬ 637 Kohn’s criticism, detailed and approved by Teeter (2009: 46–47), of M. Heidenheim’s earlier attempt to read ‫ שנא‬by way of the above-mentioned corruption in Samaritan script, is only legitimate if the translation is assumed to directly relate to Samaritan exegesis. The present analysis begs no such understanding. 638 Teeter noticeably makes no attempt beyond assenting to Geiger’s generalization theory (2009: 50). Geiger, after his initial publication in 1866, only described μισος as “sehr frei” (1876: 126). He viewed the passage as represented in Deut 14.20(21) as “deutlicher noch” and more rightly translated than that in Exod (1876: 126).

242 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

reading comparable to Deut 14.20(21)‫ א‬was unavailable to crib (on which see below). Thus, the translator was left to his own devices. ► παραβασις : Correspondingly, the translation παραβασις is only slightly more explicable than μισος. Here also the translation differs significantly from Samaritan understanding, vocalized (w)å̄bå̄rå (= ‫“ ) ֶע ְב ָרה‬enragement,” rendered ‫( מרגזה‬J) / ‫( רגזה‬A) by ST. Differently, as previous commentators have observed, the translation in 58-767 represents ‫“ ֲע ֵב ָרה‬transgression.” How might παραβασις be explained in the context of the μόνον-type passages? For while it shows a demonstrable lack of knowledge regarding Samaritan exegesis, it is difficult to surmise how the μόνον-translator(s) would have arrived at “transgression” without consulting, or being himself, a Hebrew speaker, since the lemma ‫“ ֲע ֵב ָרה‬transgression” does not occur in MT. However, if one presumes, as the present study, that the μόνον-translator(s) utilized the Hexapla Maior, actively using it in the μόνον-endeavor (→ §4.4.1), then παραβασις could be explained by appealing to the recentiores. Of course, G equivalencies were generally preferred by the translator(s) in exclusion to those of the recentiores, and something akin to οργη, θυμος, or even μηνις (GGen 49.7, see below) should have obtained. Nevertheless, it seems the wider hexaplaric data was consulted here, resulting in παραβασις, most probably from θ΄ in some other analogous context.639 This resulted in his translating ‫ עברה‬as “transgression,” as opposed to “anger” which occurs rather frequently in the Pss and Prophets. After all, in the sacrificial/festival context of the passage, if the recentiores collectively offered both “transgression” and “enragement” as glosses for occurrences of ‫ עברה‬in the first column, then choosing the former would have been a reasonable guess. Exod 23.19‫( א‬overall): Unfortunately, 58-767’s passage is of no value whatsoever for historical halakha, Samaritan or otherwise. What can be concluded is that the passage’s origin lies with the μόνον-translation, originally connected with the Caesarean Samaritan collation, and that the translator(s) had no proper parallel to hand to crib: had such been available, then it would have guided the translator’(s) work as so many of the preceding examples make clear. By exten-

|| 639 As Teeter mentions (2009: 62, n. 64), one fairly well attested example where θ΄ reckons a word derived from √‫ עבר‬with παραβασις is GGen 3.17 (see AppII). Yet, there is also another use of παραβασις reported for θ΄ at SH 4 Kgdms 2.24 (see Br.-M., AppI II). Perhaps there are other locations where θ΄ translated ‫ עברה‬similarly which have not survived but would have been available via the Hexapla Maior. It should further be acknowledged that the first Hebrew column in the Hexapla Maior need not equal MT precisely for every reading in every place.

Greek-only μόνον-Type Evidence | 243

sion, this implies that the parallel “Samaritan” readings at Deut 14.20(21) were both unavailable to the translator(s). Deut 14.20(21)‫’א‬s relationship to Samaritan exegesis: Contrary to the reading in Exod, the analogous passage transmitted by many GDeut MSS can be more easily related to Samaritan exegesis. ► θυσει / ‫ כזבח‬and om. waw: While the Greek fails to represent the waw, the verbal translation of ‫ כזבח‬accords with the Samaritan reading tradition kā̊ zēba (= ‫כזוֹבח‬ ֵ ).640 Teeter holds the insertion of οτι in C′’ et al as secondary, which is correct as the earlier MSS omit it.641 ► μηνιμα / ‫ עברה‬and μιασμα : As noted above, Samaritan exegesis reckoned ‫ עברה‬as ‘anger / enragement’ (= ‫ מרגזה ; ֶע ְב ָרה‬/ ‫ רגזה‬ST), and this is represented here by half of the witnesses: Fa, Mmg, et al (Version 1, above). Wevers’ recorded SH as if ‫ܬܐ‬ agreed, but this cannot be maintained. Rather, SH better supports the reading μιασμα “defilement” (cp. SH Ezek 33.31 and JPS, s.v.), not μηνιμα “(cause of) wrath.”642 This pushes the date of the “incorrect” reading (i.e., Version 2) back considerably. More difficult is from where μιασμα came. Both Geiger and Kohn saw μιασμα as somehow related to παραβασις / ‫ ֲע ֵב ָרה‬.643 However, Teeter’s644 judgment, that μιασμα is the product of lectio facilior, should be upheld, as the MS evidence supports it: ΩΣΕΙΘΥΣΕΙΑΣΠΑΛΑΚΑΜΙΑΣΜΑ (repl. of μηνιμα with μιασμα: graph. sim. & lect. facil.)

→ ΩΣΕΙΑΣΠΑΛΑΚΑΜΙΑΣΜΑ (tr. of θυσει / ασπαλακα: lect. facil.) → ΩΣΕΙΑΣΠΑΛΑΚΑΟΤΙΜΙΑΣΜΑ (insertion of οτι: lect. facil.).

► ασφαλακα / ‫ שכח‬: There have been two attempts to connect ασφ[/π]αλαξ ‘mole’ to Samaritan understandings of the passage. The first was by A. Geiger, who argued that the Greek derived from an Aramaic understanding of ‫שכח‬, which resulted in a generalized translation meant to imply the fetus, described in biblical literature as lacking the ability to see.645 This interpretation was ap-

|| 640 Ben-Ḥayyim 1977: 427 and 84. Teeter translates the reading tradition as if it were a noun (2009: 43) presumably in line with ST; cp. Tsedaka’s “like a forbidden offering” ad loc. 641 2009: 45, n. 16. 642 See also PS 1.1490–91, where one of the equivalencies for ‫ܬܐ‬ is μιασμα. LSJ also glosses μιασμα as “guilt, esp. blood-guiltiness” as an equivalent (s.v., I. 2). BrillDAG does not offer any such gloss. 643 1866: 556; 1885: 178. 644 2009: 45, n. 16. 645 Outlined in full by Teeter 2009: 49–50; see Geiger 1866: 556.

244 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

proved of and adopted by Kohn,646 as was Geiger’s assumption that μισος was a further alteration in reaction to the oddity of a mole sacrifice.647 A second and more recent proposal was proffered by Teeter. He suggested that perhaps the reading ασπαλαξ was not related to Hebrew but rather ST. Paralleling Wevers’ and D. Fraenkel’s proposed stemmatic relationship between 74 anonymous readings in the margins of CODEX M and ST in Lev (→ §1.2.3.6), he suggested “… the graphic similarity between the reading of STJ here (‫ )אנשהו‬and the Aram. equivalent to ασπαλαξ, ‫אשות‬/‫אשו‬, is suspicious … . Could this be evidence that the Sam.-Gk. marginal reading in Deut 14:20 related to SamAram rather than ?”648 Deut 14.20(21)‫( א‬origins): Teeter’s proposal that the Deut readings ought to be reckoned not with SP but ST is thought-provoking. It is, however, not without issue. ► Is the reading even Samaritan? Ultimately, Teeter’s suggestion, while attractive, depends too much on the reading’s presence in the margin of CODEX M, a known source of σαμ΄-readings (→ §1.3.1.1). Rather, the wider MS tradition suggests this was a more common (variant) reading than Teeter admits and, as such, should not be defined by its presence, unattributed, in the margin of one 7th cent. codex, itself known for a motley array of readings from diverse sources. Observe the list of early witnesses: Table 2.5.1: The “Samaritan” Mother’s Milk Passage in early GDeut MSS

Witness Date

Marginal

5th cent. CE649 ?

650

7th cent. CE

In-text WI

a

F

Mmg (pr m)651

|| 646 1894: 58, n. 1. 647 1894: 58, n. 3. 648 2009: 50, n. 35. This graphic similarity is possible though perhaps less acute in Samaritan script ‫ אנשהו‬:: ‫אשות‬/‫אשו‬. He also claims the reading μηνιμα, as opposed to παραβασις in Exod, as support for ST underlying the Greek; this also agrees with the Samaritan reading tradition ‫ ֶע ְב ָרה‬. 649 Swete discussed (1914: 507) various dates for the MS from the early 5th (following H. Sanders) to the 6th cent. CE (so Brooke; but cp. Br.-M., 1/3: v); see Rahlfs 1914: 312. 650 CODEX F is from the 5th cent. CE; Fa is a subsequent uncial corrector (Rahlfs and Fraenkel 2004: 231). 651 Per Field’s assessment (1.295, n. 23; see the MS, fol. 137bβ).

Greek-only μόνον-Type Evidence | 245

Witness Date

Marginal

SH (unmarked!652)

ca. 616–17 CE 705 CE

In-text

JDeut (unattributed)

Of particular interest is the attestation found in MS WI—a fact somewhat disguised in the Göttingen AppI due to the MS’s place in the n-group.653 The reading is fully integrated into the running text (see fol. 50α) without any indication whatsoever that the reading may be exceptional. If it may be assumed the reading was originally marginal (as it is not original GDeut), this would imply at least one previous MS generation, indicating the reading is older still. This, in combination with the attestation of Fa (who betrays no special relationship with SP or ST), militates against any proposition that the Mmg reading might be related to ST. Additionally, SH Deut records the reading without any sigla or mention of the Samaritans.654 And this of course only accounts for the pre-10th cent. witnesses. The catena MSS, as well as many of the s-group, transmitted attributed Samaritan readings of both the μόνον and σαμ΄-types (→ §§3.3.2–3; 3.4). However, here the reading is unmarked and integrated into their running text. All of the MS evidence indicates this reading is just an old GDeut variant, despite its ostensible conformity to “Samaritan” exegesis. Then there is of course the fact that neither SP nor ST records any such reading in Deut. Kohn, for his part, attempted to account for this significant obstacle insisting that the reading was originally only in GExod 23 and was subsequently moved to GDeut by reason of the repeated ‫;לא תבשל גדי‬655 such was, to him, but another example of the inexhaustible work of the “Interpolator” who displaced original GPent with Greek Samaritan readings (→ §1.2.3.1). The reading, furthermore, remained in some GExod MSS (i.e., 58-767) but was distorted due to a lack of understanding of precisely what “das ‘Opfer eines Maulwurfs’” actually meant.656 Altogether Kohn’s is a desperate reconstruction. Though he could not have known of CODEX WI’s witness (in 1894), he makes no effort to explain why the passage was not similarly moved to Exod 34.26. Nor is

|| 652 On the verse’s presence in SH, see below n. 662. 653 It would be interesting to know if 767 (in the n-group from Lev onwards) also had this reading. Unfortunately 767 suffers lacuna from 12.6–18.22. ̇ ‫̇ܗܘ‬ 654 JDeutmg records the reading: ‫ܬܐ ܐ ܘܗܝ ܐ ܗ‬ .‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕܕܒ‬ ‫ ܐ‬.‫̇ܗܘ ܕ ̇ܒ ܗܕܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫( ܕ‬fol. 371‫ܐ‬, between the columns, ind at ‫) ܐ ܬܒ‬. The reading is clearly SH verbatim (save om. ‫ )ܓ‬and without attribution. 655 1894: 58. 656 1894: 58 and esp. n. 3.

246 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

it clear how the reading in Exod would have been altered while that in Deut remained untouched. As Teeter657 notes, Kahle took a different perspective on the matter, albeit greatly aided by the collations made available by Brooke-McLean, which included WI. He believed these two passages to be vestiges of the diverse Vulgärtexte used by both Samaritans and Jews up through the first cent. CE (→ §1.2.3.3).658 Given that 1Q4 may well have contained this reading—in Deut—his assessment may be justified (though only for Deut 14.20[21]‫א‬, certainly not Exod 23.19‫)א‬, a point Teeter concedes.659 Yet given the fragmentary nature of 1Q4, one wonders whether the Greek reading in Deut should be considered as “Samaritan” at all.660 Perhaps, it ought to be granted that it could be Samaritan? Yet, undoubtedly the Samaritans were not the only group within the Judeo-Israelite spectrum pondering the mysterious command from the Second Temple period onwards.661 On balance of these data, however, it is surely improper to label the reading in Deut 14.20(21)‫ א‬as “Sam.-Gk.” Exod 23.19‫ א‬and Deut 14.20(21)‫( א‬their Interrelationship): In summary, given the wider context of μόνον-readings in MSS 58-767, it is safer to postulate the passage from Exod 23.19‫ א‬was the product of the hexaplaric, Caesarean μόνον-collation. If this is so, it is also likely that the parallel passage from Deut 14.20(21)‫( א‬attested from the (4th?/)5th cent. CE) was not available to the μόνονtranslator(s). While it should not be assumed that the Caesarean critic(s) had access to each and every GPent reading or exemplar, he cannot be shown to have known this reading. Thus, the passage in Deut may have gained wider currency only after the μόνον-translator(s) worked, i.e., it is post-Eusebian,662

|| 657 2009: 53, n. 40. 658 1947: 145–46; also 1915: 18. 659 2009: 53, n. 40. He did not extrapolate, however, on what this might mean for his theory for a proposed relationship between the Mmg reading and ST. 660 Note Tov’s discussion (TCHB3, 80, n. 130). 661 Such is Teeter’s point when surveying related passages in Second Temple literature (e.g., 4QMMT, 11Q19, 4Q270) and Rabbinic sources, whether citing the text directly or demonstrably alluding to it (2009: passim). 662 While the colophon for SH Deut has not survived (→ §4.2), one might assume that Eusebius did not know any version of Deut 14.20(21)‫א‬. Had either version been available, he could have simply adopted it for the rendering of Exod 23.19‫א‬. (Granted without any corresponding Hebrew in the first column of the Hexapla Maior, he could not have verified the reading adequately represented SP.) However, since it is not recorded in hexaplaric sources with sigla, which it ought to have been, we may presume that the reading was not originally found in the Caesarean library’s biblical MSS but was only later integrated into (one of?) the sources used in

Greek-only μόνον-Type Evidence | 247

perhaps adopted from some textual source (à la 1Q4) or even an halakhic gloss later received due to its perceived exegetical usefulness.663 However, in light of the foregoing, neither reading should be understood properly as “Sam.-Gk.” (= το σαμ΄).

2.5.2 Wider Attestation In this section two readings with further, non-hexaplaric MS support are discussed, with focus on how these might have been transmitted beyond the hexaplaric fold. Exod 27.19‫א‬: “And you shall make garments …” 58O 707oII f−56txt 527y = Ald (all in-text [save 56mg] and unattributed) 19‫( א‬58): και ποιησεις στολην υακινθου και πορφυρας κοκκινου κεκλωσμενου και σκωλικος διαφορου του λειτουργειν εν αυτη εν τω αγιω 19‫( א‬707 f−56txt 527 = Ald): και ποιησεις ιματια υακινθινα και πορφυρα και κοκκινα του λειτουργειν εν αυτοις εν τοις αγιοις ιματια: > 246 υακινθινα: υιακ. 527 πορφυρα: -ραν Ald κοκκινα: κκοκινα 53 λειτουργειν: λιτ. 707* 129 εν αυτοις: εναυτοις 707

SP Exod 27.19‫ ;?( א‬cf. Exod 39.13 [Gk.] // 39.1 [Heb.]; 28.5 [w/ recentiores]; cp. 36.8–40 // 39.1–31)664 4Q22665 2Q3? ≠ 2Q3 (DJD 3.54)666 MT 19‫ ועשית את כל כלי המשכן בכל עבדתו וכל יתדתיו וכל יתדת החצר נחשת א‬19

‫ועשית בגדי תכלת וארגמן ותולעת שני לשרת בהם בקדש‬ 19‫( א‬MS 58): And you shall make aa vestmenta of hyacinth and purple, twistedb scarlet andc bvarious wormb in whicha dto ministerd in the holy (place).e

c

a

SP ST: pl b > SP ST (for various worm, see discussion) c SP ST: and (ST + color of) ְ 667 ST: holiness (:: scarlet d SP ST: tr ante “in which” e SP (vocal. baqqā̊dəš = ‫)בּק ֶֹדשׁ‬ 668 669 sanctuary ‫ ;מקדש‬cp. Tsedaka’s ET “in holiness”)

|| shaping SH Deut’s Vorlage. This explanation comports with the above reconstruction which holds that Version 1 is earlier than Version 2, as shown by CODEX WI and (the source of) Fa. 663 Thus Teeter 2009: 62–63. 664 T-F 758: “‫“( ”תוספת עצמאית‬independent addition”). ֯ ‫ו‬ 665 Sanderson (DJD 9.113–14) overturned her earlier analysis that the fragment [ ‫עש]ית‬ represented Exod 28.2 (1986: 210). 666 Baillet: “v. 18: l. 5 mal remplie par le TM. Texte plus long, ou plutôt un espace en blanc après le v. 18. Sam commence le v. 19 par ‫[ ועשית את כל כלי‬which is longer than MT].” Earlier he stated: “Le texte s’écarte du TM par quelques détails morphologiques et trouve parfois un appui dans les versions anciennes” (p. 53).

248 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

19‫( א‬MSS 707 et al): And you shall make garmentsa—(of) hyacinth and purple and scarlet—to minister in them in the sacred (precincts).b a

> 246

b

SP ST: sg

Exod 27.19‫א‬: The present situation is complex due to the disparity between MSS 58 and 707 (both hexaplaric) in their respective versions of the Samaritan passage. Namely, both readings take turns disagreeing with SP, i.e., 58’s στολην ≠ SP :: 707’s ιματια = SP and 58’s εν τω αγιω = SP :: 707’s εν τοις αγιοις ≠ SP (formally). The matter is further convoluted by the lack of a clear parallel in comparison with other μόνον-passages. Which G Parallel was used? The problem of the precise parallel, even for the SP itself, has been an issue in previous scholarship. The case is so here, especially when considering how ‫ )ו(תולעת שני‬was rendered. Based on the split testimony of 58 and 707, it is uncertain whether the μόνον-translator(s) used κεκλωσμενον, as 58’s version suggests. The matter is complicated by the general textual, philological, and sequential difficulties between GExod and MT for Exod 36–39. Exodus 36.8–39.23, or “section B” as Wevers’ designated it, is the fulfilment of the lengthy instructions, Wevers’ “section A” (Exod 25–31), given by the Lord to Moses concerning the construction of the Tabernacle and its accoutrements.670 Wevers’ extensive study on the passages resulted in an interesting variation between the two sections. Namely, GExod never modifies κοκκινον “scarlet” with κεκλωσμενον “twisted” in section B671—something which the hexaplaric tradition did not alter (cp. 28.5 with 36.32, 36; 39.13).672 If it may be proposed, in agreement with Zahn,673 that 39.13 (39.1, Heb.) was the principal parallel, this would imply that 58’s κεκλωσμενον was not used by the μόνον-translator(s), since κεκλωσμενον is missing from the contextually appropriate occurrences of κοκκινον of G’s “section B.”674 If 58’s κεκλωσμενον was not part of the original translation, then

|| 667 See Ben-Ḥayyim 1977: 431 and 243. 668 See Tal, DSA, s.v. 669 The variation is perhaps more formalistic in light of the semantic range of ἅγιος in Greek. 670 See THGE, 117–146. 671 NGTE, 393. 672 MSS 708oI at 36.10 and 58 at 39.13 being the only exceptions. 673 See Zahn (2011: 147 and n. 28) for a brief summary of the relevant literature. She insists that 39.1a serves as the parallel though she admits the placement of Exod 27.19‫ א‬is itself still problematic. Compare also Sanderson’s comments (1986: 209). 674 Occasions in GExod when describing the vestments (28.1–40 and chh 36 or 39 [G or MT]): κοκκινον

28.5: + κεκλωσμενον (c var) O−767 131c C Arm SH

Greek-only μόνον-Type Evidence | 249

it would had to have been imported from elsewhere, perhaps in consultation with that in 28.5. Surely 58’s reading was interpolated here (compare MS 58 in 39.13 proper), something which is confirmed further by its inclusion of σκωλικος διαφορου. Exod 27.19‫( א‬58’s version): 58’s witness is close to the Samaritan Hebrew in many ways while concurrently exhibiting some variations and interpolations. ► στολην : Though στολη is the proper lexical equivalent for the priestly vestments in GExod (cp. 707 below), 58 exhibits a singular not found in 39.13 or ch 28 (from v 4 onward). It is certainly possible that the μόνον-translator(s) produced the singular in conformity with GExod’s collective singular675 in 28.2– 3. However, it is just as possible that 58 did the same when integrating the passage. In light of 58’s interpolations, the latter is probable. ► κοκκινου κεκλωσμενου και σκωλικος διαφορου “twisted scarlet and various worm”: As just discussed, κεκλωσμενου is a secondary addition in 58. Instead, the translator(s), basing himself on 28.5 (the first listing of the colors with respect to the vestments) and 39.13 (the closest parallel to the SP passage) translated ‫ תולעת שני‬with only κοκκινου. 58’s is an independent glossing of the material perhaps with the recentiores as found in MSS at 28.5, namely the οʹ-text’s (κοκκινον) κεκλωσμενον (sub ※ in the O MSS, unless it was from 28.15 proper) and Aquila’s σκωληκος διαφορου “various (scarlet) worm.”676 While 58’s adoption of οʹ and αʹ is exegetically interesting, 707’s lack of both confirms these were not used in the original translation, viz., the addition of these elements by 58 is more readily imagined than the omission of the same by 707 et al. Whether

|| 39.13: + το νενησμενον (+ και την βυσσον την κεκλωσμενην 58O Arm) O AethC Arab Arm SH κοκκ. κεκλωσμενον

28.15

κοκκ. διανενησμενον

28.8, 29 36.10 (τῇ πορφύρᾳ κ. σὺν τῷ κοκκίνῳ τῷ διανενησμένῳ κ. σὺν τῇ βύσσῳ τῇ κεκλωσμένῃ] τω κοκκινω κεκλωσμενω και τη πορφυρα και συν τη βυσσω νενησμενη 708), 12, 15

κοκκ. νενησμενον 36.9 (νενησμενον] καικλωσμενου n−127), 32, 37 Certain MSS do replace κεκλωσμενον “twisted” with νενησμενον “spun” (e.g., 28.15), διανενησμενον “spun out” with κεκλωσμενον “twisted” (e.g., 28.8; 36.10), and νενησμενον “spun” with κεκλωσμενον “twisted” (e.g., 36.9) or διανενησμενον “spun out” (e.g., 36.32, 37). 675 NGTE, 444; BA 2.281. 676 AppII: θʹ και το κοκκινον το διαφορον “and various scarlet”; σʹ και το κοκκινον το διβαφον “and double-dyed scarlet” (cf. LSJ, s.v.). Also at 25.4 where it αʹ and σʹ gloss G’s κοκκινον διπλουν (“doubly scarlet,” here and 35.6; see NGTE, 392–93). G’s initial translation obviously does not factor into the present case.

250 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

or not any or all of οʹ αʹ σʹ θʹ were originally referenced in the margin alongside the μόνον-reading, however, is another matter. Regardless, 58 (or more likely its ancestor) glossed the reading. It was probably upon the insertion of said glosses, that a plural στολας was altered to the singular, conceivably under the influence of the grammatically singular descriptors (κοκκινου, etc). ► κοκκινου : 58 omits the και prefixed to ‫ותולעת‬. Probably it was moved when adding the glosses κεκλωσμενου και σκωλικος διαφορου creating a balance of two pairs of colors. ► εν αυτη : 58’s use of the singular surely flowed from whatever process led to στολην. ► εν τω αγιω : Despite 58’s alterations, εν τω αγιω (≠ 707 below) as in 39.13 was correctly maintained. (For the formalistic variation between this, as a septuagintism, and the Samaritan exegetical tradition, see the above with n. 669.) Exod 27.19‫( א‬707, et al): The reading is attested by the f-group, MS 527y, and most importantly the hexaplaric MS 707. It is difficult to postulate any direct connection between the latter and former witnesses; however, it should be mentioned that both the f- and y- groups exhibit other μόνον-passages elsewhere. Nevertheless, 707’s hexaplaric affiliation, in combination with that of MS 58, firmly places the origin of the reading within the confines of hexaplaric activity. ► 707’s witness: MS 707 (Sinai, St. Catherine’s Monastery, Cod. gr. 1.; 10th– th 11 cent. CE) here preserves its only μόνον-type passage. What led to its inclusion of this tedious reading is mysterious. The MS has many readings in Exod from non-G sources,677 in addition to preserving any number of sizeable hexaplaric readings sub ※.678 It is thus reasonable to hypothesize that the passage was included via its originally marginal sub ※ demarcation. ► f-56txt: It was the f-group’s integration of this text which prompted a remark from Wevers.679 Since MS 56’s is marginal, it is probable this witness (which is older than all the other f MSS) at some point made contact with a part of the hexaplaric collation, perhaps through another intermediary.680 From there, the passage was integrated. A similar situation can be found in the only μόνονpassage the f-group preserved in Num 31.20‫§ →( ד–א‬3.3.3), where 56 preserves a

|| 677 Exod, 47. 678 The evidence for omissions sub ⨪ / ÷ in 707, while present, is insignificant. See that data listed by Wevers (THGE, 36–39). 679 NTGE, 441. 680 Wevers does not document any special relationship between the hexaplaric ※ tradition and f-group (THGE, 26).

Greek-only μόνον-Type Evidence | 251

form of the passage older than the rest of the group. For more on MS 56, see the short profile below (→ §5.3.4). ► 527 (Athos, Βατοπαιδιου 598; 14th cent. CE): For an hypothesis as to how this specific y-group MS absorbed the reading, see further below on MS 318y (→ Exod 32.10‫ )א‬where Athos is posited as a place where such contact occurred. ► ιματια : Certainly the septuagintism of 58 can support στολη as the lexical choice of the μόνον-translator(s). This follows GExod, who uses στολη in exclusion to ιματιον from ch 28 onward, the former being used for ‫ בגד‬while the latter for ‫שמלה‬.681 It is possible that 707 preferred less technical terminology, but in light of what follows in ch 28, the reasons for such are unclear.682 Though the plural is correct insofar as it reflects ‫בגדי‬, the construct chain remnant in 58’s text (and similar constructions in 28.6ff and 36.8–40) was also altered. ► και (κοκκινα) : Since the 707 text was not interpolated as 58, the και previous to κοκκινον was preserved. ► εν αυτοις (εναυτοις) : Because 707 kept the plural ιματια (contra 58) there was no reason to modify εν αυτοις, other than grammatical gender. ► εν τοις αγιοις (see also on 58’s εν τω αγιω above): The plural is not typically used to describe the sacred precinct (cp. GExod 26.33, 28.29, 35, 43).683 However, it is found in GExod 29.30, where the instructions for priestly succession vis-à-vis Aaron’s garments are given. Wevers argued GExod translated ‫ בקדש‬thusly there to indicate both the general sacred precinct and the Holy of Holies, the latter being the exclusive privilege of Aaron’s successor.684 If 707 (et al) meant to indicate this purposefully, it is certainly appropriate given the context. Yet, nothing suggests the plural was original to the μόνον-translation. Exod 27.19‫ א‬reconstructed: Given the amount of tinkering represented in both 58 and 707 (et al), it is necessary to give an hypothetical reconstruction, approximating the original μόνον-translation: και ποιησεις στολας [[εξ]]685 υακινθου και πορφυρας και κοκκινου του λειτουργειν εν αυταις εν τω αγιω. While this is more or less guided by SP itself, without a precise parallel, it is difficult to know to what extent the translator(s) might have septuagintized.

|| 681 H-R, 685, 1291–92. The case at Exod 33.5 being excepted (NGTE, 543; also BA 2.330). Ιματιον often represents more general items (LSJ, s.v., I. 2). 682 Christians continued to use στολη for priestly vestments (Lampe, s.v.; GLRB, s.v.). 683 So Wevers, NGTE, 480. 684 NGTE, 480. He noted that in light of this subtlety, the hexaplaric correcting to the singular is “not necessarily an improvement.” 685 Uncertain; compare GExod 26.1, 31, etc. Since both witness groups lack it, however, it is in double brackets.

252 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

Exod 32.10‫א‬: “And the Lord was very angry with Aaron …” 58-767O 318y (in-text and unattributed) 10 και νυν εασον με και θυμωθεις οργη εις αυτους εκτριψω αυτους, και ποιησω σε εις εθνος μεγα. 10‫ א‬και επι ααρων εθυμωθη (-θην 318) κ̅ς̅ (> 318) σφοδρα του εξολοθρευσαι αυτον και ηυξατο μωσης (μωυσης 767) περι (επι 767) ααρων SP Exod 32.10‫( א‬cf. Deut 9.20) 4Q22 ≠ MT ‫ ובאהרן התאנף‬10‫ ועתה הניחה לי ויחר אפי בם ואכלם ואעשה אתך לגוי גדול א‬10

‫יהוה מאד להשמידו ויתפלל משה בעד אהרן‬ 10 (Lord speaking) “And now let me be and being taken with rage against them I will wipe them out, and I will make you into a great nation.” 10‫ א‬And athe Lord was much enrageda with Aaron, to destroy him; so Moses interceded for Aaron. a

318: “I have become/am enraged (dialogue continuing: … to destroy him”;)

Exod 32.10‫( א‬MSS 58-767): This is the last case of the hexaplaric MSS’ 58 and 767 joint testimony to a fully integrated μόνον-reading. Previous editors either ignored (e.g., Field) or were baffled by (e.g., Wevers) this reading.686 However, the scribal activity which led to this text is obviously the same as those above discussed. ► κ̅ς̅ : Of the μόνον-type passages in Exod, only the present case preserves the nomen sacrum in Greek. Unlike the ubiquitous in SH Exod, the abbreviated form ΚΣ is found in 58 and 767. Did the μόνον-translator(s) produce this or was it rendered ΠΙΠΙ as in SH? Since SH Exod very strongly supports the latter, in conformity with common hexaplaric practice, it is much more likely that the 58-767 scribes (or their respective ancestor scribes) normalized the Name at the time of integration (→ §3.3.1 at Num 20.13‫ ג‬and EXCURSUS C). ► επι … εθυμωθη and ηυξατο … περι : Both verbs and their accompanying prepositions have been taken from the GDeut parallel. This is particularly so for the first verb as other prepositions were possible.687 As noted above, use of the G parallel prepositions is a hallmark of the μόνον-translation. 767’s επι 2° is an error, perhaps by means of attraction from the first: επι ααρων—επι ααρων. ► του εξολοθρευσαι : While minor, the translator(s) appears to have departed from GDeut influence in articulating the infinitive.688 A majority variant does || 686 “How this gloss came into the Greek tradition remains a mystery” (NGTE, 523). On Field (1.141), see above (→ §2.1.2). Note that 58’s reading was flagged up by G. Quell in BHSap (1973). 687 Ευχομαι generally couples with περι (e.g., Exod 8.8, 9; 9.28). As for θυμοω (pass.), different propositions are used to indicate the focus of said anger, επι (Exod 4.14; Lev 10.16; et al), εις (Num 11.33), or a dative (Gen 30.2; Deut 1.37; 4.21). 688 See NGTD, 150, and THGD, 103.

Conclusions | 253

articulate the verb, though the earliest attestation is CODEX GO (4th–5th cent. CE). It is difficult to know who is responsible for the articulation. Perhaps later scribes were the perpetrators. Exod 32.10‫( א‬MS 318): While it is not strange that MS 58 or 767, both hexaplaric witnesses, evince this reading, how 318, a y-group MS, would have encountered the reading is more difficult to explain. A further contextualization prompts questions. ► Provenance: How did 318, a y-group MS (Athos, Βατοπαιδιου, 598; written 1021 CE), come to include such a reading? A possible solution may be found in the MS’ location of origin, Athos. By analogy of the other Athos MSS containing μόνον-passages in Num (→ §§3.3; 3.4), namely s-group MS 344 (10th cent. CE) and its congeners, it could be suggested that scribal activity on Athos was ultimately responsible for the resultant reading in 318, via an intermediary source no longer extant.689 Similar circumstances may also explain 527’s reading at Exod 27.19‫א‬, though the witness is far younger (14th cent. CE) and the passage is attested in more MSS, allowing for other possibilities via intermediaries no longer extant. ► εθυμωθην σφοδρα as contextualization: Explaining 318’s variant reading is problematic. Assuming an abridged nomen sacrum in an uncial source, this may be explained: ΕΘΥΜΩΘΗΚΣΣΦΟ∆ΡΑ → ΕΘΥΜΩΘΗΝΣΦΟ∆ΡΑ.690 Another possibility is that 318 represents a contextualization the scribe himself implemented at the point of integration. The change reads more vividly, as though the Lord is still speaking (very harshly!) to Moses about his wayward brother. Presumably, however, a scribe would be hesitant to remove a κυριος.

2.6 Conclusions Now that whole of the hexaplaric μόνον-data in Exod has been examined in detail, it is necessary to summarize the historical implications thereof. While incomplete, and at times imprecise, the extant data permits some illuminating conclusions insofar as Exod is concerned. These pertain to 1) the nature of the

|| 689 Here I have appropriated a parallel argument offered by Wevers in his attempt to explain how the running text of MS 319mx had, in Num, conspicuously absorbed elements also known from the margin of the Athos-based, s-group MSS (321-323-344-346). He hypothesized that 319’s locus, Athos, permitted its scribe to come into contact with one of the s-group’s sources of marginalia (1981: 717). On the s-group, see below (→ §3.4). 690 Certain later cursive scripts could also permit κ / ν confusion, though word division would have played a role at that stage.

254 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

translation, 2) the question of the selection of data from the Samaritan Hebrew ἔκδοσις included in the original Caesarea-based collation as compared with later witnesses, and 3) the possible motives of hexaplaric transmission vis-à-vis the retention of these Samaritan passages.

2.6.1 The μόνον-Translation: A Profile It can be stated, without qualification, that the μόνον-translation, as illustrated by the readings in hexaplaric Exod MSS, is in conformity to the characteristics outlined above (→ §1.3.2): i) It was principally cribbed from the relevant G parallels (i.e., septuagintism), with some limitations therein, namely adoption of readings from the recentiores, as identified through hexaplaric sources. ii) It utterly lacks any evidence betraying knowledge of Samaritan exegesis, whether it be the reading tradition or traditions from ST MSS.691 iii) Additionally, the Vorlage for this collation was unquestionably textually closer to the now-extant SP codices as opposed to any of the so-called preSamaritan text-type (e.g., 4Q22, 4Q158, 4Q175, etc.; for 4Q27 → §3). iv) On the basis of the above-examined readings, it seems very unlikely that either Samaritans or native Semitic speakers had developed or were otherwise consulted in the production of this “translation.” Rather the process resulting in these texts was apparently undertaken by an individual(s) without native competence, while having probably a passive command of the language, and, according to this study’s reconstruction (→ §4.4.1), heavily reliant on text-critical tools, especially the Hexapla Maior. Strictly speaking, the SH Exod colophon (→ §2.2) does not offer much information about the μόνον-collation other than: a) the collation was carried out in connection with Caesarea-based hexaplaric MS activity, and b) that such was ultimately subject to Eusebius’ editorship. Nothing further was provided. Despite this, the hexaplaric remains for Num (and Deut) do provide additional information related both to the identity of the collator(s) as well as his(/their) methodology in constructing these μόνον-readings (→ §§3.2; 3.3.1–2; 3.5; 4.4.1).

|| 691 For the sticky issue concerning para-textual exegesis, i.e., the STC, see below (→ §7.1.2).

Conclusions | 255

2.6.2 The Hexaplaric μόνον-Collation: Selection and Inclusion Perhaps one of the more striking aspects of the μόνον-collation in hexaplaric Exod MSS is the apparent selectivity of the Samaritan data. That is to say, if the Caesarea-based μόνον-collation was expressly directed by a quantitative dictate (i.e., μόνον), the extant collation for Exod seems incomplete. Observe the following sampling of textual snippets which conform to the μόνον-collation’s typology but are missing from extant hexaplaric sources: Table 2.6.2: Sampling of μόνον-type Snippets “Missing” from the Collation Exod

added / omitted ‘only in SP’

Notes

12.25

+ ‫בחדש הזה‬

n/a

14.18

+ ‫ובכל הילו‬

+ και εν παση (om εν π. Sa) τη στρατια αυτου (> 619) 619x Sa “= Sam: ex 17”692

18.7

+ ‫למשה‬

n/a

18.12

om. ‫כל‬

= 72O Aeth “= Sam”

19.12

‫ והגבלת את ההר סביב ואל העם‬και αφοριεις τον λαον κυκλω λεγων ‫תאמר‬

19.25

+ ‫מן ההר‬

Lat

20.24

om. ‫כל‬

n/a693

21.18

om. ‫באבן או באגרף‬

λιθω η πυγμα

cod 104’s addition is unrelated

21.20

om. ‫בשבט‬

εν ραβδω; ‫ מות יומת‬similarly not noted

21.28

+ ‫וכל בהמה‬

also vv 33, 35 (twice); cp. “half tribe of M.” (→ §3.3.2 at Num 32.1+ and 29+)694

22.3(4)

+ ‫עד כל בהמה‬

n/a

22.19(20) + ‫ ;אחרים‬om. ‫בלתי ליהוה לבדו‬

24.1, 9

+ ‫( אלעזר ואיתמר‬cp. 4Q22 at v 9)

‫ אחרים‬has some support (see AppI). Would this have been noted while the other unnoticed? AppI: και ελεαζαρ in MSS 314-537b “: cf Sam”695

|| 692 MS 619’s reading is clearly the result independent harmonizing; cp. MS 619 at 14.8, 13.12, and 18.21 each of which lack agreement with SP. 693 Gallagher attaches great importance to this omission in SP (2015: 100–01, 115; also Kim 1994: 124; further Tov TCBH3, 88, with literature). Whether or not the Caesarean collator(s) would have cared (or realized any such implication) is another matter (→ §§7.1.2–3). 694 As Kim observes, these readings obviously generalize the laws in question (1998: 120).

256 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

Exod

added / omitted ‘only in SP’

25.21(20) om. ‫אשר אתן אליך‬

Notes α αν δω σοι

26.25

om. ‫תחת הקרש האחד ו‬

27.19

+ ‫ועשית את‬

→ §2.5.2 at Exod 27.19‫א‬

28.23

+ ‫שתי משבצות זהב ושתי‬

cp. v 23 in θ΄ (i.e. δυο συσφιγκτων v 25)

28.30(26) + ‫ועשית את הארים ואת התמים‬ 29.5

τω στυλω τω ενι και

n/a

+ ‫וחגרת אתו אבניט והלבשת אתו‬

some corrections to MT in G MSS, not SP a transposition → §2.4.1 Exod 26.35‫י–א‬

29.28‫א‬

+ ‫ולקחת משמן — בגדי בניו אתו‬

39.21‫א‬ (36.28)

+ ‫ ויעשו את הארים ואת התמים כאשר‬n/a ‫( צוה יהוה את משה‬cf. 4Q17)

40.27

+ ‫לפני יהוה‬

n/a

Naturally, the MS history is incomplete. Nevertheless, when the above sampling is compared with the extant evidence (from both SH and other scattered hexaplaric MSS), the recoverable Caesarean collation has conspicuous gaps. Namely, readings such as those which are “only” in SP at Exod 24.1 and 9, 28.30(26), and 39.21‫ א‬each clearly conform to the μόνον-type. Furthermore, by analogy of the transposition of the Incense Altar (→ 26.35‫)י–א‬, it could be argued that the similar phenomenon occurring at 29.28‫ א‬also ought to have been marked (→ §2.4.2, pace Ceriani). Even the smaller prospective μόνον-texts (e.g., 14.18; 21.28, 33, 35) have comparable extant examples which were recorded elsewhere (→ §§2.5.1 at Exod 3.22+; → §3.3.2 at Num 21.24+) indicating that the Caesarean collator(s) cared to mark smaller, seemingly insignificant (but phrase-level) quantitative SP variations. This calls into question any view holding that only “important” or exegetically “meaningful” readings were originally collated and preserved. Whatever the motive(s) underlying the original set of collated readings may have been, the character of the recoverable readings is striking, particularly with respect to the set preserved by SH’s branch of the tradition. When those μόνον-passages preserved by SH Exod’s exemplar(s) are compared with those few found in the wider hexaplaric tradition (→ §2.5), the former selection clearly exhibits preoccupation with readings which explicitly focus on Moses’ role as prophet (e.g., in the Plague Narrative), the immediate “Samaritan” context of

|| 695 και ελεαζαρ present in MSS 314-537b at Exod 24.1 is perhaps best seen as an addition “ex par” (cf. 28.1?). It is not impossible that the addition ultimately does stem from μόνον-type evidence which is no longer extant. However, the occurrence is too vague to include here. (Compare Wevers’ discussion [THGE, 26] suggesting that group b is not a significant preserver of hexaplaric additions originally sub ※.)

Conclusions | 257

the Decalogue itself, and Deuteronomic speech.696 Other texts, such as those which center on the more halakhic aspects of the Law (e.g., Exod 21.28+, 23.19‫)א‬, the construction of the Tabernacle and its parts (e.g., Exod 28.30+, 27.19‫)א‬, the inclusion of Aaron’s sons in activities (e.g., 24.1+, 9+), and other sundry texts (e.g., 3.22+) were not transmitted in the MSS bearing the μόνον-collation which eventually formed or contributed to (via previous collation) the Exod exemplar Paul of Tella translated.697 The character of these selections—an emphasis on Moses as prophet, the lack of concern for the more legal/ceremonial aspects of Torah,698 and the focus on Deuteronomy—betray a distinctively Christian theological and/or exegetical Tendenz.

2.6.3 Hexaplaric Retention: By Chance or Design? Thus, it must be admitted that it is likely that scribal activity preceding SH, but surely subsequent to the original collation, may have been motived by theological concerns.699 Perhaps readings such as Exod 23.19‫ א‬or 27.19‫“ א‬fell out” of—or were even purposefully deleted from—the SH’s exemplar’s Vorlage(n) during the collation of E1 with E2 (→ §2.2). Or, it is just as possible the μόνον-passages were only selectively copied by the scribe(s) of E2 from the original Eusebian exemplar (E3). Conceivably even some unknown intermediary exists for which the colophon does not account.700 Regardless of the process whereby some of these passages dropped out during MS transmission, the motives underlying the retention of those which did survive should be explored. What might the Christian scribes responsible for the hexaplaric tradition have had in mind when they encountered these long, repet|| 696 Where Exod 32.10‫ א‬fits in these categories is unclear: Is the passage meant primarily to reference Deut or juxtapose a righteous Moses (as prophet) with a sinful Aaron (as priest)? See Sanderson’s discussion of the possible theological motives for the verse (1986: 209). 697 The Syrians ought not to be accused of intentionally omitting μόνον-type passages or collation information. What would have been the point of purposefully excluding a text like Exod 32.10‫ א‬while bothering to transmit the “SP Omits” Note at Exod 8.6–7 (10–11)? 698 Even Exod 23.19‫ א‬is not really exegetically useful. Why would the μόνον-translator(s) have not consulted a Samaritan or Jew for this reading? Were such unavailable (→ §7.3)? 699 Is this yet another case of theologically inspired use, or preservation, of ancient versions? Cp. S. Kamin 1992: 251–52. 700 Compare the μόνον-passages in SH Num with the wider hexaplaric MS tradition: Is the smaller discrepancy between SH and other MSS due to fewer levels of transmission as described by the SH Num colophon (→ §3.2)? Or is the matter more fundamental, having to do with the non-legal nature of the μόνον-data in Num?

258 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

itive, marginal passages described as “only (extant/transmitted) in the Samaritan Hebrew ἔκδοσις”? Christian Theology and the “Prophet like Moses” The most theologically load-bearing μόνον-passages in Exod, in the eyes of Christian scribes, would have been the request for Moses to serve as prophetic intermediary and the complementary granting of a future “prophet like Moses” (Exod 20.19[15]‫ ד–א‬and 20.21[17]‫)ט–א‬. For when a Christian reader would have come across either of these lengthy passages, they would have been reminded of one of the principal themes in the Gospels, particularly in John, that of Jesus’ embodiment of the “prophet-messiah like Moses.”701 From Christianity’s earliest days, this “Moses redivivus” typology featured in Christian preaching as at least two specific NT passages indicate, partially quoting (or alluding to) the parallels for these μόνον-texts, namely Peter’s Temple speech in Acts 3.22–23, 26 and Stephen’s speech in 7.37–38.702 These two testimonies of the earliest kerygmatic preaching, the first by the leader of the Disciples/Apostles, the second by the first Christian martyr, construe the provision of a future prophet (or prophets?) “like” Moses as ultimately pointing towards, or fulfilled in, Jesus.703 This Lukan exegesis was continuously appealed to and further solidified especially from the time of the early Christian Apologists onwards.704 But what is noteworthy about these μόνον-passages is their “new” context in Exod 20. As Sanderson explains: From the viewpoint of the narrative involved, [the] interpolations were intrusive in the theophany, in the sense that neither Exodus nor Deuteronomy claimed that Yahweh had

|| 701 On this, among many other studies, see that by J.R. Martyn 2003: ch 6. 702 See also W. Meeks who (following T.F. Glasson) interpreted John 7 as an extended allusion to Deut 18.18–22 (1967: 45–59). He also noted other “fairly plain” allusions to the passage in other parts of John (e.g., 8.47; 12.47–50). M. Böhm recently proposed that Luke 9.35 alludes to Deut 18.15, portraying Jesus as “Moses redivivus” (2020: §2.2). Surveying references to Samaritans in the NT, Böhm judges Luke-Acts and John to be the least critical, lacking true antiSamaritan sentiment. For a recent survey on the Samaritans in the NT, see Pummer 2016: ch 3. 703 See C. Keener 2013/2.1113–17 (Peter’s) and pp. 1402–03 (Stephen’s). See also C. Barrett 2004/1.207–10 (Peter’s) and 1.365–66 (Stephen’s), for additional data. 704 See the short discussion in Dogniez and Harl, BA 5.230 (at Deut 18.15, with references). A sampling from early Christian literature shows many followed this line of thought: Clement of Alexandria, Pedagogue, 1.60.3; Irenaeus, Adv Haer, 3.12.3; Origen, Comm. on John, 6.45–46, 88–92, and 13.26.154; cp. Contra Celsum, 1.57 (thus Pummer 2002: 45; cp. Eusebius, Theophania, 4.35); Eusebius, Eclogae Propheticae, 1.15; DE 3.2–3 and 9.11.8–9 (on which, see J. Bruns 1977); Chrysostom, Against the Anomoeans, 12.5; the list could be expanded further.

Conclusions | 259

promised the prophet to come … during the theophany at Sinai. Both words of Yahweh came from a very different context in Deuteronomy.705

As always, context is crucial. For the μόνον-collation here attests to a unique placement,706 one which elevates the traditionally exegeted passage, not as a provision contracted for the second wilderness generation through Moses on the plains of Moab, quoting ostensibly earlier speech from the Lord (i.e., indirect attestation); rather the prophetic pledge is narrated explicitly (i.e, direct attestation) during the terrors of the theophany at Sinai experienced by the first exodus generation.707 Thus, the Sinai event, the very giving of the Decalogue (something which Christians did care very much about → §7.1.2), could be presented, textually, as the primary setting for the foretold prophet.708 In this light, it is easy to see how Christian scribes would busy themselves writing large blocks of (often) repetitive text, consuming approximately half a page, concerning Moses’ mighty deeds or prophetic office, while seemingly ignoring μόνον-eligible snippets detailing unique709 Samaritan readings regarding the legal or cultic portions of Torah (→ §2.6.2). In light of this observation, it is perhaps not only unsurprising that the original collation has not survived wholly intact—indeed, it might well be expected.

|| 705 1986: 236 (emphasis mine). 706 While the placement was neither unique nor Samaritan (4Q22 → §1.1.2.3), it was “Samaritan” to the μόνον-collator(s) and their readers, who had no understanding of pre-SP. 707 See Sanderson 1986: 208 and 318. 708 Sanderson is correct to point out that the “expansion” is appropriate to the episode given that the “motif of fear” was already present in Exod 20.19 (1986: 318). However, strictly speaking, nothing in Exod 20.19 or Deut 5.27 suggests that any further prophet would necessarily be required: the people only asked for Moses himself (‫ דבר אתה‬and ‫קרב אתה‬, respectively) to serve in this role. The provision of a future office, ongoing or otherwise, was not explicitly requested. Further, while there is a connection to Sinai/Horeb in Deut 18.15–16, presumably, Moses’ audience in Deut had not yet been born (so J. Tigay 1985: 75). 709 Again, “unique” from the perspective of the collator(s) and subsequent readers.

260 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

EXCURSUS B: SHV Peculiarities and the Later Syriac Textual Tradition As mentioned above (→ §§2.1.4; 2.3.1 at Exod 9.5‫)ה–א‬, the substantially younger SHV attests to a waning of interest in the Samaritan passages by Syriac scribes. This is demonstrated not only by the effaced reading in the MS at Exod 8.19(23)‫§ →( ד–א‬2.3.1, see n. 205), but also in an independent scribal annotation meant to epitomize Exod 9.5‫ה–א‬. There, some scribe one day could no longer bear to continue recording the repetitive μόνον-passages, instead providing a short note (fol. 27a, encircled):

‫ܡ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܬܘܒ‬

‫ܪܫ ܬ ̇ ܐ‬

‫܀‬

‫ܘܙ‬

̇ ‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ܐܙ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܐܒ ܕ‬ ̇ ‫ ܒ ܝ ܕ‬.‫ܢ‬

‫ܗ‬

The things the Lord says to Moses, those (here) and the others like it710, Moses reiterates [lit. repeats afresh] before Pharaoh; these [repetitions] are only extant in the [ἔκδοσις] of the Samaritans.

The note is set in the margin, roughly corresponding to the running text at Exod 9.1–4. As such, the testimony of SHV for the μόνον-materials in Exod, both readings and collation annotations, ceases after 9.5—but only in Exod.711 Curiously, SHV is an excellent witness to the passages in Num. Further on in Deut, SHV’s μόνον-data suffered greatly in transmission (→ §4). Determining the date of the note is difficult. It may have been the SHV scribe’s own note, in an effort to excuse his refusing to copy out the repetitive blocks of text. Or it is possible that this process began well before his era. Perhaps the fact that SHV transmits the “SP Omits” Note at Exod 8.6–7 (→ §2.4.2) could be interpreted as favoring the latter possibility.712 || 710 On the Syriac, see PS 1.1146. 711 Apparently the Syriac scribe responsible did not feel the repetitions necessarily made the Plague Narrative “more coherent” by explicitly filling out each episode (cp. Hjelm 2015: 197). 712 Vööbus’ enthusiastic appraisal of the Midyat scribe’s work ethic in Exod is suspicious: Contrary to the practice which we notice in manuscripts which have left out the textualcritical apparatus, the scribe [of SHV] has proceeded very carefully. Moreover, … the scribe himself gives us his assurance. With regards to the execution of the text at the end of the Book of Exodus, the scribe remarks that he has taken only one liberty with the codex from which he made his copy. He left out the κεφαλαια placed before every book in the Pentateuch. (Vööbus then pointed back to his referencing, earlier in the Introduction, the scribe saying he did not want the codex to be overly long; 1975: 39.)

Excursus B: SHV Peculiarities and the Later Syriac Textual Tradition | 261

The scribal motive for these omissions is not immediately clear. For instance, while the above abbreviation note in SHV seems fair enough for the Plague Narrative, it fails to justify the attendant effects on the MS tradition for those Samaritan passages in Exod 10, 11, 18, and 20.713 Those readings are of a different type and function, mostly involving parallels much farther afield. When one compares the extant marginal readings found in MSS like SHV, often involving much more textually mundane elements, one cannot help but ask why the excerpts from SP were treated in this way. Prima facie, scribal negligence (granted, they are very long passages) or scribal distain (do the omissions reflect attitudes towards the Samaritans themselves? → §§4; 5; 7.3) seem like viable options. As for SHV specifically, the former is to be preferred in light of its excellent witness to the passages in Num, although this interpretation should be tempered by the fact that SH MSS for the individual books of the Pent circulated independently. Thus, the latter cause could still be viable for whoever was responsible for the individual SH Exod MS that the SHV codex represents. SHV, however, was not the only SH-derived witness to abridge the tedious Plague Narrative μόνον-passages. Jacob of Edessa himself did so in his own recension, omitting the readings at Exod 8.1(5)‫ א‬and 8.5(9)‫א‬,714 while abbreviating 8.19(23)‫( ד–א‬fol. 125‫)ܒ‬, 9.5‫( ה–א‬fol. 126‫)ܒ‬, and 9.19‫( ז–א‬fol. 128‫)ܐ‬, respectively, as follows:715

.‫ܐ‬

‫ܕܐ‬

‫ܗ‬

‫ܘ‬

‫ܢ ܘܐ‬

‫ܬ‬

‫ܐ ܘܐܗܪܘܢ‬

‫ܘ‬

And Moses and Aaron went in [pl.] to Pharaoh, and they said to him all those (things) which the Lord said.

‫܀‬

‫̈ ܐܗ‬

[vid]

‫ܢ ܘܐ‬

‫ܬ‬

‫ܐ ܘܐܗܪܘܢ‬

‫ܘ‬

And Moses and Aaron went in [pl.] to Pharaoh and he said to him all these words.

‫܀܀‬

‫̈ ܐܗ‬

‫ܘ‬

‫ܢ ܘܐ‬

‫ܬ‬

‫ܐ ܘܐܗܪܘܢ‬

‫ܘ‬

And Moses and Aaron went in [pl.] to Pharaoh, and they said to him all these words.

|| While the scribe’s note after Exod (see fol. 65b) does mention the embiggening of the codex as a concern, he nowhere explicitly exonerated himself for any other such omissions. Assuming the integrity of the scribe in question, one might posit that a predecessor was responsible. 713 Along these lines of thought, Jacob made sure to include those in chh 18 and 20, while those in chh 10 and 11 are represented even if in trace form (→ §5.2.3). Clearly, he would then not have approved the actions taken by whoever truncated the data in SHV Exod. 714 On these two omissions, see below (→ §5.2.3). 715 Ceriani flagged up the first (1863: 172) but not the second (p. 176) or third (p. 179–80).

262 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Exodus

Then Jacob included only very small traces of the μόνον-readings for 10.(2)2‫ד–א‬ and 11.3–3‫–א‬4‫–א‬4 (→ §5.2.3). From JExod 18 onwards (i.e., the first Deuteronomic parallels), however, his practice is more regular, and he includes most of the μόνον-data available to him (→ Tables 2.3; 3.3; 4.3; 5.2.3.1). JPent does not transmit any Samaritan collation annotations or cross-references (the latter extraneous as the result of his integration). Much later, Barhebraeus (d. 1286 CE) expressed similar exhaustion with the repetitive Samaritan Plague Narrative in his Scholia (fol. 30a, after Exod 11.5):

‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܢ ܘܐ ܕ ܪܐ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ‫ ܕ‬.‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܕܥ ܕ ̈ ܐ ܕܐ‬ ܿ ̄ ‫( ܬ ܕܐܙܠ ܘܐ‬vid) ‫ܪ‬ ‫ ܘ‬.‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܒ ܕ‬.‫ܕ ܐ ܘ ܓ ܐ ܐܘ̈ܪܕ ܐ ܘ ܐ‬ .‫ ܘ ܗ ܐ ܒ ܐ ܕ ܒ ܐ ܘ ̈ ܐ ܘ ̈ܪ ܐ‬. ‫ܙ ܘܙ‬ And know that the words which the Lord said to Moses, namely, Go to Pharaoh and say: The river will become blood and will throw up frogs, etc., they repeat over again in the codex [‫ ]ܨ ܐ‬of the Samaritans, then, “He went and said,” and so on. But it is not thus in the codex of the Hebrews and (that of) the Greeks and (that of) the Syrians.716

Observe that SHV, Jacob, and Barhebraeus abridged independently of one another which implies that these data probably did survive for the most part up until perhaps ca. 1000 CE.717 For another situation in which Syriac scholars treated or valued a Samaritan reading in SH differently, compare the individuality of opinion regarding “Gerizim” in Deut 27.4 (→ §4.3.3).

|| 716 Syriac and ET from M. Sprengling and W. Graham (1931: 113). 717 One cannot help but notice that Barhebraeus only mentioned this after the very last Samaritan Plague Narrative passage, i.e., Exod 11.3b–3‫–א‬4‫–א‬4a. His comment implies that his own copy of SH had all of these notes in their complete forms, at least for the Plague Narrative.

3 The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers: Passages with Attribution and Collation Notations 3.1 Introduction to Previous Scholarship Studies have not focused exclusively on SH Num as Ceriani’s had for SH Exod.1 As a result, the μόνον-data in SH Num MSS have not been much studied outside of Field’s survey. Yet, since a handful of the passages are found in the margins of certain Greek MSS (i.e., the s-group MSS → §§3.3.3; 3.4), scholars have from time to time commented on some of these Samaritan texts, generally in a haphazard manner, in studies focusing on related topics.2 More recently, two doctoral theses endeavored to produce a systematic analysis of the whole of the hexaplaric remains in Num, both in SH and extant Greek MSS, including the μόνον-texts.

3.1.1 Joseph White’s Open Letter Joseph White (1745–1814), sometime Laudian Professor of Arabic at the University of Oxford, issued a proposal in 1779 addressed to the then Bishop of London, Robert Lowth (previously Bishop of Oxford), expounding the necessity to publish a new edition of the LXX, with special attention to the hexaplaric recension. To this end, White propounded the potential critical value of the Arabic translation of SH Pent undertaken by an Arab Christian scholar al-Ḥārith ibn Sinān ibn Sunbāṭ al-Ḥarrānī (10th cent. CE),3 suggesting the latter’s translation could be used to help recoup the lamentable loss of SHM (→ §§1.1; 4.1.1).4 In or-

|| 1 It is unclear why he did not publish an edition of SH Num. Of course, Ceriani knew of the MS’ existence (1863: vii). Further, Field’s comments at the time suggest that such an edition was pending (“Librum exscripsit, sed nondum publici juris fecit, Ceriani noster …”; 1.224). Perhaps such plans, if indeed he ever intended to do so, were abandoned in preference to publishing the SH MS(S) at his direct disposal photolithographically (see Baars 1968: 7). Needless to say, it is a great loss that Ceriani never published an edition as his commentary would have been a welcome and very important contribution. 2 E.g., Kahle 1915 and 1947; Pummer 1998. 3 On al-Ḥārith’s work, see now R. Vollandt 2015: 60–62, and 2018; J. P. Monferrer-Sala 2017 and 2018; earlier G. Graf 1953/2.251. 4 White described the recovery of SHM itself “an idea more likely to excite our wishes than our hopes” (1779: v). Though the textual value of al-Ḥārith’s translation has been questioned (e.g., https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110760798-003

264 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

der to whet an appetite for this new edition, White produced samples from various hexaplaric MSS with LT and annotation. In addition to a number of passages from the Milan SH (= SHC), MS 88, and CODEX Q, he also (re)produced5 a LT of alḤārith’s Prefatory Epistle6 (→ §§1.2.1.1; 1.2.2; 4.2) along with an excerpt of the Arabic translation of SH Num 27.12–23.7 This last specimen included the marginal μόνον-passage at Num 27.23‫§ →( ב–א‬3.3.3), the Syriac of which would not be recovered until 1964.

3.1.2 Frederick Field For Num, Field had recourse to BL ADD. 14437 (= SHL, 8th cent. CE), al-Ḥārith (via H-P), and s-group MSS 85 and 130, as well as MS 58O.8 He specified he used Ceriani’s copy of SHL.9 He did not consult the recension of Jacob of Edessa (→ §5.2). Probably Ceriani did not supply (or mention) the JNum μόνον-passages in his transcription (→ §4.1.2). However, it must be pointed out that had Field used Jacob, the MS would only have served for Num 31.20‫ד–א‬, the placement of 13.33‫§ →( ו–א‬3.3.1), and, possibly, 21.24+. JDeut’s μόνον-passages, similarly unused by Field, are much more significant (→ §4.3.1). For brief comments on Field’s inconsistent use of MS 15 in Num, see the MS profile below (→ §5.3.3).

3.1.3 The Editions of Paul A. de Lagarde and Brooke-McLean De Lagarde’s 1892 edition offered the text of comments on the Samaritan data were offered.

BL ADD.

14437.10 No meaningful

|| Baars 1968: 149, n. 5), his version is valuable for reception history. Presently, the Biblia Arabica team is working on a critical edition of al-Ḥārith’s Pent (see Vollandt 2018: 452, 455). 5 The translation of the Epistle was first published by E. Pococke in 1692, something White acknowledged. The latter only added a small portion of the beginning missing from Pococke’s (White 1779: 8ff; H. Aldrich 1692: 131–40). 6 For a general description of al-Ḥārith’s introductory epistle (risāla), see Vollandt 2018: 455. 7 A brief discussion of the readings in al-Ḥārith MSS at Num 14.40‫ א‬and 14.45‫ א‬can be found in Monferrer-Sala 2017: 147–48, with notes. 8 On his utility of MS 58, see above (→ §2.1.2); the MS transmits only one such reading in Num. 9 1.224: … qui [Ceriani] apographum suum, ne actum agendo tempus teramus, nobis humanissime commodavit. 10 The first paragraph of Wright’s catalogue entry (CSMBM 1.31) was also included.

Introduction to Previous Scholarship | 265

Brooke-McLean’s diplomatic edition of CODEX B (Num, 1911), with respect to sources containing μόνον-passages, collated SHL, MS 58 (their “k”), 85 (“z”), 130 (“s”), and, most importantly, 344 (“v” → §3.4). The editors included the Samaritan attributions from the s-group MSS in their full Greek as Field (and Montfaucon) had done.11 Concerning SH, de Lagarde’s edition was used generally (→ §2.1.3). It is possible they had recourse to the MS itself, as they correctly placed SH’s reading for Num 21.11‫( א‬not before 21.13 as Lagarde mistakenly had), though they may have simply followed Field.12 As before, readings and attributions were given in LT, with limited Syriac, e.g., and certain proper names.

3.1.4 Arthur Vööbus’ Discovery and John W. Wevers’ Numeri From the time of Ceriani and Field, the primary source of SH Num was exclusively13 BL ADD. 14437 which contains considerable lacunae.14 Most unfortunately, the MS lacks the colophon. For as the subscription in SH Exod revealed (→ §2.2), the incorporation of the μόνον-materials into the hexaplaric recension was deemed worthy of distinction by the Caesarean collator(s) as a special feature of the ἔκδοσις and was thus underscored in the original subscription. Fortunately in 1964, A. Vööbus,15 stumbled upon a codex in Midyat16 (→ §2.1.4) containing the vast majority of the SH Pent. The edition was eventually17 (very wisely) published in photo-facsimile in 1975, making its text and marginal niceties available

|| 11 N.B.: Because Wevers did not produce these, the s-group attribution formulae are taken from Br.-M. in the present study (→ §3.3.3). 12 Perhaps they had “corrected” the placement by means of the G MSS? 13 Both Field and Br.-M. consulted Barhebraeus’ Scholia, itself lacking μόνον-data in Num. 14 Missing: init–1.32; 2.2–15; 3.9–22; 3.47–7.19; 7.36–10.6; 15.28–16.2; 16.29–41; 27.40–fin (Wright, CSMBM 1.31). See Wevers (Num, 29) for more specific delimitations. 15 For his many contributions to Syriac studies, see E. Buck, “Vööbus, Arthur,” GEDSH. 16 Vööbus detailed the discovery of the codex, with his typical idiosyncratic flair, in the Introduction (1975: 26–29) to the facsimile edition. Some years earlier, he described his find most enthusiastically: “This is a startling discovery. Indeed, it is almost too unbelievable to be true” (1970: 1). Again from the edition: “I felt a strange awe before opening it.” (1975: 28). See also his announcement in the Journal of the American Oriental Society (1973) for further details of his travels leading up to discovering the codex. 17 He first announced his discovery at the 99th meeting of the American Society of Church History (San Francisco, Dec 1965; see his 1975: 28, n. 194, with literature). He implied that the chain of ownership delayed publication of the codex. The Midyat Codex is now in the possession of Princeton University Library, designated “Scheide M150” (online cataloging: https://catalog.princeton.edu/catalog/9935129203506421). See further → ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.

266 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

to a wider scholarly audience. With respect to the current study, the codex’s chief import is for the recovery of (most of) the SH Num colophon. Most notably, the colophon specifies that Eusebius of Caesarea was himself responsible for adding the SP data to the margins of his MS (→ §3.2, lns. 4–6). Further crucial paratextual information regarding the Caesarean μόνον-collation is found in the Samaritan cross-references found only in SHV Deut (→ Table 3.3.1.1) which are otherwise only indirectly attested by Procopius of Gaza (→ §2.3.2). Beyond these, SHV transmits μόνον-readings in Num discernible from other sources.18 Wevers’ Göttingen edition of Numeri (1982), in keeping with previous volumes (Genesis, 1974, Deuteronomium, 1977), followed the unfortunate precedent set by Brooke-McLean in rendering the SH texts in LT. At the same time, Wevers unfortunately diverged from that precedent by omitting the s-group attribution notations. As before, truncated Latin attributions were provided, e.g., “ex Sam secundum 85′-321′-344 Syh.” Even the much discussed scholion attached to the s-group’s μόνον-passage at Num 13.1‫ ד–א‬was nowhere mentioned in the edition (i.e., in the Einleitung) or its supporting publications (THGN, NGTN). For SH, Wevers utilized de Lagarde19 in addition to SHV.

3.1.5 Dissertations by Kevin Burris (2009) and Andrew McClurg (2011) Two comparatively recent doctoral theses, conducted under the auspices of the ongoing Hexapla Project (1994—),20 also deal with the μόνον-passages found in the hexaplaric evidence for Num. These studies, undertaken by K. Burris (2009) and A. McClurg (2011),21 while largely based on Wevers’ editions, update and comment on the hexaplaric data, including the passages excerpted from SP found in SH and associated G MSS. Though both surveys still await publication, the following will interact with their analyses, as they make greater efforts to discuss the Samaritan data in Num than has been previously attempted.

|| 18 While the Syriac of Num 21.24+, 27.23‫ב–א‬, and 31.20‫ ד–א‬are only recovered from SHV, Greek survives for these passages and, strictly speaking, other sources known previously to SHV attested to their existence, viz., al-Ḥārith’s translation (27.23‫ )ב–א‬and JNum (21.24+; 31.20‫)ד–א‬. 19 This is clear from his denoting Num 21.11‫ א‬as “ind ante 13”; cp. Field and Br.-M. ad loc. 20 On this project, see www.hexapla.org, as well as Salvesen 2016 and Meade 2022. 21 Both supervised by Prof. Peter Gentry, former doctoral student of J. W. Wevers and the editor of Ecclesiastes (2019) in the Göttingen Septuaginta series.

The Colophon to Syrohexapla Numbers | 267

3.2 The Colophon to Syrohexapla Numbers Before analyzing the whole of the μόνον-data in SH Num and related MSS, it is essential to examine the colophon first in order to extract the historical information it provides. As will be seen, the following, in combination with the SH Exod colophon (→ §2.2) and the collation notes, allows for a more precise historical reconstruction. The colophon, extant only in SHV, reads: SH Numbers Colophon: Text, retroversion, and translation SHV (fol. 151b, red ink)22 → PLATE III ̇ [stylized påsôqå] ‫܀‬ ‫ܬܐ ܕ ܒ‬ ‫̈ ܐ܆ ܐ‬ ̣ [similarly stylized påsôqå]

‫̇ܘ ܕܐܦ‬

3 .‫ܘܕ ܐ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܒܐ ܕ‬ ̣

1

‫ܨ ܐ܆ ܕܗ ܐ‬ ‫ ܐܬ ̣ ܒ ܕ‬2 ‫ܐ ̇ ܕ ܗܘܐ‬ ‫̇ܗܘ ܕ ̣ ܒ‬ ‫ܐ ܕܐܘ ܒ ܣ‬ ‫ܐ ܕܒ‬ ‫ܝ ̈ ܐ ܕܒܒ‬ ‫ܨ ܐ‬ ‫̈ ܐ‬ ‫ ܐܬ ̣ ܒ‬4 . ‫ܕ‬ ̇ 5a ‫ܕ ̇ ܐ ܕܐ ܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ ܒ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܗܘ ܕܐܦ ܘܕ ܐ ܐ ܗܘܐ‬ ܰ ܰ ‫ܕ ܒܐ܆ ܰܕ‬ ‫ܐܦ ܬܘ ̈ ܐ ܕ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ ܕ‬5b .‫ܐ‬ ‫ܬ ܒ ܐܕ‬ ‫ ܐ ̇ ܐ ܀‬23 ‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ ܘܒ ܐ ܒ ̇ ܒ‬6 . ̣ ‫ܝ ̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܕ ܒܐ ܼܗܘ ܒ ܒ‬ –:‫ܪܐ‬

[stylized påsôqå] [decorative line markers]

Greek Retroversion24 1 The book of Num ends according to the translation of the Seventy. 2 μετεληφθησαν [sc. οι αριθμοι] δε εξ αντιγραφου {= E2} εχοντος ταυτην επι τελους σημειωσιν {= N2}, 3 εν η και ο γραψας αντιγραφον {= E2} εμαρτυρει αληθειαν 4 μετεληφθησαν οι αριθμοι εκ του των εξαπλων {= S1} αντιγραφου {= E3} (της?) εν Καισαρια βιβλιοθηκης του Ευσεβιου Παμφιλου 5a του {= E3} και εχοντος25 την σημειωσιν {= N3} δειξασαν οτι ην26 ο εβραιοις του[-

|| 22 Punctuation, vocalizations (see ln. 5a), and paragraphing of the MS are reproduced here. 23 The gap between ‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ ܒ ̇ ܒ‬and what the scribe understood as ‫( ܐ ̇ ܐ‬ʾenʿō) is wider than the word spacing of the rest of the passage which was written rather crowdedly, without concern for maintaining a strict left-hand gutter. For the interpretation of this, see discussion. 24 As before, the Greek is without diacritics, and English represents the Syriac translator(s). 25 By analogy (?) from the colophons in SH Dan and MS 88; cp. ln. 2.

268 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

του?] βιβλιου αντιβεβλημενος προς τον των Σαμαρειτων εβραιον {= S2} 5b εξ ου {= S2} και τας προσθηκας επι μετωπου27 του των εξαπλων βιβλου {= E3} παρεθηκεν28 629 και εν τουτω ομοιως εγω … English Translation Syriac “book ends” notice: 1 The book of Num is finished according to the translation of the Seventy. Translated Greek colophon {N1} of Exemplar1 (that translated into Syriac): 2 Now [Num] was taken from an exemplar {E2} which had this notice {N2} at its end, 3 by which also he who wrote the exemplar {E2} testified truthfully:30

|| 26 In SH here ‫ ܐ ܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ‬represents the imperf. ην (cp. Exod 1.5; see PS 1.172 and Nöld. Gram. §305) together with the (here perf.) pass. ptc. The grammatical context, the Greek periphrastic construction (see S. Porter 1, 3.2.2.b), was more precisely represented in SH/Hark than by P. Take for example Luke 4.16, 17: καὶ ἦλθεν εἰς Ναζαρά, οὗ ἦν τεθραμμένος ... 17 καὶ ἐπεδόθη αὐτῷ … καὶ … εὗρεν τὸν τόπον οὗ ἦν γεγραμμένον. P rendered: ‫ܪܬ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܘܐܬܐ‬ ‫ܕܘ ܐ ܐ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ ܘܐ‬... ‫ ܘܐܬ ܒ‬17 ... ‫ܕܐܬܪܒ‬.. Hark, however, reads: ‫ܪܬ‬ ‫ܘܐܬܐ‬ ̣ ܰ ‫̇ ܗܘܬ ܕ ܒܐ‬ ‫ܘ ܐ ܐ ܐ ܕܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬... ‫ ܘܐܬ ܒ‬17 ... . ‫ ܐ ܐ ܕܐ ܗܘܝ ܗܘܐ ܕ ܒ‬.. For SH, see Dan 6.3(4): ‫ܐ̈ܪܓ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܕ ܐ ܐ ܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ ܕ ̣ܒ‬translating και Δανιηλ ην ενδεδυμενος πορφυραν. For further discussion, see Perkins 1980: 319–20 and 340. 27 This reconstruction is affirmed by the Hark translation (but not P’s!) of Eusebius’ Ep. to Carpianus. The Greek line in question reads: … ἐπιζητήσας τε αὐτὸν ἔνδον ἐν τῷ κανόνι ὃν ἡ διὰ τοῦ κινναβάρεως ὑποσημείωσις ὑποβέβληκεν, εἴσῃ μὲν εὐθὺς ἐκ τῶν ἐπὶ μετώπου τοῦ κανόνος προγραφῶν ὁπόσοι τε καὶ τίνες περὶ οὗ ζητεῖς εἰρήκασιν “… and seeking it within the canon marked by the red symbol below, you might know immediately from the titles at the head of the canon how many and which [evangelists] have spoken concerning what you seek” (Text and ET from Coogan 2022: xiv–xvi). For this Hark translated: ‫ܬܕܥ‬ ̣ ‫̣ ܐ܆‬

̈

̈ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕܕ ܐ‬

‫ܒ‬

‫ܐ ܕܒ‬

‫ܐ ̇ܗܘ ܕܪܘ‬

‫ܓ ܒ‬

̇ ‫ܘܒ ܐ ܐ‬

‫ܐ܇‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܪܘ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ... (from BnF Syr. 54, fol. 3‫ܒ‬, ln. 14, dated 1192 CE; online: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b105261522.) See also S. Yohanna 2015: 68–71, for the transcription and ET of another Hark MS of a similar date (following the dating in Juckel 2018: 210, with n. 14). In light of the SH-Hark connection (→ §1.1.1), it is most certain that the underlying Greek entailed ἐπὶ μετώπου than something else. I would like specially to thank Jeremiah Coogan for directing me to the Syriac translation of Ep. to Carpianus for this point. 28 Syriac equivalencies support παρεθηκεν (e.g., SH Gen 43.32; Exod 19.7, 4 Kgdms 6.23, etc.). 29 The editorial layer of ln. 6 is uncertain; see discussion. 30 The first ‫ ܪ‬is certainly not a yud, though it appears to be at first glance. Compare the scribe’s form of ‫ ܪ‬in ‫ ;ܐ ܐ‬see PS 2.4303–04.

The Colophon to Syrohexapla Numbers | 269

Translated Greek colophon {N2} of Exemplar2 (E3’s col. précised by the scribe of E2; incomplete): 4 Numbers was taken from an exemplar {E3} (of) the hexapla {Source1} from the library of Eusebius Pamphili in Caesarea, 5a which {E3} also had a notice {N3} making clear that the Hebrew of the book [i.e., the “Hebrew” of the hexaplaric ἔκδοσις of Num] had been collated with the Hebrew {Source2} of the Samaritans, 5b from which {S2} also he [sc. Eusebius] set the (Samaritan) supplements upon the margin of that book [sc. codex] in that very hexapla {S1/E3}: 6 “And in this (book? edition?) I similarly … ” ► Were lns. 2–3 originally translated from Greek or were they composed in Syriac?31 It is difficult to discern where, if at all, the Syriac translator(s) interfered with the Greek colophon. Unlike several other SH subscriptions, there is no mention of translation activity (e.g., ‫ܪ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐܬ‬ ‫ܨ ܐ ܕ ̇ܗܘ ܕ‬, SH Exod subscription, ln. 2), permitting the possibility that the whole of the subscription was translated directly into Syriac without independent comment.32 This is important as it implies that, if lns. 2–3 were translated, there was another level of transmission before the Syriac translation took place. If this is so, the attested MS history is extended by another generation allowing more opportunities for scribes to omit (or alter) vulnerable marginalia such as the μόνον-passages, whether purposefully or accidentally. Since it would have been exceptional for the Syriac translator(s) to editorialize to such lengths,33 the present analysis holds that lns. 2–3 were Greek, adding another level of scribal transmission. Compare ln. 6. ► ‫( ܨ ܐ‬lns. 2, 3, 4) “αντιγραφον” and ‫ܒܐ‬ (lns. 1, 5a, 5b) “βιβλιον (λος)”: The use of ‫ܒܐ‬ here (ln. 5a–b) is the only attested usage in a translated portion from a SH colophon.34 It represents two distinct senses, viz., 1) that of

|| 31 Lines 2–3 were remarkably omitted from the transcription and translation in Vööbus’ Introduction (1975: 42–43; also 1971: 77–78), apparently from an haplography (!) of his own ( ‫ܐܬ ܒ‬, ln. 2 ∩ ‫ܐܬ ܒ‬, ln. 4). Vööbus’ mistake went uncorrected (e.g., Pummer, 1998: 275). 32 The SH colophons as a whole mention the Syriac translation activity, save Isa, Jer, Bar, Lam, Letter Jer, Ezek, Wis, and, Job (→ APPENDIX). 33 How precisely could the Syriac translator(s) be sure the Greek scribe “testified truthfully” (ln. 3) without access to the latter’s Vorlage? 34 The only extant Greek subscription to use βιβλίον is that for Est in CODEX S (παλαιωτατον βιβλιον, twice).

270 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

the “book of Num” (ln. 5a) and 2) the physical item (ln. 5b), i.e., the “book” (here ≈ ἀντίγραφον), upon which the Samaritan passages were written in the margin. Only a “book”—as a physical item—has margins. While the Greek subscriptions preferred ἀντίγραφον over βιβλίον, it is perhaps best to not read anything into the term, materially, as has been previously suggested.35 ̈ ‫ܝ‬ ►‫ܐ‬ (lns. 4, 5b) “εξαπλων”: As mentioned above (→ §2.2), there is some ambiguity as to which “hexapla” the Samaritan materials were added. Unfortunately, due to both the process of rewriting/summarizing the subscriptions (here, lns. 4–6) and the incomplete nature of the present colophonic statement (see ln. 6), there is further uncertainty as to what the second mentioning of “hexapla” represents. The first instance can, however, firmly be identified as an authorized copy of the Eusebian edition of the “hexapla,” bearing the exlibris of the Caesarean bishop himself. The second, though incomplete, probably does not mean the Hexapla Maior (as Ceriani might have it → §2.4.2). Aside from the lack of conclusive evidence that the larger columned synopsis contained anything in its “margins” approaching the size and scope of the μόνον̈ ‫ܝ‬ passages (→ §6.1), the Syriac requires that ‫ܐ‬ ‫( ܒ ܒ‬ln. 5b) be reckoned 36 as “that very hexapla,” most likely designating the “hexapla” already mentioned, viz. the Eusebian copy (ln. 4). See below about Eusebius. ►‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕܒ‬ ‫( ܕܒܒ‬ln. 4) “της εν Καισαρια βιβλιοθηκης” (PS 1.444): The word for “library” here ‫ܐ‬ ‫( ܒܒ‬also in SH Isa) is not the only equivalent ̈ used by the Syriac translator(s) (cp. ‫ܒܐ‬ ‫“ ܕܒܒ‬which (was) in the house of books” in the cols. for Gen, 3, and 4 Kgdms). The variation could perhaps be due to different translators as both represent βιβλιοθηκη.37 Further, this is not the only subscription to identify the Caesarean library as “of Eusebius Pamphili” (e.g., Gen), though it is also identified as Origen’s (Isa) or just geographically ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫( ܕ‬3 and 4 Kgdms).38 As the SH subscriptions illustrate, direct connections with the Caesarean library, or rather the original exemplars of Pamphilus, Eusebius, and Origen (→ Table 1.1.1.2) contained therein, was of the utmost importance to Paul of Tella.

|| 35 Cp. Jenkins 1991: 264. ̈ ‫ܝ‬ 36 For this understanding, ‫ ܒ‬would imply ‫ ܨ ܐ‬as mentioned in line 4 (‫ܐ‬ ‫)ܨ ܐ‬. 37 Note Zuntz 1945: 14–15. 38 Subscriptions in other works also associate the library with Pamphilus (e.g., NT MS HP [*H 015; “Codex Coislinianus”; Coisl. 202). On the history of the library and Pamphilus’ role in its development, see Carriker 2003: 10–16 (→ §6.2.1). Here I am assuming that “library” is not a reference to a personal collection (viz., within the larger library at Caesarea), if any such distinction is even possible to make. One might argue, even if it were, it results in a distinction without a practical difference.

The Colophon to Syrohexapla Numbers | 271

► ‫( ܕܐܘ ܒ ܣ ܕ‬ln. 4) “του Ευσεβιου Παμφιλου”: As already discussed regarding the SH Exod colophon (ln. 6 → §2.2), Eusebius is the only Father mentioned by name in connection with the hexaplaric ἔκδοσις of the Pent. (All of the implications discussed above apply here as well.) It is perhaps not circumstantial that Eusebius’ adopted patronym “of Pamphilus” only occurs in the Pent subscriptions (→ Table 1.1.1.2). Is this because the Eusebian editions of these texts were issued only after Pamphilus had died and Eusebius had taken his name?39 Or is this unduly speculative, since scribes might just as easily supply the famous cognomen (though they failed to do so in the other subscriptions)? It should be pointed out that while Greek scribes often rewrote subscriptions, they tended to adopt the terminology of the colophon they rewrote (i.e., μετεληφθη :: εγραφη). Thus, “Eusebius” should not have been replaced with “Eusebius Pamphili.” It is also unlikely Pamphilus’ name was originally listed separately (i.e., “of Eusebius and of Pamphilus”; on this, see below → §6.2.1). ܰ ܰ ‫ ܰܕ‬.‫ܕ ܒܐ‬ ►‫ܐ‬ ‫ܬ ܒ ܐܕ‬ ‫( ܒ ܐ ܕ‬ln. 5a): Different from the terminology in the SH Exod colophon (see ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ̇ܗܝ ܕ‬ln. 6b → §2.2), this subscription makes reference to the “the Hebrew of the Samaritans” in the masculine. Additionally, the majority of attribution annotations in SH Num reflect this, though there is some ambiguity for those described with ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܒ ̇ ܘ ܕ‬and ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܒ‬as to whether ‫ =( ܨ ܐ‬a “copy” of SP) or ‫ =( ܒܐ‬SP Num) might be implied. Either way, as detailed above (→ §1.3.2.2), the μόνον-collation as transmitted by SH and other related hexaplaric MSS exhibits a collation where SP was quantitatively compared with the (hexaplaric) edition of G—not MT (→ §2.2). Therefore, the first “Hebrew” here should be understood as “the Hebrew underlying the (hexaplaric) ἔκδοσις of Numbers (i.e., ‫ܕ ܒܐ‬ ‫ )ܕ‬according to the Seventy”; viz., the putatively translated base-text was compared, not differing renditions of the same base text. As a result, the “μόνον-like” passage at Num 4.14‫ א‬was not marked because it equates GNum (marked sub ⨪) and thus cannot be “only” (i.e., μόνον) in SP (→ §3.3.3 at Num14.45‫א‬b). For ܰ ܰ ‫ ܰܕ‬/ αντιβεβλημενος,40 see above philological notes (→ §2.2). ̈ ‫( ܬܘ‬ln. 5b) “τας προσθηκας” (PS 1.1610): Vööbus misinterpreted the ►‫ܐ‬ notion represented by the first half of ln. 5b, rendering “from which (are) also ̈ and ‫( ܐ ܐ‬see the traditions to the value,”41 mistranslating both ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܬܘ‬

|| 39 On Eusebius’ taking of Pamphilus’ name, see Carriker 2003: 19–21. 40 On the use of the pass. ptc. for the Greek perf. mid./pass. ptc., see Perkins 1980: 338. 41 1975: 43. Perkins did not correct Vööbus’ translation (1980: 5). Strangely, Vööbus correctly rendered the term “the additions” in his earlier attempt (1971: 78). Pummer wisely quotes his earlier translation, noting there were “slight differences” between the two (1998: 275).

272 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

̈

below). ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܬܘ‬here should be understood as “additions,” or better “supplements,” with reference to the quantitatively variant passages, added to the margins of the hexaplaric ἔκδοσις of Num. Instances of described προσθηκαι, though few, are found in some hexaplaric scholia and related literatures: SH Exod,42 Isa (in exegetical literature),43 and Pss.44 The term προσθηκη was used to refer to textual addenda of some sort, here, in the subscription of SH Num, most certainly those of the Samaritans. In view of the evidence itself from the SH MSS, there is hardly any other such supplements which would have warranted any comment in the subscription. Further, the Samaritan elements are the subject of the immediate context. ► ‫ܐ ܐ ܕ ܒܐ‬ ‫( ܕ‬ln. 5b) “επι μετωπου45 του ... βιβλου” (see PS 1.1624– 25, ‫ ܐ ܐ‬#5): Vööbus’ translation “to the value of this book” is incorrect and fails to appreciate the context of the colophon; “upon the margin …” is the correct translation whether or not the underlying Greek can be established beyond doubt. An appropriately analogous use of ‫ ܐ ܐ‬meaning “margin,”46 in addi-

|| 42 See SH Exod 22.4(5): ‫ܘܢ ܕܨ ̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ ܗܘܐ ܒ ܒ ܐ ܀ ܗ ܕ‬ ‫ܕܒ ܘ‬ ‫ܗ ܐ‬ ‫ܓܐ̈ܪܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫( ̈ܐܬ ܐ‬fol. 71a top mg ind [and sub?] ⨪; the passage is not μόνον-type as Ceriani supposed → §2.4). 43 E.g., Isa 2.21(and 22): “Diese Zusätze erregten auch das Interesse der alten Kommentatoren. So sagt Eus. in seinem Kommentar zu Is. 2:21 ※ παυσασθε—αυτος: «κατα προσθηκην φερεται»” (Ziegler, Isa, 60–61). SH Isa ad loc: .‫ܒ ܒ ܐ ܘ ܬ ̇ܗ ܢ ܕ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫̈ܓ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ‫ ܐ ܕ ܘ ܬ ܒ‬. “The asterisked words are in the Hebrew and the other recentiores [i.e., οι λοιποι], though not in the Seventy.” See Field (2.435, n. 19) for other witnesses. Also Isa 6.13: “Zu dem Zusatz 6:13 ※ σπερμα αγιον το στηλωμα αυτης bemerkt Eusebius in seinem Kommentar: «μετα αστερισκων προσθηκης επι λεγει» und «ου κειται μεν παρα τοις ημετεροις αντιγραφοις»” (Ziegler, Isa, 62 and AppII). See Field (2.442, n. 21) for related witness. 44 For Ps 86.5, cited by Field: Μητηρ Σιων το Ρ κατα προσθηκην εκειτο εις την των Ο΄ εν τω τετρασελιδω εν δε τω οκτασελιδω, μη τη Σιων, ηγουν διχα του ρω (2.238, n. 8; Rahlfs, Pss, AppI). 45 For this reconstruction, see the above philological explanation (n. 27). 46 Another such scribal remark using ‫ ܐ ܐ‬to mean “margin (of a book / MS)” distantly related to the topic at hand is that made by one Simeon of Ḥsin Manṣur (fl. ca. 861 CE?; see Wright, CSMBM 2.908, n. †), a monk of the Monastery of the Seven Martyrs, who expanded the so-called Catena of Severus (CatSev → §4.3.3) via marginal comments (MS Vat. Syr. 103, fol. 371a): ̇ ‫“ ܐܘ‬Now I ‫ܒܐ ܗ ܕ ܒܐ‬ ‫ܘܢ ܗ̈ܪܐ ܕܪ‬ ‫ܬܐ ܕ ܆‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܕ ܐܐ‬ Simeon added, by my own diligence, all the comments which are noted in the book’s margin.” Further, Jacob’s Scholion on the Divine Name (→ EXCURSUS C) also evinces the same usage:

‫ܐ܆‬

‫ܕ‬

‫ܒܐ܆ ̇ܗܘ ܕ‬

‫ܐ ܕ‬

‫ܒܓ‬

‫ܗܘܘ ܓ‬ ‫ܕ ܒܐ ܀‬

‫ ̇ܗܘ ܕܐܕܘ‬:‫̇ܐ ܬ‬ ̣ ̈ ‫ܒ ܇ ܒܐ ܐ ܕ ܐ ܕ‬

̣̇ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܒ‬

‫ ܐ ܐ ܐ‬... ‫ܗܘܘ‬ ̣

“… rather, as I said earlier, they placed ‘Adonai’ in the text, and put ‘Lord’ (kyrios) in the corresponding places in the margin” (Salvesen’s ET, forthcoming).

The Colophon to Syrohexapla Numbers | 273

tion to Hark’s translation of Eusebius’ Ep. to Carpianus, is found in Timothy I’s Ep. 47 to Sergius (→ §§1.1.1; 2.3.1 at Exod 6.9‫א‬, later Syriac tradition) describing the reproduction of SH he sponsored: ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒܘܐ‬ ‫ܡܕ‬ ‫ܓ‬

‫ܢ‬ ‫ܐ‬

‫ܐ ܐ ܘܬܐܕܘ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕܒܓ‬ ‫ܐ ܗ̈ ܕ ܒ‬ othy’s description ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕܒܓ‬

‫ ܕܒ‬: ‫ ܒ ̇ ܝ ܕ ܓ ̈ܐܢ ܗ ̈ ܕܒܐ ܐ‬.‫ܗ ܐ‬ ‫ ܒ‬: ‫ܣ ܘܕܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܘ‬.47 Note that Tim̈ ‫ܐ ܗ ܕ ܒ‬ ‫“ ܒ‬almost as much as

the running text of the Seventy,” quite literally describes the proportion of the Samaritan readings found in extant SH MSS, and it is very possible that the μόνον-passages were chief among those Timothy meant to specify by such a remark.48 ► ̣ (ln. 5b) “παρεθηκεν” (→ PLATE III): In what is perhaps the most crucial lapse in the previous scholarly literature related to the present study, with the most far-reaching consequences, Vööbus somehow could not see the word ̣ in the Num colophon on fol. 151b of SHV.49 This small word, a mere two letters, significantly affects the interpretation of the data set under examination. For here, it is explicitly stated that Eusebius of Caesarea, styled Eusebius Pamphili (on which see above), was personally responsible for adding the μόνον-collation to the tradition. No other person can be the referent of ̣ (“he set”), and therefore, no one else can be connected with this effort as described in the colophon as we have it. Further, if the inference from his adopted patronym Pamphili proffered above is correct, namely that the ex-libris “Eusebius Pamphili” in the hexaplaric colophons for the Pent suggests he edited these works himself after Pamphilus was martyred in 310 CE, then this has implications for the historical reconstruction of the Caesarean SP collation (→ §6.2). However, attributing the entirety of the μόνον-collation to Eusebius solely based on the colophon here is nevertheless ill-advised for three reasons. First, as the continuing discussion below explains, it is likely that this subscription is

|| 47 Braun’s interpretation (1901: 300–302) of the “others” referred to by Timothy, “und der Anderen (Quinta und Sexta),” is too limited and does not account for his actual description. 48 P. Petitmengin and B. Flusin surmise Timothy was mostly exaggerating here (1984: 258, and n. 110). Yet, in the context of these marginalia, any such exaggeration is not quite as pronounced (→ PLATES I and IV). 49 One wonders how exactly this slip occurred. Granted, the subscription is in red ink and has faded somewhat, particularly against the darkened, tan vellum of the MS. And as a result, the text is not visible in the black-and-white photos published by Vööbus in the 1975 facsimile edition. However, Vööbus saw the MS in person, having discovered it himself. Furthermore, he published transcriptions and ETs of the extant SH Pent colophons, twice. That he did not consult the MS more carefully or could not see the faded ̣ on the page is remarkable. In any case, ̈ ‫ܝ‬ ‫( ܒ‬ln. 5b). Vööbus did not attempt a transcription or ET for the text following ‫ܐ‬

274 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

itself incomplete. It is therefore possible, even if it highly unlikely given the present “Pamphili,” that the originally complete text expanded upon the process, perhaps even specifying others’ involvement.50 Of course, it goes without saying that the colophon for Deut is lost and could have provided further information vis-à-vis any personnel who might have worked with Eusebius. Second, the language used here, “he set … in the margins,” should not be pressed too hard. The execution of this project (→ §4.4.1), from the acquisition of SP itself to the “setting” of its readings in Eusebius’ authorized ἀντίγραφον, would have been quite the endeavor and should have at least involved a student or two, and perhaps further scribal assistants. One could then perhaps view Eusebius as an intimately involved “principal investigator” of this whole process, as the extant data best fits such a reconstruction. Third, by extension of the last point, it could also be hypothesized that Eusebius was employing the work of others, viz., he took the collation from an earlier effort and “set” the passages in MSS for wider circulation: this is the only way to involve Origen in a reconstruction of the μόνον-collation. One would have to argue that Origen had begun such a project, perhaps after the completion of the Hexapla Maior, and either abandoned the project or died before such efforts could come to fruition. However one might wish to imagine such a scenario, the historical reconstruction of the Caesarean collation offered below (→ §6.2) contends that Eusebius was the only one responsible, not Origen or even Pamphilus.51 ̇ ► ‫ܬܐ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫( ܘܒ ܐ ܒ ̇ ܒ‬ln. 6) “και εν τουτω ομοιως52 εγω …”: The end of the visible text on the folio fades away. As the text stands, it is difficult to make out any sense. For instance, one might suggest that the Syriac straightforwardly reads “And in this way, I [the Syriac scribe or Paul of Tella] (did) similarly.”53 Such an interpretation, however, is not to be preferred for a few reȧ sons. First, if ‫ ܐ ܐ‬is to be understood as “I,” it should be kept in mind that explicit first person testimony in the hexaplaric colophons only represents snippets from the “basic Caesarean layer” (→ §1.1.1 and Table 1.1.1.2), i.e., the personal statements of Pamphilus and Eusebius. As discussed above, any intervening scribal rewriting of colophons always employs the passive, and this was strictly maintained. Second, such a claim by the Syriac scribe is tautological || 50 Cp. cols for SH 4 Kgdms and Isa where Eusebius is mentioned (before Pamphilus), though there without the surname “Pamphili.” Note also the mention of the confessor Antoninus in the 2 Ezra and Esther subscriptions in CODEX S (→ APPENDIX). 51 The latter may be involved only in the sense that he may have acquired the Caesarean SP exemplar (→ §6.2.1). 52 PS 1.914–15; Mercati 1941: 45. 53 Such was suggested to me by Alison Salvesen (in private conversation, Nov 2017).

The Colophon to Syrohexapla Numbers | 275

and, quite frankly, preposterous: It is the scribe’s job to copy the text from his exemplar as it was presented. He was a copyist, not the original editor. If he were in any way to take some sort of editorial credit for the Samaritan data, why not also claim the same for inserting the hexaplaric sigla or supplying the readings of the Three! (The same logic would apply to Paul as the translator.) Third, the proper place for Syriac scribes to claim anything is in their own colophons, something the scribe of SHV himself did just after the Exod subscription (see fol. 65b).54 In other words, while such a reading of the line is grammatically possible, it is unnatural and disregards the context. Each part of the extant line must of course represent something. However, the relationship of ln. 6 to the rest of the colophon is obscure. First, it is not immediately clear to what ‫ ܒ ܐ‬refers. Presumably, the grammatically nearest ̈ is fem. pl.) Thus, ln 6. masc. noun, in this case ‫ ܒܐ‬, is what is meant. (‫ܐ‬ begins saying, “And in this (book) ….” The next term ‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ ܒ ̇ ܒ‬should perhaps be viewed within the context of other SH subscriptions. For example, after SH Prov, the colophons to the following Solomonic books (Eccles and Cant) specifically mention that their text was “similarly” (‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ )ܒ ̇ ܒ‬taken from “the very same exemplar” ( ‫)ܕܨ ܐ‬, presumably one containing the hexaplaric edition of the Solomonic corpus.55 Was the case similar for SH Num? It is possible that there was a kind of Eusebian ἀντίγραφον / βιβλίον of the hexaplaric Pent? Such an interpretation would mesh well with the interpretation of mentioned “Pamphili” above. ̇ Last is the even more obscure ‫ ܐ ܐ‬/ εγω, followed by the full stop. Here it is perhaps best simply to posit that the colophon is incomplete and at one time did read with additional lines. There are numerous ways to explain the text as it stands: folio loss, damage to (whichever) scribe’s Vorlage, etc. Two remarks are ̇ necessary here. As stated above, if the ‫ ܐ ܐ‬/ εγω does originally represent a first-person testimony, the remaining evidence suggests it should belong to a Eusebian statement (cp., e.g., the col. before Ezek in CODEX Q). Perhaps there was damage to the SH’s exemplar for Num, a word having been cut off midway since Greek scribes employed scriptio continua (cp. the colophon for 2 Ezra in CODEX S). Additionally, Syriac scribes would have copied their Vorlage(n) “as is.” Take for example, the 9th cent. scribe who with another colleague wrote a collection of Jacob of Edessa’s letters.56 Last in this collection is Jacob’s Letter

|| 54 See Vööbus’ description (1975: 35). Cp. the separate scriabal note in SHL Exod (→ PLATE II). ‫ ܒ ̇ ܒ‬in 55 So Mercati 1941: 43 and 45. It should be pointed out that both instances of ‫ܬܐ‬ the colophons are then followed by a description of the action involved (e.g., ‫)ܐܬ‬. 56 BL ADD. 12172; see Wright, CSMBM 2.592–605.

276 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

About Joakim, Susanna, and Daniel (fols. 134a–b). There Jacob offered his opinion of Joakim’s identity, namely that he is King Jehoiachin of Judah. He then goes on to explain Daniel’s status, age, and role in Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon. In the middle of his discussion, the scribe abruptly stops mid-sentence. As a result, Jacob’s opinion as to Susanna’s identity is not in the MS. The same scribe, having space still remaining on the page jotted a few small semi-decorative lines. Then, the verso of the next page (fol. 135b) transmits the ownership colophon. Why did the scribe abruptly stop mid-sentence before the end of the page? Although it is certainly possible that a scribe randomly stopped writing,57 it seems that the jots on the page indicate that his Vorlage was probably damaged. In fact, Jacob’s opinion of Susanna’s identity is known thanks to a marginal annotation in a Syriac translation of Hippolytus’ Comm. on Sus in which a scribe explained Jacob’s view, citing this very letter.58 While this is not the only possible explanation, it does suggest that scribes would copy their exemplars “as is.” Therefore, if the scribe of SHV had a copy in which the final part of the Num colophon was damaged, or incomplete, he would have written as much of it as was possible, whether or not the resultant text made any sense.59 ̇ Whatever the specific causes of SHV’s ‫ܬܐ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܒ ܐ ܒ ̇ ܒ‬may have been, one may reasonably hypothesize, based on comparison of the wider SH subscriptions as well as Syriac scribal practice, that the end of the SH Num colophon is simply incomplete. Most likely, the original (rewritten) subscription continued on with a snippet of first-person testimony from the Eusebian exemplar, previously excerpted by the Greek scribes who had rewritten and perhaps excerpted his original colophon. If so, it is possible such a citation described these μόνον-passages, seeing that the text breaks off just after mentioning the marginal Samaritan extracts. Given that most of the passages in Num have a distinct relationship with Deut (see below), it would have been logical for the fuller hexaplaric colophon to have included such a description. The present study conjectures that this was the case, and that such a snippet (i.e., μετεβαλομεν—Δευτερονομιω) was likely reappropriated by the much later sgroup scribes for their own purposes (→ §3.3.3 at Num 13.1‫ד–א‬, attribution). || 57 Wright merely stated: “The letter has been left unfinished by the scribe” (CSMBM 2.604). 58 For the edition, see A. de Halleux 1988: 303, with n. ‘b’ (Syriac with FT). Jacob rejected the theory that Susanna was the prophet Jeremiah’s sister saying that she was simply a member of the Judahite aristocracy in exile. 59 Compare the case of those orphaned index markers in SHV Deut 1–3 (→ Table 3.3.1.1). Despite these lacking corresponding marginal notes, the scribe still copied them in-text, something which happened rather frequently in the only SH Judg MS (BL ADD. 17103; 8th cent. CE; see Wright, CSMBM 1.32–33).

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 277

Historical Analysis Despite the incomplete subscription, there is some information present in the extant lines comparable to that found in the complete Exod colophon (→ §2.2): 1) the MS(S)’ pedigree is shown through a chain of subscriptions directly (and “truthfully” / “reliably,” ln. 3) connecting the Vorlage of the Syriac translators’ with the hexaplaric production of Eusebius of Caesarea. 2) The “Hebrew” of the Greek source text was quantitatively “compared” / “collated” ( pael) with the “Hebrew of the Samaritans.” 3) Some kind of remark is included which indicates that the Samaritan layer of the MS was significant. However, instead of expressing such importance in terms of the effort put forth by the ancient hexaplaric collators (as in Exod), ̈ ‫ܬܘ‬, of such effort were emphasized. the results, i.e., ‫ܐ‬ 4) The master exemplar of the Eusebian edition contained a source additional to the already established hexaplaric text.60 5) Regardless of the interpretation adopted for lns. 2–3, the colophon unequivocally places the Samaritan collation before the translation of SH. 6) Finally, the colophon unambiguously credits Eusebius of Caesarea with placing the μόνον-passages in the margins of his copy/edition of the hexaplaric text. This act was likely executed later in life (i.e., “Pamphili”). For further discussion of Eusebius’ role in the μόνον-collation, see §6 below.

3.1 Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary In Num, a great number of μόνον-passages have survived in both Syriac and Greek witnesses. The evidence may be tabulated as follows: Table 3.3: The μόνον-Type Readings in SH Num and Associated Witnesses

SP Passage

GNum MSS

SH (and JNum)

Parallel61

10.10‫ג–א‬

767n (txt*)

SH+ JNum+ (txt sub ÷)

1.6–8

|| 60 Here the presumption is that the textual background of the “hexaplaric” ἔκδοσις of Num was comparable to that of Exod. That is to say, there was already an hexaplaric text of Num without SP. Exemplars such as CODEX G may confirm this, though admittedly, GO fails to provide any meaningful marginalia. See M. Miller’s dissertation where he suggests that CODEX G was a kind of rough draft of the sort of text SH would eventually translate. This, he reasons, is why G’s margins, while empty, are large enough for the hexaplaric apparatus (2019: 37). 61 Parallels are from Deut except where otherwise noted.

278 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

SP Passage

GNum MSS

SH (and JNum)

Parallel61

13.1‫ד–א‬

85′s-344s (mg+) 321′s (attrib. only)

SHL+ JNum+ (txt sub ÷)

1.20–23

13.33‫ו–א‬

>

SHL+ JNum+ (txt sub ÷)

1.27–33

14.40‫א‬

>

SH (> JNum, lac)

1.42

14.45‫א‬

85′-321′-344s (mg+) 343s (txt*)

SH+ (> JNum, lac)

1.44

+

20.13‫ט–א‬

>

21.11‫א‬

85′s-344s (mg+; MS 85*?) 343s (txt*) SHL+ JNum* (txt sub ÷)

2.9

21.12‫–ג–א‬13a

85′s-344s (mg+)

SH+ JNum* (txt sub ÷)

2.17–19

21.20‫ב–א‬

>

SH+ JNum+ (txt sub ÷)

2.24–25

+

+

SH JNum (txt sub ÷)

3.24–28; 2.2–6

21.(22+)22‫ ב–א‬15 (txt*; 22‫ ב–א‬only)

SH JNum (txt sub ÷)

21.23‫א‬62

>

SHL+ JNum* (txt sub ÷ )

2.31

21.24+

58O (txt*)

SHV+ JNum* (txt sub ÷ )

Num 21.35

27.23‫ב–א‬

85′s-321′s-344s (mg+) 343s (txt*)

SHV+ (> JNum, ?)

3.21–22

31.20‫ד–א‬

f-129 (txt* 20‫ א‬only) 85′s-344s (mg*)

SHV+ JNum* (txt sub ÷)

Num 31.21–24

32.1+, 29+

15oI (txt*)

> SH (L, lac) JNum

Num 32.33

oI

L+

+

2.(27)28–29a

N.B.: + = attrib.; * = lack attrib.; bold = readings in s-group MSS; s-group and SH text marginal

The analysis of this chapter’s passages is divided into three sections, aligning with the readings’ extant MS transmission histories, as follows: 1) passages preserved only by SH (and JNum, where applicable), 2) those found in scattered hexaplaric Greek witnesses (with SH, where applicable), and 3) readings found in the margins of certain s-group MSS (and others, where applicable). The following presentation, slightly different from before,63 serves to examine each unit of transmission in isolation, in an effort to determine any historical or textual implications the data may bear. In the end, this procedure reveals that SH is by far the best witness, not only in terms of the quality of the readings but

|| 62 T-F (473; contra Tal’s earlier ST edition) does not provide different versification (i.e., “21.23,” not “21.23‫ ;)”א‬however the present case clearly warrants such as the parallel is the length of another biblical verse, unlike the case in Num 21.24+. 63 Retroversion of SH in full has not been supplied for the latter two groups. The more significant points of disagreement between extant G MSS and what SH can reasonably be retroverted to represent will be given in the notes.

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 279

especially as regards the provenance and textual pedigree of the colophons, attributions, and scholia).

MSS

(i.e., the

3.3.1 Readings Extant only in the Syrohexapla of Numbers First those passages only found in SH (and Jacob of Edessa) are surveyed. As above for Exod, JNum’s readings are consulted primarily as a means of confirming and, where relevant, correcting SH. As such, in this section as in CH 2, the tables include SH and Field’s (corrected) retroversions along with SP. Num 13.33‫ו–א‬: “You Shall Not Fear the Anakim …” SH (L fol. 16b lower mg sub

64

ind ⁜ at 14.1b [mend.! cp. JNum]; > V, lac.)

‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ̇ ܐ‬ .‫ܒ ̈ ܐ ܕ ܘܢ ܘܐ ̣ ܘ‬ ‫ܒ ̈ ܐ ܕܐ‬ ‫ ܘܪ‬33‫א‬ ̈ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒܐ ܐ ܕܐ ̈ܪ ܐ܇‬ ‫ܐܪ ܐ ܕ ܪ ܇ ܕ‬ ‫ ܐ ܐ‬33‫ב‬ ̇ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܐ ܗܘ ܪܒܐ ܘܕ‬ ‫ܐ̇ ܆‬ ‫ܒܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ ̈ ܐ‬° . ̈ ̈ ̈ ‫ ܐ ܐ ܘܒ ܐ ܕܓ ܒ ܐ‬.‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ̈ܪܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܪܘ̈ܪܒ ܐ ܘܕ‬ ‫ܘ‬. ‫ ܐ ܬܙܘ ܢ ܘ ܐ ܬܕ ܢ‬. ‫ܐ ܒ ̈ ܐ ܕܐ‬ ‫ ܘܐ‬33‫ ג‬. . ‫̣ ܬ‬ ̣ ‫ܢ܆ ̣ܗܘ ܒ‬ ‫ܕ ̇ ܡ ̇ܐܙܠ ̇ ܡ ܨܘ ܐ ܕ‬65 ‫̇ܗܘ‬ ‫ܐ ܐܕ‬ 33‫ ד‬.‫ܘܢ‬ 33‫ ה‬.‫ܢ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܢܒ ܪ‬ ‫ܕ ̣ܒ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫܆ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܐ ܐܕ ܇ܐ ܕ ܪ ܐܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܘܢ܆ ܐ ܕܬܪ‬ ‫ܘܒ ܒ ܐ ̇ܗܘ ܕ‬ 33‫ ו‬.‫ܬܐ ܗܕܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕܐܬ ܘܢ‬ ‫̇ ܐܘܪ ܐ ܐ ̇ ܐ ܕܪܕ ܘܢ‬ . ‫ܒܐܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ ̇ ܡ ̇ܐܙܠ‬66 ‫ܢ܇ ̇ܗܘ‬ ‫ܐ ܐܕ‬ ‫ܐ ܗܕܐ ܐ ܗ ̣ ܘܢ ܒ‬ ‫ܘܒ‬ ‫ܢ ܒ ܪܐ ܒ ܐ܇‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫̇ ܕܐ‬ ‫ܢ ܕܘ ܐ܇‬ ‫ܢ ܒܐܘܪ ܐ܇ ܓܒܐ‬ ↘ . .‫ܢ ܐܘܪ ܐ ̇ܗܝ ܕܪܕ ܐ ܘܢ ܒ ̈ ̇ ܘܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ܆‬ ‫ܕ ܕ ܐܦ‬ . ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܗ ܒ ܕ ܒ ̇ ܘ ܕ‬Attrib. ̈ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܐ ܕܬ‬ ‫ܐ܀‬

Field’s Reconstructed Greek [Revised] 33‫ )※( א‬και διεγογγυσαν οι υιοι Ισραηλ εν ταις σκηναις αυτων, και ειπαν. δια67 το μισειν ημας ΠΙΠΙ εξηγαγεν ημας εκ γης Αιγυπτου, παραδουναι68 ημας εις [τας?]69

|| 64 Field was careful to flag up the specific form of the lemniscus in his edition—including in his Prolegomena (1.lxv, n. 2 and lxxxiii; the siglum is represented as ⁒ in Norton’s ET [2005: 123, n. 2 and 154])—specifying the curved half-ringlet BL ADD. 14437 evinces (1.236, n. 8). Field’s is used for SHL Num’s “sub” siglum in this study. For discussion of sigla, see below (→ §4.4.2). 65 On the verb + ‫ ̇ ܡ‬construction, see above on ‫( ̇ ܡ ܐܬܬ‬SH Exod col., ln. 6b → §2.2). ̇ ‫ܕܐܙܠ‬ ‫ ̇ܗܘ‬as if reflecting the GDeut vars πορευσεται 15-72O 8566 SH Deut 1.33 reads ‫ܢ‬ 730s 18-68z 28mx / πορευεται (-τε 376 30 407′) rell. 67 Thus Field and the GDeut parallel (without variant), although the more usual translation for δια + acc. is according to Perkins (1980: 73–75). (= JNum) does occur for δια + gen.

280 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

χειρας [των?]70 Αμορραιων, εξολοθρευσαι ημας (.) 33‫ ב‬που ημεις αναβαινομεν; ° οι αδελφοι ημων απεστησαν71 την καρδιαν ημων, λεγοντες. Εθνος μεγα και δυνατωτερον72 ημων, και πολεις μεγαλαι και τετειχισμεναι73 εως του ουρανου, αλλα και υιους γιγαντων74 εωρακαμεν εκει. 33‫ ג‬και ειπε Μωυσης τοις υιοις Ισραηλ. Μη πτηξητε,75 μηδε φοβηθητε απ αυτων. 33‫ ד‬ΠΙΠΙ ο θεος ημων ο προπορευομενος προ ποσωπου υμων, αυτος συνεκπολεμησει αυτους76 μεθ

|| at the parallel, implying different translaand in temporal clauses. SH Deut reads ‫ܕ ̇ ܐ‬ tors. 68 For the use of -‫ ܕ‬+ imperf. to render Greek complementary inf., see Perkins 1980: 292–95. 69 See AppI for the article in many MSS. It is uncertain what the translator(s) MSS read. 70 See AppI for των in many MSS. It is impossible to know what the translator(s) MSS had. 71 Rightly qualified with ‫ ܐ‬by Field; cp. SH Deut 1.28 which translated ‫ܐܪ‬. Normally εκκλινω is the underlying Greek for the afel of ‫ ܐ‬. Nevertheless, there are cases in the NT as well as in SH where αφιστημι is translated this way. For examples, see PS 2.2594–95. 72 JNum at this point reads ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܘ‬, which cannot be taken from PDeut. Jacob differs adverbially (see PS 1.1438) and thus the is from SH here since the latter is utilizing not syntactically being used for this function. Δυνατωτερον occurs here, Deut 1.28, and 2.21. SH for the latter instances rendered ‫ܢ‬ ‫ ܘܕ‬and ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘ‬, respectively. The location of , representing the comparative –τερον according to Perkins (1980: 158–59), depends on serves to make the comparison explicit (see PS 1.1651 for examples of the adv. whether ). ̈ ‫ =( ܕ‬JNum, ̈ ‫ܘ‬.) which mostly agrees with the SH 73 Again Field included ‫ܒ ̈ܪܐ‬ ̈ ‫)ܘ‬. The same at Num 13.29 reads ‫̈ ܐ ܕ ̈ܪܐ‬ . parallel (‫ܒ ̈ܪܐ‬ 74 Field qualified this with (‫ ܕ(ܓ ܒ ܐ‬supplied in parentheses, presumably since a folio earlier ̈‫ܓܓ‬ ‫ (ܓ ܓ‬for γιγαντας (mg: ‫ܓ ܒ ܐ‬ in the MS, the Syriac for Num 13.33(34) reads ( ̈ ‫ ) ܝ ܐܪ ܐ ܀‬a calque on the Greek. Note that at the parallel in SH Deut, the Syriac reads ̈ ‫( ܓ ܺ ܰܓ‬mg: ‫܀‬ ‫ ̇ܗ ܢ ܕ ܐ ܕܐ‬ενακειμ). Further, at SH Gen 6.4 ‫ ܓ ܒ ܐ‬is used twice ‫ ܓ ܓ‬and ‫ ܓ ܒ ܐ‬were used for γιγας (for additional (γιγαντεσ once in mg). Clearly both data, see PS 1.706 [N.B. Bar Bahlul’s equivalency] and 645–46, respectively). Field’s note then is probably just to point out the differentiation rather than to cast doubt on the retroversion. 75 Field supplied the Syriac (= JNum) for the low frequency πτησσω. The equivalency is, however, perfectly cromulent as SH at the parallel, Deut 1.29 (not then known), reads ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܬܙܘ ܢ‬. For further data, see PS 1.1105 (esp. 4 Kgdms 19.26 and Job 38.17). ‫ ܒ‬parenthetically; συνεκπολεμεω in 76 For the verb and pronoun, Field supplied ‫ܒ ܘܢ‬ G is rare, occurring in Deut 1.30, 20.4, and Wis 5.20. In Field’s day, only the latter would have been available (likely via correspondence with Ceriani). SH Wis reads ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ ܒ‬for συνεκπολεμησει [συνπολεμησει CODEX S] δε αυτω ο κοσμος. However, SH Deut 1.30 renders the ‫ܐ ܐ‬, whereas at Deut 20.4 the simple ‫ ܒ‬obtains. Since the MS tradition is fairly verb ‫ܒ‬ uniform at 1.30 (but cp. OL), then συνεκπολεμησει should be retained. The variation, like many in these passages, is due to different Syriac translators between Num and Deut.

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 281

ημων, κατα παντα οσα εποιησεν υμιν εν Αιγυπτω κατ οφθαλμους υμων, 33‫ ה‬και εν τη ερημω ην ειδετε. Ως ετροφοφορησε σε77 ΠΙΠΙ ο θεος σου, ωσει τροφοφορησαι ανθρωπος τον υιον αυτου, 78κατα πασαν την οδον ην επορευθητε78 εως ηλθετε εις τον τοπον τουτον. 33‫[ ו‬και]79 εν τω λογω τουτω ουκ ενεπιστευσατε ΠΙΠΙ τω θεω υμων, ος προπορευται προτερος υμων εν τη οδω, εκλεγεσθαι υμιν τοπον, οδηγων υμας εν πυρι νυκτος, δεικνυων υμιν την οδον καθ ην πορευεσθε εν αυτη, και εν νεφελη. (↙) [Attrib. και (ταυ)τα80 μονον εν τω των σαμαρειτων φερομενα. μνημονευει δε και τουτων μωυσης εν τοις πρωτοις του Δευτερονομιου]81 SP Num 13.33‫( ו–א‬Deut 1.27–33) ⟨4Q27⟩82 ≠ MT ‫{ וירגנו בני ישראל באהליהם ויאמרו בשנאת יהוה אתנו הוציאנו מארץ‬1.27} 33‫א‬ ‫{ אנה אנחנו עלים ואחינו המיסו‬1.28} 33‫מצרים לתת אתנו ביד האמרי להשמידנו ב‬

‫את לבבנו לאמר עם גדול ורב ממנו ערים גדלות ובצרות בשמים וגם בני ענקים ראינו‬ {1.30} 33‫{ ויאמר משה לבני ישראל לא תערצון ולא תיראון מהם ד‬1.29} 33‫שם ג‬

‫יהוה אלהיכם ההלך לפניכם הוא ילחם לכם ככל אשר עשה אתכם במצרים לעיניכם‬ ‫{ ובמדבר אשר ראית אשר נשאך יהוה אלהיך כאשר ישא איש את בנו בכל‬1.31} 33‫ה‬ ‫{ והבדבר הזה אינכם‬1.32–33} 33‫הדרך אשר הלכתם עד באכם עד המקום הזה ו‬ 83 ‫מאמינם ביהוה אלהיכם ההלך לפניכם בדרך לתור לכם מקום להחנותכם באש לילה‬ ‫להראותכם בדרך אשר תלכו בה ובענן יומם‬ 33‫ א‬And the sons of Israel murmured in their tents, and they said: “Because ‫ יהוה‬hates us, he brought us from the land of Egypt, athat he might delivera us into the handsb of the Amoritesb to blot us out. 33‫ ב‬To where are we going up? c

Our brothers dturned asided our hearts saying: ‘The people are great and mightiere than us, andf the cities are huge and fortified gwith wallsg (reaching)

|| ‫ ܬܪ‬parenthetically. While low in frequency, and Syriac ‫ ܬܪ‬does 77 Field again supplied ‫ ܕܬܪ‬and equate other Greek words (see PS 2.4501), the parallel is secure here as SH Deut’s ‫ ܕ ܪ ܐ‬confirm. See below discussion. 78 The SH Num’s ‫̇ ܐܘܪ ܐ ܐ ̇ ܐ ܕܪܕ ܘܢ‬ (= JNum, save ̇ ‫ ܒ‬from PDeut) differs from ̇ the corresponding parallel in Deut ‫ܒ ̇ ܐܘܪ ܐ ܗܝ ܕܐܙ ܘܢ‬. This is still further evidence for different Syriac translators as opposed to different Greek. According to Perkins both and -‫ܒ‬ can equate κατα + acc., though the latter is more common (1980: 85, 87, 106–08). As for the use of ‫ ܕܪܐ‬for πορευομαι, both that and ‫ ܐܙܠ‬were used (see PS 2.3813 for scattered evidence from SH). 79 As no MS lacks και, this was presumably accidentally omitted by Field. Burris correctly added it back in (2009: 314). 80 On this ambiguity, see the first such note above (→ §2.3.1 at Exod 7.18‫)ג–א‬. 81 For comments on Field’s understanding, see discussion. 82 N. Jastram would restore “Num 13.33b” to 4Q27 even though col. ii is not extant for the passage cutting off at v 24 (DJD 12.206). He notes, however, that based on the general textual profile of the scroll “there is no reason to suppose [its] absence” (p. 215). 83 McCarthy correctly points out that the Samaritan reading tradition parses this as a nifal inf. instead of the more expected hiphil inf. supported by ST (BHQap; lērrā̊ ʾotkimma, see BenḤayyim 1977: 257 and 492). Tsedaka’s ET follows the understanding in ST: “… to show you ….”

282 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

unto the heavens! But also the sons of the Giantsh we saw there!’ ” 33‫ ג‬And Moses said to the sons of Israel: “Do not tremble and do not fear them. 33‫ד‬ ‫ יהוה‬ouri God, he goes before your face. He will battle jagainst them with usj, according to everything he did for you in Egypt before your eyes, 33‫ ה‬and in the wilderness, that you(pl.)b saw, how ‫ יהוה‬your God nourishedk you, just as a man nourishesk his son—upon every path which you have tread until you came tol this place. 33‫ ו‬Andm in this matter you do not believe in ‫ יהוה‬your God, he who goes firstg before you in the way, to choosen the place for you, while o directingo you with fire by night, showing you the path in which you are traveling also with a cloudp.” a

SP ST: (lit.) to give b SP ST: sg. c SP ST: pr. and d SP: melted; ST: frightened e SP ST: (more) numerous f = SPvGall (see discussion); > SPmaj ST g > SP ST h SP STJAMNE: Anakim (see discussion) i SP ST: your j SP ST: for you (pl.) k SP ST: carried … carries l SP ST: until m SPmss STV: + behold! (see discussion) n SP ST: seek/spy out o = STJ (! see discussion); SP ST: making (you) encamp (as n. or inf.) p SH (mend.; restore ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܒܐ‬via JNum? See discussion): + by day SP ST

Attribution: And this is only transmitted (here) in the (exemplar?) of the Samaritans. Now Moses also recalls (saying) this in the beginning (parts)84 of Deuteronomy (lit. the repetition of the Law). Num 13.33‫ו–א‬: This rather long passage has many points of discussion related both to philological issues as well as its transmission in the MSS. Placement: As was pointed out by Field (presumably via Ceriani’s notes), L SH indexes the reading just after the παντες οι υιοι Ισραηλ in Num 14.2.85 This location, however, is incorrect.86 Nonetheless, JNum correctly integrates this passage precisely where it is located in SP, just after the end of 13.33 (fol. 284‫–ܐ‬ ‫)ܒ‬. Jacob’s must have been taken from a more accurate copy of SH. For in addition to all of the evidence for Jacob’s use of SH for the μόνον-passages adduced above, and further added to below, the people’s complaint could reasonably be placed at either location without breaking the sense of the narrative. Thus, Ja-

|| 84 Field (1.240, n. 3) correctly marks the seyame whereas de Lagarde (see ad loc) does not. While the dots were not carefully placed, they are clearly present. For the underlying Greek as plural, see the attribution below at Num 13.1‫§ →( ד–א‬3.3.3). 85 Field: “Haec in textu Hebraeo-Samaritano ad finem Cap. xiii apposita sunt” (1.240, n. 3). 86 Interestingly, modern editions (including Burris’ study) differ on where the passage is marked. Br.-M. followed Field, while de Lagarde ambiguously (perhaps as the placement is incorrect?) stated that the passage was in the lower margin of the folio without supplying the index marker unambiguously supplied in the MS (1892: 106, see note to 14.2). Wevers, without cause or explanation, marked the passage where it is supposed to be set (i.e., pr 14.1; see AppII). BHSap marks SP’s passage where it is (note ‘b’ at 13.33) while also remarking where SHL has it (note ‘a’ at 14.2). Burris (2009: 313) uniquely set the passage at the end of 14.1.

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 283

cob could not have corrected the placement by guessing if his MS read as SHL. As for the mistaken setting in the latter: It is probable that this error, during the transmission process in Syriac, occurred due to the close proximity of ̇ ̇ (14.1) and ‫ܐ‬ (14.2). SHL should then be corrected and the ‫ܐ‬ passage correctly indexed at the end of 13.33 on the authority of JNum.87 As such, the case in SHL cannot be used to establish a variant in SP itself. Sigla (or lack thereof): Field, in keeping with his decision at Num 10.10 (the first such instance in Num in canonical order), wished to restore the asterisk to this passage (akin to those in SH Exod and MS 344 of the s-group → §3.3.3) despite the fact that (a) no such marker is in the MS and (b) where sigla do obtain in SHL Num for μόνον-passages the unique lemniscus is what occurs.88 On the variation between the sigla applied to the Samaritan passage in SH Exod and Num, see the discussion below (→ §4.4.2). Num 13.33‫א‬: The verse exhibits typical septuagintism, including equivalency selection and grammatical number. There is one irregularity in word order. ► ‫ =( ܕ ̇ ܐ‬JNum, w/ ‫ܐ‬ for ) / μισειν ημας ΠΙΠΙ : At issue here is the word order: “hate–us–LORD” as opposed to SP’s ‫בשנאת יהוה אתנו‬ “hate–LORD–us.” This phrasing is unexpected since the MS evidence from the G parallel overwhelmingly reads with SP (= MT Deut).89 In particular, while the OL order likely represents an old reading reflecting the order “hate–us–LORD” (which SH Deut does follow), MS 963 is second cent. CE and its word order (“hate–LORD–us”) cannot be the result of an hexaplaric correction. There is then little reason to suppose that the MSS used by the μόνον-translator(s) read any different. It is unclear then how this word order resulted. Perhaps the translator(s) did produce the correct order and a Syriac scribe switched the order under the influence of PDeut 1.27: ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ ̇ ܐ ܗܘ‬ . ► ‫ =( ܕ‬JNum) / παραδουναι : The Hebrew ‫ ביד‬+ ‫“ לתת‬to give in the hand” is here rendered using the equivalency found in GDeut.90 For the Syriac construction, see above note.

|| 87 Compare the similar situation at Num 20.13‫ ט–א‬below. 88 Wevers (AppII) omitted any such siglum, whereas Burris described it as “similar to an obelus” (2009: 314). 89 See AppI: κύριον ἡμᾶς 963] κ̅ς̅ ημας (υμ. 529) 72′-426O 529C 799t 630z 407mx; tr 73cI (υμαςc) 44d Lat cod 100 Luc Athan I 5 SH; ημας κ̅ς̅ 381′oI; υμας κ̅ς̅ 320cI; om κυριον V 552*cI; om ημας Arm. The use of the -‫ ܠ‬after the ptc. marks the object (Perkins 1980: 129), so the Syriac word order, here or in SH Deut, should not be seen as an alteration of the Greek. 90 Wevers lists many instances of this equivalency in GDeut (NGTD, 16).

284 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

̈ 91 / [τας?] χειρας [των?] Αμορραιων : As has been point► ‫ܒܐ ܐ ܕܐ ̈ܪ ܐ‬ ed out many times before grammatical number, particularly for gentilics, is nearly always cribbed from the G parallel. Num 13.33‫ב‬: Several items of note surface in this verse, including the pervasive exegetical tradition in which the Anakim are considered giants. ► ̈ ‫ܐ‬° (= JNum = PDeut) / ° οι αδελφοι ημων : The prefixed ‫ ו־‬from SP is not represented. Presumably this is due to the translator’(s) reading at the parallel, although there is a majority variant tradition οι δε αδελφοι ημων.92 ► ‫ܐ‬93 / απεστησαν : As Wevers pointed out, GDeut here uniquely translated Hebrew ‫המיסו‬, lit. “they caused to melt,” with αφιστημι, which he interpreted as “[they] caused our hearts to revolt.”94 The μόνον-translation is obviously septuagintistic. The wider hexaplaric data suggests that other options could have been available to the translator(s), e.g., at Ezek 21.12(7) or Mic 1.4, which, if adopted, could have led to a more literalistic rendering from some form of τηκω.95 Whatever the case, GDeut was adopted probably rotely as opposed to an overly involved process whereby the wider hexaplaric data was consulted. Such presumes too much on the part of the translator(s). ►‫ܢ‬ ‫( ܘܕ‬for JNum, see above note) / και δυνατωτερον : The GDeut parallel describes the people as μεγα και πολυ και δυνατωτερον ημων. Yet και πολυ, Wevers rightly observed, corresponds not to ‫ ורם‬but ‫ורב‬.96 Apparently, when rendering SP’s ‫גדול ורב‬, the Caesarean translator(s) chose the first and last descriptors; however, the first and second would have been correct. It is difficult to know what led to this decision. Graphic confusion, possible in square script, is less likely in Samaritan ‫ רמ‬/ ‫ רם‬:: ‫ רב‬/ ‫רב‬. Perhaps, the collator(s)/ translator(s) did not think to consult the wider hexaplaric data for Deut 2.21 where all || 91 JNum’s ‫ ܒܐ ܐ ܕܐ ̈ܪ ܐ‬is from PDeut. 92 AppI: + δε A F M V 963 82-oI’–618* b d f 54-458-767n 344c s t y z 55mx 59mx 407mx Aeth Arm Bo Sa1 2 SH. As the BHSap points out, another majority variant in the MS tradition reads υμων instead of ημων, an ancient variant attested by MS 963. McCarthy overserves that while the error is old, it is probably influenced by the wider context or perhaps a simple itacism (BHQap). 93 JNum has ‫“ ܬܒ ܘ‬they broke” which was taken from the parallel in PDeut. 94 NGTD, 16. M.K. Peters in NETS rendered “[they] have disquieted our hearts.” LEH2 glosses the similar verbal collocation at Num 32.9 as “they changed the minds of the children of Israel.” There the underlying Hebrew is the hifil of ‫נוא‬. 95 Compare the data from each at AppII, respectively: θραυσθήσεται] αʹ τακησεται σʹ διαλυθησεται 86C; και σαλευθήσ.] αʹ και τακησονται θʹ και εκτακησονται (s. κατατακησονται) ̇ ‫ ܘ‬.‫]ܬ‬. Note that Theodotion’s is literal and may very well have been used for the SH [‫ܘܢ‬ case at Deut 1.28. Even σ΄ ἐξέλυσαν “they dissolved” (MS 108b; see AppII at Deut 1.28) is more literal. 96 NGTD, 17.

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 285

three adjectives are present in GDeut, MT, and SP, allowing for better alignment. For the confusion in the wider textual witnesses at the parallel, see McCarthy (BHQap). ̈ ‫̈ ܐ ܪܘ̈ܪܒ ܐ ܘܕ‬ ̈ ‫ )ܘ‬/ και πολεις ► ‫ܒ ̈ܪܐ‬ ‫ =( ܘ‬JNum, but 97 μεγαλαι και τετειχισμεναι : Both the prefixed “and” as well as the reading “fortified with walls” are due to the GDeut parallel. ► -‫ ܐ ܐ ܘܐܦ( ܐ ܐ ܘ‬JNum98) / αλλα και : Clearly the translator(s) cribbed GDeut’s “unusual”99 rendering of ‫וגם‬. ► (‫ =( ܕ(ܓ ܒ ܐ‬JNum) / γιγαντων (for the equivalency, see note above): The exegetical notion that the Anakim were monstrous, gigantic beings is pervasive in the ancient versions. However, Wevers remarked, only at the GDeut parallel is γιγας used as a translation for ‫ענק‬, the Hebrew being otherwise transliterated.100 On the face of it, then, the translator’(s) crib continued. As with other cases, any potential connection with Samaritan traditions is here coincidental to the pan-Judeo-Israelite exegesis. Thus ST MSS Bm which supply ‫־יה‬/‫ג)י(ברין‬, as opposed to the transliterated ‫־אי‬/‫ ענוים‬of the remainder, have no direct connection to the μόνον-translation.101 This variation in Targumic practice is also reflected in the Jewish Targumim: ‫יב ָרא ֲחזֵ ינָ א‬ ָ ִ‫ וְ ַאף ְבנֵ י ג‬TgO; ‫ולחוד בנוי דענק גוברא‬ ‫ חמינן‬TgN; ‫ ואוף בני עפרון גיברא חמינא‬TgPJ.102 As Driver pointed out, the large, gigantic people groups in Canaan were further specified in Deut 2.10–11 (Emim/Rephaim) and 21 (Rephaim/Zamzummim), as being similar to the Anakim thus further solidifying the association.103 It should be pointed out that the wider G MS tradition could have offered other

|| 97 Note that von Gall’s reconstruction with ‫ ו־‬contradicts the majority of SP MS evidence (as well as ST); see his App. McCarthy (BHQap) seems to accept this judgement even as it contradicts T-F’s edition. Von Gall’s MS D5 reads ‫“ ובחצרות‬and with courtyards/unwalled settlements,” a mistake for ‫ובצרות‬. 98 Jacob here combined SH’s -‫ ܐ ܐ ܘ‬and PDeut’s ‫ܐܦ‬. This is a technique evinced elsewhere in JRec; see Marsh 2019. Because of this, his still confirms SH. 99 Thus Wevers (NGTD, 17) who noted that ‫ וגם‬is “hardly an adversive particle.” 100 NGTD, 17. He felt that GDeut’s choice of γιγας was directly influenced by G’s same rendering for the ‫ נפלים‬in Num 13.33(34) (also NGTG, 77, on Gen 6.4 having γιγαντες for ‫)נפלים‬. 101 Compare also Tsedaka’s ET, “… we also saw there sons of giants.” 102 Presumably the association in TgPJ with Ephron (‫ )עפרון‬is through the connection in Josh chh 11, 14, and 15 of Hebron (Gen 23) with the Anakim (see S.R. Driver 1902: 23–24; G. Mattingly, “Anak (Person),” ABD 1.222). E. Clarke makes no such connection in the notes to his ET (1998:10, but cp. p. 12, n. 12); cp. also TgJ in Josh chh 11, 14, and 15. 103 1902: 23. Interestingly SP lacks Deut 2.11a, perhaps to avoid the confusion over who ought to be called Rephaim? McCarthy (BHQap; also earlier Kim 1994: 284) judged the case in SP as the result of homoioteleuton: ‫( כענקים‬fin v 10) ∩ ‫( כענקים‬v 11).

286 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

options. In addition to the transliteration Ενακειμ found in the recentiores (οι λ΄, see AppII) at GDeut 1.28, σʹ also used τεραστίους “monstrous (persons)” for ‫נפלים‬, the γιγαντες in Num 13.33(34).104 An anonymous rendering φοβερούς (in MS 58O) is also found at this location at Num 13.33(34), presumably from one of the Three. Nevertheless the association of the “sons of Anak(im)” with “giants” held sway in accordance with both Jewish and Samaritan exegesis.105 As such, this also was prevalent in Christian exegesis as is shown by an anonymous scholion in the catena at Deut 2.11:106 Αδηλου. ̔Ραφαεὶν ἑρμηνεύεται γίγαντες, καὶ οὗτοί οὖν, φησὶ, γίγαντες καλοῦνται, ὡς οἱ Ἐνακεὶμ οἱ ἀπόγονοι τῶν γιγάντων. Anonymous. Rephaim means ‘giants’; and these [sc. the Ommin] then, [Scripture] says, are called ‘giants’ as the Anakim, the offspring of the giants.

Num 13.33‫ד‬: A few complications obtain with respect to pronouns. Otherwise septuagintistic idioms obtain. ► ‫ܐ ܐ ܕ‬107 / ο θεος ημων : It would appear that the Caesarean translator(s) was misled by his parallel passage here reading with the first plural pronoun. While an error in Greek transmission is not impossible,108 this specific reading is attested in both old witnesses, especially the 2nd cent. CE MS 963, and the hexaplaric tradition more widely.109 Thus, it is just as probable that the mistake was part of the original μόνον-translation. This is perhaps more likely as

|| 104 See AppII: M′ 58(s nom)O 85′-321(nom absc)-344-346s. At Num 13.33(34), Wevers held that the G translator’s eye skipped from ‫ נפלים ∩ נפלים‬omitting “the sons of Anak from the Nephilim” (NGTN, 209). The hexaplaric tradition then supplied the omitted text, likely from Theodotion as Wevers suggested, υιους ενακ εκ των γιγαντων (sub ※ in GO). This being the case, the equivalency with the two monstrous groups as giants made by GDeut (based on GNum’s haplography?) is still maintained by the μόνον-translator(s) against other options. 105 See also AppII at Deut 2.10, 11, and 21, where for GDeut’s Ενακειμ (apparently the G translator changed his mind after 1.28) γιγαντες is transmitted in Fb. As noted above (see CH 1, n. 484), Fb’s readings are both post-hexaplaric and derive from Jewish exegetical traditions. For this reading and its “peculiar” nature, insofar as Fb is concerned, see Fincati 2016: 332 (note Wevers’ AppII must be corrected based on her analysis). 106 Greek taken from the NicCat 1/3.1430 (again, this is MS 417cII). 107 JNummg reads ‫ܢ‬ ‫ ܐ‬a scribal correction based on PDeut 1.30 which cannot emend SH. 108 Certainly a Greek scribe is more likely to have mistakenly altered the text (υμων → ημων) as opposed to a Syriac scribe (‫ܢ‬ ‫)ܕ → ܕ‬. 109 See AppI: ὑμῶν 1°] ημων F M 963 oII 52′-414-528c-551c cII d–125 f n–127 t–74* 318-392y 68′-83-120630z 319mx 407′ 646 Arm Sa1 7 = Compl; > 381′oI 19′b; ∩ 2° 529C.

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 287

the “mistaken” ημων110 here does not level the pronominals in the verse: ouryour(pl.)-us-you(pl.)-your(pl.). This is further complicated by the possibility, however slight, that the hexaplaric translator(s) Vorlage had smudged Hebrew: ‫ אלהיכם‬/ ‫ אלהיכם‬:: ‫ אלהינו‬/ ‫( אלהינו‬remove the upward stroke on ‫)נ‬. ► ‫ܒ ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܒ‬111 / συνεκπολεμησει αυτους μεθ ημων : The rendering differs from SP’s ‫ ילחם לכם‬in both the addition of “against them” and the final pronoun. The former is easily accounted for via the GDeut parallel, where Wevers observed, the addition of αυτους (without equivalent in the source text) is “normal.”112 Similarly, the translator(s) followed, as is his modus operandi, the G parallel for the prepositional ‫ לכם‬with μεθ ημων. Certainly, this co-operative “with us” provides a different emphasis, as Wevers noted, than the underlying Hebrew “for you (pl.).” As for the ημων, compare above. It is more likely that a subsequent misreading by Greek scribes or the SH translators (υμων → ημων), has influenced the reading as opposed to a genuine SP variant or an attempt by the translator(s) to somehow emphasize Moses’ own participation in battle. Compare below at Num 27.23‫§ →( ב‬3.3.3). ►‫ܢ‬ ‫ ܒ‬113 / κατ οφθαλμους υμων : Differently, SH in the parallel renders this sub ※ portion as ‫ܢ‬ ‫ ܡ ̈ ܐ ܕ‬. There is no evidence for any differing underlying Greek, so SH Deut’s somewhat odd selection of preposition is unconcerning, other than to indicate different translators for SH Num and Deut.114 Here, it is important to see that the hexaplaric tradition likely supplied the Greek. Note also that GDeut’s “land (of Egypt)” was resisted. Whether the Caesarean critic(s) were quick to omit what SP lacks, or whether the collator’(s)/translator’(s) G MSS looked like 963 (see above) cannot be determined. Num 13.33‫ה‬: Further septuagintism peppers the verse.

|| 110 Wevers: “The popular F M 963 reading … is rooted in homophony, and is not a genuine variant text” (NGTD, 18). There is no Semitic evidence from Deut 1.30 which supports it, and thus Wevers is certainly correct. ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܫ‬ ‫ܘܗܘ‬ 111 Jacob’s text here is mixed: ... ‫ܒ ܘܢ܆‬ ̣ ... (fol. 284‫)ܐ‬. Only the ‫ ܒ ܘܢ‬was taken SH, the remainder of the phrase equates PDeut. 112 NGTD, 18. McCarthy supports this interpretation and supplies other cases where GDeut added pronominals for “stylistic purposes” (BHQap). ̈ is merely a more Syriacized version of SH’s (over)use of - ‫ ܒ‬. 113 Jacob’s ‫ܢ‬ 114 See Perkins 1980: 80 and 84–88. While Perkins does not list ‫ ܡ‬as an equivalency in SH is used in a couple of contexts appropriate to the present case), he Deut for κατα (though ‫ܒ‬ concludes at the end of his discussion: “The diversity of equivalents in [SH Deut] for κατα … illustrates that Paul’s basic objective was the accurate transference of meaning, not a Greek– Syriac crib, strictly bound and perfectly consistent” (p. 88).

288 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

► ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ =( ܕ‬JNum = PDeut) / ην ειδετε : The use of the 2 pl., as opposed to SP’s singular, while not unique to the GDeut parallel,115 here can only have derived from it. Observe that despite the septuagintism, the demonstrative ταυτη was not adopted by the translator(s). ► ‫)ܕ(ܬܪ‬116 / ετροφοφορησε σε and ‫ =( )ܕ( ܪ ܐ‬JNum = PDeut) / τροφοφορησαι : The use of ‘nourish’ for the Hebrew ‫‘ נשא‬bear (up)’ is a contextualized exegesis unique to GDeut117 and PDeut. All other versions elect a more literal equivalency. One must keep in mind, however, this would not have been the only option before the Caesarean translator(s) given the widely attested, very ancient evidence for τροποφορέω ‘tolerate, bear’ in the G MS tradition118 and patristic citations, notably Origen (partially)119 and Didymus (d. 398 CE).120 While it is certain the translator(s) had both readings,121 how, or rather if, he would have adjudicated them is worth considering. Ostensibly, the reading he believed to be authentic GDeut was chosen (viz., septuagintism). Note further, the renderings from Aquila and Symmachus were also ignored, ἦρεν “he lifted up” and ἐβάστασεν “he raised up,” respectively.122

|| 115 Without significant variant (AppI: εἴδετε 963] οιδατε 392y; ειδες 71′-527y). As for the wider evidence at the parallel, only ‫ חמיתון‬TgN and PDeut (= SH here) read with a plural. Note that 4Q35 is reconstructed with the singular as MT (Ulrich [ed.] 2010: 177). 116 Both JNum and PDeut read ‫ܢ‬ ‫)ܕ(ܬܪ‬. 117 Wevers thought that perhaps the G translator was probably thinking specifically of the manna provision in the wilderness (NGTD, 18). Dogniez and Harl view this as a means of emphasizing the unique relationship between the Lord and Israel vis-à-vis the nations (BA 5.118). 118 AppI: ετροποφορησε(ν) (-ρυσεν 537) Mc 963 29-376′ b d–106 56* n 130mg-321′mg-730s 71′-527y 630z 509mx Did Ps 152.23 Or VI 594 635 Cels II 360; ετροπαιοφορ. 53′f. Correctly identified by Wevers as a labial confusion (NGTD, 118). Again MS 963 is second cent. CE. 119 While Origen used this reading in both his Comm. on Matt and Contra Cels, he only used this reading for three out of six of the citations in his extant works according to Br.-M.’s app (i.e., “Or-gr 3/6”; also noted by B. Metzger 1994: 357). 120 For discussion of the patristic discussion of this theme, see Dogniez and Harl, BA 5.119. 121 The same confusion occurs in the NT MS tradition as well; see Paul’s speech at Antioch in Acts 13.18: … ⸀ἐτροποφόρησεν αὐτοὺς ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ … (NA28ap: ⸀ετροφοφορησεν 𝔓 74 A C* E Ψ ‫ܬܪ‬. As Metzger explained, the NA com33. 1175 d gig sy co). Hark here reads ‫ܐ ܢ ܒ ܒ ܐ‬ mittee had great difficulty deciding which reading to adopt in Acts, concluding: “On balance it seemed best to adopt the reading that differs from the prevailing Septuagint text, on the ground that scribes would have been more likely to accommodate the two than to make them diverge.” (1994: 357). Compare the NRSV: “For about forty years he put up withc them in the wilderness (c Other ancient authorities read cared for).” 122 See AppII: ἐτροφοφόρησέν] α΄ ἦρεν M; σ΄ ἐβάστασεν C′’comm Procop | ὡς 2°—υἱόν] α΄ (> 77500-739*) ὡσεὶ ἄραι τροφὸς τὸν υἱόν C′’ comm Sixt | τροφοφορήσαι] α΄ ἄραι M; σ΄ (θ΄ *vid; c pr m) βαστάσαι 108b (ind etiam ad ἐτροφοφόρησέν). Wevers, not unreasonably, held that the catenist

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 289

► ‫ܬܐ‬ (= JNum) / εις τον τοπον : The use of εις for ‫ עד‬2° in SP is due to the parallel. Num 13.33‫ו‬: Further septuagintism obtains. ►‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܒ‬/ και εν τω λογω : The majority of SP MSS read ‫ והבדבר‬here.123 According to the Samaritan reading tradition this is meant to be read as ‫והא‬ ָ ‫ ַבדבר‬,124 something confirmed by STV ‫והא בממללה‬.125 Obviously, the μόνονtranslator(s) had no knowledge of this tradition. ►‫ܐ‬ / προτερος and ‫ܓܒܐ‬ / εκλεγεσθαι : Both are very much from GDeut, the former lacking in SP and the latter clearly G’s interpretation of ‫לתור‬ “to spy out.”126 Aquila’s translation, not adopted or considered here, is more literal.127 Compare the similar situation below (→ §3.3.3 at Num 13.1‫)ג‬. ► ‫̇ ܕܐ‬ / οδηγων : GDeut seems to have metathesized the Hebrew here, reading ‫ חנה‬as ‫נחה‬.128 The Caesarean translator(s) followed suit. The agreement between GDeut’s exegesis and ‫ למגדתכון‬STJ “to lead/guide you (pl.)” is coincidental and, apparently, unique129 as the Jewish Targumim agree with MT and (nearly) all others.130

|| imposed upon Aquila’s reading as transmitted in C′’ comm because of the ostensibly loose translation of τροφὸς for ‫אישׁ‬, calling it “a bit of rationistic speculation” (NGTD, 18, n. 55). 123 Von Gall adopted the minority ‫ ובדבר‬apparently in conformity with MT Deut ֯ ֯‫[ו‬4Q35). This may be fairly added to those cases where he adopted a reading conforming (‫בֿדב]ר‬ to MT against the tradition. 124 Thus T-F (721, here discussing the parallel in SP Deut, though they also marked it at Num 13.33‫ ;)ו‬Ben-Ḥayyim’s transcription, noted by T-F, is wā̊ baddēbår (1977: 492; cf. p. 77, where only Gen 47.23 is listed for ‫) ֵהא‬. Compare the Samaritan reading tradition for Deut 32.47 where ‫ ובדבר‬is pronounced wbaddēbår (1977: 553). McCarthy differently interprets the situation; she hold that the letter ‫ ה‬was “suspended above the line. This is most likely a scribal error preserved in a portion of the Smr manuscript tradition (also present in Sefer Abiṣaʿ)” (BHQap). Her analysis appears to follow von Gall’s app where MS C does have it interlinearly and two others show a second hand adding it (MSS D5 and 𝕰 ). However, her conclusion does not follow. It could easily have been added like this because it is unusual. 125 This understanding appears to guide Tsedaka’s ET: “And despite all these things ….” 126 Wevers thought that GDeut uniquely rendered thus in order to avoid any “pejorative sense” the Hebrew might bear (NGTD, 20). Dogniez and Harl differently explain the translation as emphasizing divine choice (BA 5.119; similarly McCarthy, BHQap). 127 AppII: κατασκοπῆσαι M. 128 Thus BHSap, n. ‘b’; Wevers, NGTD, 20; Dogniez and Harl, BA 5.119; and McCarthy BHQap. McCarthy holds G has acted quite independently from its Vorlage. 129 The Samaritan reading tradition, supported by the remainder of ST witnesses, understands the Hebrew as the hiphil inf of ‫חנה‬. See Tsedaka’s ET: “… (a place) to encamp you….” 130 SH Deut transmits Aquila’s ‫ܪ ܢ‬ .‫“ ܐ‬to encircle / envelope you (pl.).” Wevers retroverted this with κυκλουν υμας and thought it might really be Symmachus (NGTD, 20, n. 59).

290 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

► ‫ ܘܒ ܐ‬/ και εν νεφελη :: + ‫ יומם‬SP ST, restore ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܒܐ‬via JNum? It seems improbable that this last part of the passage was somehow omitted by the μόνον-translator(s). There is no evidence from GDeut for its absence; further, no readily apparent mechanical explanation clarifies how it could have fallen out. Nevertheless, it is probably best to assume it had at some point. JNum’s ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܒܐ‬could be used to restore SH, though this is not a secure procedure since the PDeut parallel reads precisely thus. This means that if Jacob’s SH MS(S) lacked it, he could have copied it from the P parallel in accordance with his procedure (→ §5.2.2). Attribution: SH Num’s attributions, different from those in SH Exod, are comprised of two parts. First, there is the statement clarifying the text is “only” from SP; second, there is a notice cross-referencing the passage here in Num with the parallel in Deut. These are taken in turn, while examining their philological particulars. ►‫ܐ‬ ‫ =( ܒ ̇ ܘ ܕ‬JNum attrib.131): When compared to the attributions in Exod, those in SH Num show a shift in description when referring to the Samaritan source. In Exod (→ §§2.2; 2.3) ‫ܐ‬ ‫“ ܒ ̇ ܝ ܕ‬in the [ἔκδοσις] of the Samaritans” regularly obtains, while in Num different notes appear as follows:

‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬

‫ܕ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܕ‬

‫ܨ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ̇ܘ‬ ‫ܒ̇ܝ‬ ‫ܒ‬

1 of 15 notes 1 of 15 3 of 15 4 of 15 6 of 15

Presumably, by ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ̇ ܘ ܕ‬, ‫ ܨ ܐ‬was what was meant, especially as this is how the very first attribution in Num reads (→ §3.3.2 at Num 10.10‫)ג–א‬.132 This observable shift in terminology, from ἔκδοσις to ἀντίγραφον in the majority133 of

|| However, emending SH in this way does not really alleviate the problem as to how any of the Three have come to this translation. What was the underlying Hebrew? 131 For Jacob’s imprecise representation of the Samaritan attribution notes, including analysis of the present case, see below (→ §5.2.3, with Table 5.2.3.2). 132 It is of course possible that ‫ ܒ ܐ‬is what is indicated for the attribution here, something the SH Num colophon might support (→ §3.2). However, since the codex was obviously a Hebrew one, this is perhaps a distinction without a difference. Field was hesitant in his LT qualifying “in exemplari [= ‫ ]ܨ ܐ‬Samaritanorum (‫ܐ‬ ‫( ”)ܒ ̇ܘ ܕ‬1.240, n. 3). ̇ 133 Those marked as ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܒ ܝ ܕ‬clearly retain the sense of ἔκδοσις. By “majority,” those ‫ܒ‬, far too ambiguous to bear on the point, are omitted. designated ‫ܐ‬

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 291

the notes, probably bears no historical significance. There is no reason to assume an extensive process of collating various Samaritan MSS and arriving at a critical text, which was then added to hexaplaric edition. Rather a single copy of the Hebrew SP, acquired by the Caesarean library (→ §§6.2; 7.1), was used, notwithstanding any textual deficiencies (e.g., Exod 8.6–7 [10–11] → §2.4.2). Further, there is no reason to view the Syriac ‫ ܨ ܐ‬as connoting ‘recension’ here, and thus synonymous with ἔκδοσις, since the underlying Greek ἀντίγραφον prevents this.134 ̈ ‫ ܒ‬: The form of the SH Num attribu► ‫ܕ‬ and ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕܬ‬ tions also, when compared to those in SH Exod, relate different information about the Samaritan text. Namely, the Num attributions, taken as a whole, usually detail four distinct facts about the μόνον-passages provided: 1) the reading is “only” μόνον / ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܒ‬135 in the Samaritan ‫ ܨ ܐ‬of Num; 2a) that Moses himself later mentioned/remembered ( ‫ܕ‬ / ) this saying; ̈ ‫ ܒ‬/ εν τοις πρωτοις,136 2b) such recall occurs at the beginning sections, ‫ܐ‬ of the common text of Deut (viz., chh 1–3, as opposed to any other part of the Pent); and 2c) the Deut recall was written as having been pronounced previously in Num (as SP Num).137 When this formula is compared with the accompanying attributions attached to the Deuteromonically-derived μόνον-passages recorded in SH Exod (namely, Exod 18.24‫—ג–א‬18.25–25‫ג–א‬, 20.17‫ו–א‬, 20.19‫ד–א‬, and 20.21‫)ט–א‬, any crossreference to Deut is conspicuously absent. In Num, reference to this Deuteronomic recall is found in most of the attributions (which correspond to Deut), save those at SH Num 21.20‫ב–א‬, 21.(22+)22‫( ב–א‬twice), 21.23‫א‬, and 21.24‫ א‬each having been conspicuously abbreviated (by whom?) as ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܕ ܒ‬. For these, see the analysis below at Num 21.20‫ב–א‬, attribution.

|| 134 Note ter Haar Romeny 2001: 509, n. 29. 135 While the attributions at Num 10.10‫ ג–א‬and 14.40‫ א‬each lack ‫ܒ ܕ‬, its absence does not thwart the present point. Similarly, of those in SH Exod, the attribution at 8.5(9)‫ א‬lacks the principal descriptor though the reading’s typology is obviously the same. ̈ ‫ ”)ܒ‬Deuteronomii (1.240, n. 3) was not meant to imply the 136 Field’s “in principio (‫ܐ‬ very beginning (singular) of Deut. This is just the result of his Latin. 137 The notes at Num 10.10‫ ג–א‬and 13.1‫ד–א‬, again the first of the attributions, make this point most explicit. Burris’ translation and understanding of this aspect of the notes in SH differs from mine (2009: 248–51 [on Num 10.10‫ ]ג–א‬and elsewhere).

292 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

Samaritan cross-referencing system in the Caesarean ἔκδοσις : As mentioned briefly above (→ §2.3.2 at Exod 18.25–25‫ג–א‬, attribution), the SH Num attributions were but one half of an ancient, Caesarean cross-reference system whereby the specially collated passages from SP Num were connected with the same passage in the common text of Deut.138 In fact, the Samaritan hexaplaric, μόνον-collation included not only marginal passages and attribution notes—the latter of which cross-reference the reading to its parallel in Deut—but also included complementary cross-reference annotations for those very Deut parallels, informing the reader that a given passage in Deut was also found in SP Num. These annotations, extant in the margins of SHV Deut, read as follows: Table 3.3.1.1: Samaritan Cross-Reference Notations in the Margins of SHV SH(V)

Marked Passage Deut 1.6–8

See below for text and analysis

Deut 1.9ff

in-text sigla only (orphaned) but here restored via Procop Comm. (→ §2.3.2 at Exod 18.25–25‫ג–א‬, attrib.) (twice) ‫ܒ ̈ ܐ ܀‬ ‫ܘ ܗܪ ܐ ܐܬܬܘ‬+ (see Procop at Deut 1.9)

Deut 1.20–23

Deut 1.42

And from here [the SP passage] was added in Num ̈ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܘ ܗܪ ܐ ܐܬܬܘ‬ [‫ܐ ]܀‬ And from here [the SP passage] was added in Num ‫ܐ܀‬ ‫̇ܗܘ ܕ‬ ‫̈ ܒ ̈ ܐܐ‬ ‫÷ ܘܗ‬

Deut 1.44

And this is extant in Num according to the [exemplar?] of the Samaritans ̇ ‫ܐ܀‬ ‫̈ ܒ ̈ ܐ ܐ ܗܘ ܕ‬ ‫÷ ܘܗ‬

Deut 2.2–6

And this is extant in Num according to the [exemplar] of the Samaritans ̈ ̈ ‫ܐ܀‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫÷ ܘܗ‬

Deut 1.27–33

And this (passage) was added in [SP] Num Deut 2.9, 17–19 Deut 2.24–25 Deut 2.(27)28–29 Deut 2.31

in-text sigla only (orphaned) ̈‫ܬ‬ ‫܀‬ ‫ܐ‬

‫ܘܗ ܒ ̈ ܐ ܒ ܿ ܝ ܕ‬ And this is transmitted in Num in the [ἔκδοσις] of the Samaritans ‫÷ ܘܗ ܒ ̈ ܐ ܐܬܬܘ ̈ ܀‬ And this was added in [SP] Num .‫ܒ ̈ ܐ‬ ‫÷ ܘܗ ܗܪ ܐ‬

|| 138 Burris proposed a different understanding of the attributions, suggesting that reference to Deut’s recollection “may come from the Samaritan Pentateuch of Deuteronomy (2009: 250, emphasis mine; at Num 10.10).

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 293

SH(V)

Marked Passage

And this here is added in [SP] Num Deut 3.21–22

missing ‫ܒ ̈ ܐ܀‬ ‫÷ ܘ ܗܪ ܐ‬ And this here is added in [SP] Num

Deut 3.24–28

When the data from SHV—unfortunately left out of Wevers’ edition—are compared with the SH Num attributions and μόνον-readings contained within SHV itself, three observations surface: 1) Though the attribution notes for Num 21.20‫ב–א‬, 21.(22+)22‫ב–א‬, and 21.23‫א‬ lack any mention of Moses’ recall in Deut, the corresponding crossreferences in SH Deut, being those at 2.17–19, 2.24–25, and 2.(27)28–29a, respectively, are present. These suggest that the laconic attributions in SH Num 21 (i.e., ‫ܐ‬ ‫ )ܒ ܕ ܒ‬may have been abbreviated during transmission, assuming they were not abbreviated in the first instance. 2) There are several cross-references in SHV Deut referring to μόνον-passages which are themselves not preserved in the margins of SHV Num.139 Such illustrates that the scribe(s) of SHV was not responsible for them. This, in combination with the similar data transmitted by Procopius (→ §2.3.2 at Exod 18.25–25‫ ג–א‬and → §3.3.2 at Num 10.10‫)ג–א‬, indicates that these were part of the original Samaritan collation. 3) Further confirming the originality of these cross-reference scholia, is that the very method by which the Samaritan data were produced is explicitly described in the first such note at SH Deut 1.6–8:

‫ܐ܀‬

‫ܐܕ‬

‫ܒ ܘܢ ܒ‬

‫ܕܐ‬

‫̈ ܐܐ‬

‫ܒ‬

‫ܗܪ ܐ ܐܘ‬

÷

From here, we supplied in Numbers those which are found in (Numbers) in the exemplar of the Samaritans.

This note140—original to the Caesarean critic’(s) hand—confirms the philological analysis of the passages themselves, namely, that the μόνον-translator(s) used the G parallels to “translate” the Samaritan passages. Hence, the hypothesis set

|| 139 As follows: Num 13.1‫( ד–א‬possibly lacuna?), 13.33‫( ו–א‬lacuna), 21.11‫א‬, 21.(22+)22‫ ב–א‬and 21.23‫א‬. These correspond, respectively, to the notes in SHV Deut at: 1.20–23, 1.27–33, 2.9, 2.(27)28–29a, and 2.31. 140 For analysis and discussion of the relationship between this scholion and the corresponding notice in Procopius’ Comm., see below (→ §3.3.2 at Num 10.10‫)ג–א‬.

294 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

forth by Montfaucon (→ §1.2.1.2), that of septuagintism. It is through this scholion that the remainder of the data, including later attested scholia, need to be interpreted141 and anchored historically (→ §4.4.1). Num 14.40‫א‬: “… for I am not with you …” SH (L fol. 19b lower mg ind

‫ܢ ܘ ܐ ܬ ܒ ܢ܆ ܐ ܓ‬ ‫ܐܒ ܪ‬

‫ܕ‬

; V fol. 123b outer mg)

‫ܢ܀‬

‫ܘܢ ܐ ܬ‬ ‫̈ܒ ̈ܒܐ ܕ‬ ‫܆‬ ‫ܬ‬

‫ܐ ܬ‬ ̣ ‫ ܐ‬.‫ܐ‬ ̣ ‫ ܘܐ‬40‫̇א‬ ‫ܢ܆ ܘ ܐ ܬܬܒ ܘܢ ܡ ܒ‬ ‫ܐ ܝ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܐܦ ܗ ܒ ̇ ܘ ̇ ܕ‬Attrib. ‫ܐ܀‬

Field’s Reconstructed Greek [Revised] 40‫)※( א‬142 και ειπε κυριος προς Μωυσην. ειπον αυτοις. ουκ αναβησεσθε, ουδε μη πολεμησετε. ου γαρ ειμι μεθ υμων. και ου μη συντριβητε ενωπιον των εχθρων υμων. (↙) [Attrib. και (ταυ)τα εν τω μεν των σαμαρειτων φερομενα. μνημονευει τουτων δε μωυσης εν τω Δευτερονομιω] SP Num 14.40‫( א‬Deut 1.42) ⟨4Q27⟩143 ≠ ΜΤ ‫{ ויאמר יהוה אל משה אמר להם לא תעלו ולא תלחמו כי אינני בקרבכם‬1.42} 40‫א‬

‫ולא תנגפו לפני איביכם‬ 40‫ א‬And the Lord said to Moses: “Say to them: ‘You shall not go up and you shall not engage in battle! For I am not awith youa, least you bbe crushedb before your enemies.’ ” a

SP ST: in your midst

b

= STNECm (see below); be struck down SP ST

Attribution: And this is transmitted (here) in that exemplar namely of the Samaritans. Now Moses remembers (saying) this in Deuteronomy (lit. “the repetition of the Law”). Num 14.40‫א‬: Despite its brevity, this verse bears a number of interesting features. Placement: De Lagarde in his edition marked this at v 41, as opposed to Field, Br.-M. and most others, who set it immediately following v 40.144 The logic

|| 141 The precise relationship between this note and the well-known s-group scholion at Num 13.1‫ ד–א‬is further explored below ad loc (→ §3.3.3). 142 On Field’s ※, see n. 64 above (and refs). In SHL there is no such siglum. 143 To be restored despite cols. iii–v no longer being extant; see Jastram’s remark above (→ Num 13.33‫)ו–א‬. 144 Von Gall labeled this verse “41a” set before the common v 41; his delineation was perhaps due to the qiṣṣa sign (stylized —‫׃‬in his editions) which precedes this verse in SP MSS. The

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 295

of the narrative demands that it be read after v 40 and before v 41, and thus even SHV lacks any such index marker akin to many passages in SH Exod. Whatever the case, SHL indexes the reading next to the line ending v 40 and beginning v 41. ►‫ܐ‬ / κυριος : While the μόνον-passages in SH Exod regularly and without fail reproduce the hexaplarism , the evidence from SH Num is more mixed. Here ‫ܐ‬ / κυριος has replaced the original / ΠΙΠΙ at some point. Based on the sum of the data in SH, both in Exod and Num, the form ΠΙΠΙ was undoubtedly the Caesarean translator’(s) original choice in rendering the Tetragrammaton. Further, based on the extant readings from Num in SHL, these “updated” forms should, in most cases, be attributed to a previous Greek scribe, although it is also clear that Syriac scribes subsequent to SHL certainly changed to ‫ܐ‬ as well. For further discussion, see the data points and analysis at Num 20.13‫א‬, 20.13‫ג‬, and in EXCURSUS C below. ► ‫ ܬ ܒ ܢ‬/ πολεμησετε : The equivalency is regular. Only to be clarified ̇ here is that the afel marked by the scribe more precisely in SHV ‫=( ̣ܬ ܒ ܢ‬ ܰ ‫ )ܬ ܒ ܽ ܢ‬bears militaristic tones, whereas the peal means ‘draw near’ and the pael bears the sense of ‘bring / carry’ or ‘offer’. ►‫ܢ‬ / μεθ υμων : SP reads here ‫“ בקרבכם‬in your midst”; the translator’(s) rendering is then hardly literal. Rather this, like many such constructions, is a septuagintism based on the parallel.145 ► ‫ܬܬܒ ܘܢ ܡ‬146/ συντριβητε ενωπιον : The use of συντριβω for ‫ נגף‬occurs in G only at the parallel and Deut 28.7.147 The equivalency is thus septuagintistic (along with ενωπιον) and not due to any verbal influence from STNECm reading ‫תתברון‬, which is in any case how TgO-PJ render the Hebrew. Again the recentiores here were apparently not consulted. Thus at the parallel the extant reading: ‫ܐ‬. ‫“ ܘ ܐ ܬܒ ̣ ܢ ܀‬Aquila. and you not be struck (down).”148

|| Samaritan scribal paragraph marker corresponds to the Masoretic ‫ ס‬/ ‫ פ‬reading divisions (see H. Shehaddeh’s “Qiṣṣa,” CSS, 197). 145 Wevers described GDeut’s here as “a good rendering” (NGTD, 25). Compare the shift in G from Num 11.20 (εν υμιν) to 14.42 (μεθ υμων) for this very construction; see Wevers’ similar comments on the latter case (NGTN, 233). 146 The form is ethpeal or ethpael from ‫( ܬܒ‬for the difference in sense, see JPS, s.v., c). As T. Nöldeke pointed out -‫ ܬܬܬ‬is “almost always” shortened to -‫ ܬܬ‬when the prefix is -‫( ܬܬ‬Gram. §36). Note that both MSS have a diacritical dot below the ‫ ܒ‬indicating it bears a vowel. 147 See H-R, 1321; also LALS/LALHB. The use of συντριβω overwhelmingly occurs for ‫( שׁבר‬HR, 1321–22). Πατασσω is most common for ‫( נגף‬thus LALHB). 148 Wevers retroverted as και ουκ μαστιχθησεσθε “and you shall not be flogged,” calling Aquila’s here a “colorful rendering” (NGTD, 25, n. 82). Though SH does use ‫ ܒ‬for μαστιγοω

296 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

Attribution and Cross-reference: For comments concerning the attribution and the accompanying cross-reference, see above at Num 13.33‫ו–א‬. Num 20.13‫ט–א‬: Moses Shall Not Enter the Land; Battle Against Edom Forbidden SH (L fol. 31a lower mg sub

; V fol. 130b lower mg sub ÷ ind ?149)

‫܇‬ ‫ܐܕ‬ ‫܆ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ .‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܐ‬13‫א‬ ‫ܐܪ ܐ܇ ̇ܗܘ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܓ ܐ ܐ ܒ ܐ ܐܘ‬ ‫̇ܗܝ ܐ ܬܐ܆‬ ‫ܘܐ ܐܕ‬ ‫̇ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܐܐܗ‬ 13‫ ב‬. ‫ܐܕ‬ ‫ܕ ܒ ܐ ܐ ܕ ̣ܒ ܬ ܐ ܇ ܘܐ‬ ‫ܒܐ ܣ‬ ‫ܪܐ ܒܐ ܗ ܐ܇ ܘ ܐ‬ ‫̇ ܒ ܒ ܐ ܕ ܪܕ ܇‬ ‫ܐܪ ܐ ܒ ܐ܇ ̇ܗܝ ܕܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܬܝ ܬܘܒ‬ ‫܆ ܐ ܬܘ‬ .‫ܐ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ̣ ̣ ‫ ܘܐ‬13‫ג‬ ̈ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܐ܆ ܘ ܬ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܗܕ‬ 13‫ ד‬.‫ܗܕܐ‬ 13‫ ה‬.‫ܪܕ ܗ ܐ‬ ‫ܕܐܬ ܒ‬ . ̈ ‫ ̣ ܝ ܒ‬° ‫ܐ܆‬ ‫ܘܓ ܒ ܐ ܘܬ ܐ ܘ‬ ̇ ‫ܘ‬ ̇ ‫ܥ ܒ ܗ ܕ ܢ܆ ܘ‬ ‫ܕ ܐ‬ ‫ܕܗܘ ܒ ܡ ܨܘ‬ ‫ܝ ܘܒ ܐ ܝ܆‬ ̣ ̇ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܬ‬ ‫ ܘ‬13‫܀ ו‬ ̣ ‫ܘܗܘ ܪܬ ܐ ܢ܇ ܐܪ ܐ ܗܝ ܕ‬ ̣ ‫ܗ ܐ܆‬ 13‫ܓ ܒ ܐ܆ ז‬ ‫ܗ‬ ‫ܪܐ ܗ ܐ܆ ܗ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܐ ܆ܬ‬ ̇ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܢ ܒ ܬ ̈ ܐ ܕܐ ̈ ܐ ܕ‬150 ‫ܐ ̇ ܐ ܆ ܐ ܘܢ ܒ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ̇ ̇ ̇ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܘ‬. ‫ܒ‬ ‫܇ܗ ܢܕ‬ ‫ܒ̈ܐܕ‬ ‫ ܐ‬13‫ ח‬. ‫ܢ ܘ ܙܘܢ ܓ‬ ‫ ܐ ܐ‬.‫ܐܪ ܐ ܕ ܘܢ ܬܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ ܐ ܓ ܐܬܠ‬.‫ܬ ܬܘܢ ܬܗܘܢ‬ . ‫ܪܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܒ ̇ܗ‬ ‫ܕܒ ܐ ܒ ̈ ܐ ܕ‬ .‫ܐ ܕܕܘܪ ܐ ܕܪܓ ܐ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܘ ̈ ܐܬ ܒ ܢ‬. ‫ܐ܆ ܘܐ‬ ‫ܘܢ ܒ‬ ‫ ܐ ̈ ܐ ܙܒ‬13‫ט‬ ‫ ܀‬. ‫ܐ ܘܬ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ̈ ‫ܐܒ ܪ‬ ‫ܕ‬ . ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܗ ܒ ܕ ܒ ̇ ܝ ܕ‬Attrib. ‫ ܀ ܀‬151[sic] ‫ܐ‬ (13‫ܐ ])א‬

SHV

‫( ܐ ܐ ܗ‬13‫ ])ב‬tr

(13‫ܐ ])ג‬

‫ܐ‬

(attrib.)] ‫ܐ‬

Field’s Reconstructed Greek [Revised] 13‫ )※( א‬και ειπε Μωυσης. κυριε ΠΙΠΙ, συ ηρξω δειξαι τω θεραποντι σου ισχυν [or: δυναμιν?152] σου, και την χειρα σου την κραταιαν. τις γαρ θεος εν τω ουρανω η επι της γης, οστις ποιησει καθα εποιησας συ, και κατα την ισχυν σου; 13‫ב‬ || ‫ ܒ‬as SH Exod 9.31, 31 and Num 25.14 make (see PS 1.537), πλησσω was also translated with clear. This way Aquila’s need not be seen as unnecessarily “colorful.” 149 V had some kind of ind marker though it would be unnecessary given the flow of the narrative and the layout of the page. Nevertheless, the påsôqå ending 20.13 has a space and a faint trace of something which cannot be seen in the facsimile of Vööbus’ edition. 150 The second 2 pl. pron. is merely modifying the ptc. chosen to translate the Greek pres. mid. ind. (Perkins 1980: 204). 151 V’s ‫ܐ‬ is obviously correct, although the scribe in L may have simply written the final ‫ ܐ‬sloppily giving it only the appearance of ‫– ܐ‬. (‫ܐ‬ is an adj. not a noun.) Since semcath requires a break from letters following, the yudh is likely only apparent rather than real. Recording the form as in de Lagarde’s edition is perhaps pedantic. 152 See PS 1.1258; both were translated by SH with ‫ ܐ‬. Compare the end of the verse and see the discussion below.

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 297

διαβας ουν οψομαι την γην την αγαθην την ουσαν περαν του Ιορδανου, το ορος το αγαθον τουτο, και τον Αντιλιβανον. 13‫ ג‬και ειπε ΠΙΠΙ προς Μωυσην. ικανουσθω σοι, μη προσθης λαλησαι προς με ετι τον λογον τουτον. 13‫ד‬ αναβηθι επι την κορυφην του λελαξευμενου153, και αναβλεψας τοις οφθαλμοις σου κατα θαλασσαν, και βορραν, και λιβα, και ανατολας, ° ιδε τοις οφθαλμοις σου, οτι ου διαβηση τον Ιορδανην τουτον. 13‫ ה‬και εντειλαι Ιησοι [?] υιω [?] Ναυε154, και κατισχυσον αυτον, και παρακαλεσον αυτον. οτι αυτος διαβησεται προ προσωπου του λαου τουτου, και [αυτος]155 κατακληρονομησει αυτους την γην ην εωρακας. 13‫ ו‬και ελαλησε κυριος προς Μωυσην, λεγων. ικανουσθω υμιν κυκλουν το ορος τουτο. επιστραφητε ουν εις βορραν. 13‫ ז‬και τω λαω εντειλαι, λεγων.156 υμεις παραπορευσθε δια των οριων των αδελφων υμων υιων Ησαυ, οι κατοικουσιν εν Σηειρ. και φοβηθησονται υμας, και ευλαβηθησονται σφοδρα. 13‫ ח‬μη συνψητε προς αυτους. ου γαρ μη δω υμιν απο της γης αυτων εις κληρονομιαν157 ουδε βημα ιχνους158 ποδος, οτι εν κληρω τοις υιους Ησαυ δεδωκα το ορος Σηειρ. 13‫ ט‬βρωματα αγορασατε παρ αυτων αργυριου, και φαγεσθε.159 και υδωρ ληψεσθε παρ αυτων αργυριου, και πιεσθε (↙). [Attrib. (ταυ)τα μονον εν η των σαμαρειτων φερομενα. μνημονευει τουτων δε μωυσης εν τω Δευτερονομιω.] SP Num 20.13‫( ט–א‬Deut 3.24–28; 2.2–6) 4Q27 (DJD 12.225–26)160 ≠ ΜΤ ‫{ ויאמר משה אדני יהוה אתה החלת להראות את עבדך את גדלך ואת ידך‬3.24} 13‫א‬

|| 153 Field supplied the Syriac; perhaps this was merely a point of interest. (See the parallel form in Jdt 1.2; PS 2.3189.) SH Deut translates with the same at the parallel; Perkins did not discuss the form (1980: 239–42). Note that PS’ reference to “το Σαμαρειτικον” for the instance in this passage (2.3189) is incorrect (→ §1.3). 154 For the superficial discord between SH and Field’s reconstruction here, as well as the ambiguities of case endings in Greek, see discussion. 155 Field reconstructed ουτος (1.249; McClurg follows [2011: 24]), ostensibly with Bc, assuming this was not a mistake. However, SH has the personal pronoun ‫ =( ̣ܗܘ‬JNum) for which compare the Wevers’ text and SH Deut. 156 Perkins notes that when the referent of λεγων is in the 1st or 2nd person, SH adds the rehere vs. λεγων in v 13‫ו‬. spective pronoun (1980: 316); hence ‫ܐ ̇ ܐ‬ 157 Field qualified κληρονομιαν with Syriac parenthetically (1.249), but the equivalency is sure (see below). 158 Field cautiously provided the Syriac parenthetically; see discussion below. 159 Field’s is correct in accordance with the parallel, despite the Syriac impv. As Perkins notes (1980: 214–15 and 223–24), the fut. act. ind. and fut. mid. ind. are occasionally rendered in SH with imperatives. He feels that perhaps imperatives preceding such cases in the Greek may have influenced Paul’s translation. The present is probably such a case. Note that SH Deut in the parallel reads ‫ ܘܬܐ ܢ‬and is similarly preceded by an imperf. translation of αγυρασατε (here Perkins holds that Paul’s Vorlage read with the fut. ind. [1980: 256]). Nevertheless, SH Num and Deut had different translators. 160 As Jastram indicates the passage is partially preserved in col. xi of 4Q27. His reconstruction is assumed here unless otherwise noted. Orthographic variants are not reproduced.

298 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

‫{ אעבר‬3.25} 13‫החזקה אשר מי אל בשמים ובארץ אשר יעשה כמעשיך וכגבורתיך ב‬ {3.26} 13‫נא ואראה את הארץ הטובה אשר בעבר הירדן ההר הטוב הזה והלבנון ג‬ ‫{ עלה אל‬3.27} 13‫ויאמר יהוה אל משה רב לך אל תוסף דבר אלי עוד בדבר הזה ד‬ ‫ראש הפסגה ושא עיניך ימה וצפונה ותימנה ומזרחה וראה בעיניך כי לא תעבר את‬ ‫{ וצוי את יהושע בן נון וחזקהו ואמצהו כי הוא יעבר לפני העם‬3.28} 13‫הירדן הזה ה‬ ‫{ וידבר יהוה אל משה לאמר‬2.2–3} 13‫הזה והוא ינחל אתם את הארץ אשר תראה ו‬ ‫{ ואת העם צוי לאמר אתם עברים‬2.4} 13‫רב לכם סוב את ההר הזה פנו לכם צפונה ז‬ ‫{ אל‬2.5} 13‫בגבול אחיכם בני עשו היושבים בשעיר וײראו מכם ונשמרתם מאד ח‬ ‫תתגרו בם כי לא אתן לכם מארצם ירשה עד מדרך כף רגל כי ירשה לעשו נתתי את הר‬ ‫{ אכל תשבירו מאתם בכסף ואכלתם וגם מים תכירו מאתם בכסף‬2.6} 13‫שעיר ט‬ ‫ושתיתם‬ 13‫ א‬And Moses said: “O Lord (sc. Adonai) ‫יהוה‬a, you have begun to reveal to your servant your strengthb and your mighty [lit. prevailing/seizing161] hand. For who is God in heaven orc on earth, who performs just as dyou have doned and according to your powere? 13‫( ב‬After) crossing, then,f I will see the good land, which is in the crossing of (or: beyond) the Jordan, this good mountain and the Antilebanong.” 13‫ ג‬And ‫יהוה‬a said to Moses: “Enough of your talking to me (about) this matter [lit. hLet it sufficeh to you, you shall not again speak to me still regarding this matter]! 13‫ ד‬Go up on the summit of the hewn stone, and liftingi up your eyes towards the sea and north and south, and east, jlook (around) with your eyes. Because you shall not cross this Jordan. 13‫ ה‬And command Joshua son of Nun and strengthen him and comfortk him, because he will cross over before the face of this people, and he shall make them inherit the land which you see.” 13‫ ו‬And the Lord spoke to Moses saying: “You have lingered around this mountain enough [lit. hSuffice ith to you to be lingering around this mountain]. lTurn nowl to the north. 13‫ ז‬And you command the people saying: ‘You are yourselvesm crossing through the boardersn of your brothers, the sons of Esau, those dwelling in Seir. And they will fear you and obe very afraido. 13‫ ח‬You shall not enjoin them (in battle). For I will not give to you any of their land as a possession neitherp (grant you) a step (for) a foothold. Because I have granted Mount Seir to mthe sons ofm Esau for an allotted portion. 13‫ ט‬Food stuffsn you may purchase from them for money and eat; and qwater you will taker from them (in exchange) for money and you shall drink.’ ” a

SHV: ‫ܐ‬ (Lord) b SP ST: greatness (STA: excess) c SP ST: (lit.) and d SP ST: your deeds e SP ST: mighty deeds (ST MSS have both pl and sg forms) f SP ST: and g SP ST: Lebanon (see discussion) h SP ST: (lit.) much (to you) i SP ST: lift (impv.) j SP ST: pr. and k SP ST: fortify (see discuss.) l SP ST: Turn yourselves m > SP ST (for “the sons of” in 13‫ח‬, see discuss.) n SP ST: sg. o SP (Sam. vocal.) ST: you shall be very careful (see discussion) p SP ST: even unto (a step) q SP ST: pr. also r SP ST:

|| 161 The Syriac is idiomatic here, ‘possessing’ → ‘powerful’; see JPS, s.v.

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 299

buy (see discussion)

Attribution: This is only transmitted (here) in the (edition) of the Samaritans. Now Moses remembers (saying) this in Deuteronomy (lit. the repetition of the Law).162 Num 20.13‫ ט–א‬: This passage, the longest of those in Num, bears many features meriting comment both philologically and codicologically.163 Placement: While these verses in SP are after 20.13, in SHL the passage is in the lower mg without an index marker just after v 12. The backside of fol. 31b then continues with v 13, ending the pericope about the Waters of Strife. Why the scribe set the block of text where he did is unclear though again the flow of the narrative demands the passage be read after v 13 on the reverse side of the page. De Lagarde set the passage at v 12 in his edition, though Field and Br.-M. placed the reading where it belongs after v 13.164 JNum, our most ancient external witness to SH at this point, integrated the passage in his usual fashion after 20.13, before v 14, with the adopted Samaritan verses beginning a new section preceded by a space (fols. 300‫–ܐ‬01‫)ܐ‬. As above (→ Num 13.33‫)ו–א‬, Jacob’s correct placement shows that SHL’s scribe perhaps copied these passages inattentively or with less precision. It is probable, as noted above, that SHV has an ind marker at the correct place, though the photos are too faint to be confident. Sigla: Like at Num 14.40‫א‬, Field wanted to emend the siglum (÷ in SHV for this passage, adopted by Wevers in AppII) to the asterisk.165 This is discussed in greater detail below (→ §4.4.2). Num 20.13‫א‬: This verse has a number of elements meriting comment, revealing both the translator’(s) methodology and, to some extent, identity. ► ‫ܐ‬ / κυριε ΠΙΠΙ (≠ ‫ܐ ܐ ܐ‬ JNum166): As above indicated (→ Num 14.40‫)א‬, SH in Num attests to some mixing in the MS tradition between the / ΠΙΠΙ original to the μόνον-translation and the later “updated” form ‫ܐ‬

|| 162 McClurg’s transcription and translation differs than that here (2011: 49–50). 163 McClurg connects the present passage, the first such in his study, with the G parallel; however, he understands the influence to have been mediated via the Samareitikon (2011: 47– 52). As explained above at length (→ §§1.2–1.3), these were not derived from any such text. 164 Thus de Lagarde’s is not strictly wrong, in terms of the MS, and both Field and Br.-M. should have indicated their having moved it. 165 1.249, with n. 13. McClurg appropriately describes the sigla as “a modified obelus whose right side resembles the tail of an arrow” (2011: 49). 166 Jacob, whose hatred of is well documented (→ EXCURSUS C), replaced the most odious in SH’s ‫ܐ‬ with ‫ܐ ܐ ܐ‬ from PDeut 3.24, the latter reflecting the Jewish Qere.

300 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

/ κυριος (cp. v 13‫)ו‬. While the background to this distinct, hexaplaric practice is laid out in full below in EXCURSUS C, here only a few points need be underscored: a) Whatever the original GDeut translator’s method for reflecting the Hebrew ‫—אדני יהוה‬and the MS evidence seems to support κυριε κυριε167—the Caesarean critic(s) opted not to (re)produce the double vocative. Why? Doing so would have been septuagintistic and thus in conformity with his wider practice. Equally, neither was any effort made to adhere to a “Jewish” Qere κυριε (ο) θεος as occurs at times elsewhere.168 Instead, the Caesarean critic(s) preferred to adhere to the hexaplaric practice of using ΠΙΠΙ irrespective of G ad loc. b) There is in fact no evidence in the μόνον-passages that there was any effort whatsoever to reproduce any Qere whatsoever for ‫יהוה‬. That being the case, this specific instance unambiguously points towards the underlying purpose of the hexaplarism / ΠΙΠΙ more broadly, viz., the form was used to indicate graphically where κυριος in Greek represents the Tetragrammaton, the Divine Name. After all, ‫ אדני‬was, when translated instead of transliterated, also rendered with κυριος (just as here). Thus, the margins of many MSS of SH, and others such as CODEX Q, are filled with many / ΠΙΠΙ notes indexed to a given ‫ܐ‬ / κυριος in the running text. Without these, how was a Greek reader supposed to know when κυριος communicated ‫( יהוה‬God’s actual Name) or ‫( אדני‬a title of God)? This practice, certainly a purposeful development of earlier Jewish scribal policy (→ EXCURSUS C), is meant soley to clarify a most troublesome ambiguity bore by those MSS lacking any such marker, be it / ΠΙΠΙ or an older Hebrew square (or paleo-) script (or dots). c) Notwithstanding the hexaplarism, there was certainly nothing Samaritan about this practice, either with respect to their translations or reading tradition. As concerns the former, in Aramaic there is no evidence the Samaritans made

|| 167 Wevers wondered whether or not κυριε κυριε was the original Qere reflected by G (NGTD, 62–63). GGen’s translation was different: δεσποτα at 15.2 and δεσποτα κυριε at v 8 (see NGTG, 202–03 and 207). As Dogniez and Harl point out, this same repetition of κυριος occurs in Matt 25.11, though the context is clearly different (BA 5.132). For the “original” translation of ‫ יהוה‬in GPent, see Wevers 2001 (with literature) as well as Tov, TCHB3, 132, with n. 218 (and literature cited there). 168 See AppII at the parallel: κύριε κύριε] κυριος ο θεος 71′y | κύριε 2°] ο θεος B* 527y; κ̅ς̅ 630* z; θεε 630c z = Sixt. Compare also the following examples from the Three: Theodotion: domine deus at Ezek 4.14 (Jerome); θʹ κυριε ο θεος (MS 86C) Symmachus: κυριος ο θεος at Isa 25.8 (Eusebius); dominus deus Ezek 16.14, 20.40 (Jerome) Aquila: ‫ ) ( ܐ ܐ ܐ ܕ‬.‫ ܣ‬.‫ ܐ‬at Jer 2.19 (SHC).

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 301

any effort to substitute or otherwise specially represent ‫יהוה‬.169 Rather, as in the present reading, the Hebrew Tetragram was merely adopted, ‫מרי יהוה‬, without variant. As for Greek translation, if one accepts the Samaritan provenance of Gie (→ §1.2.3.2) or Carl 49 (→ §1.2.3.10), both of which use κυριος, it can be affirmed that the Samaritans fully adopted GPent’s “Jewish” Qere when it came to Greek—something confirmed by the citation of Num 6.22–27 in the inscription on the Samaritan synagogue in Thessaloniki, dated to the 4th cent. CE or later (→ §1.2.3.10, Methodological Reflections, #3).170 As for their reading tradition, Samaritans used (and still use) the Qere šēmå “the NAME” for the Tetragrammaton; hence they read here ā̊ dā̊ ni šēmå.171 While the earliest known Samaritan reference to the Qere šēmå is in the writings of the medieval Samaritan chronographer Abū l-Ḥasan (d. 1259 CE),172 as Pummer points out, a liturgical acrostic by the Samaritan liturgical poet Marqe assumes it,173 suggesting the practice was conventional and embraced by the community in the 3rd/4th cent. CE.174 Additional evidence from Samaritan historiography lends support to the notion that the Qere was much earlier, as both the Dustån and Dosithean sectarians opposed the practice.175 The former sect is believed to have originated subsequent to the destruction of the Gerizim Temple by John

|| 169 Montgomery 1907: 213; S. Lowy 1977: 278; J. Fossum, “God, names of,” CSS, 105. Fossum’s summarizes the other replacements used by ST (‫יהוה ;)חילה → אל ;רב → אדון‬, however, was not replaced. For the tendency to avoiding “God” in ST MSS, see Tal 2003: 119–20. 170 Four times, abbreviated κς. See Tov [1974] 1999; Baillet, DBSup 11.860–61. See also Pummer 2016: 95–96 and literature referenced there. 171 Ben-Ḥayyim 1977: 499. See also Tsedaka’s ET here: “And Mooshe said, Aadaanee Shehmaa, You have ….” As Schorch points out, the Samaritans, just as the Masoretes, also differentiated when ‫ אדני‬refers to human beings as opposed to God, using ā̊ danni for the former (2008: 185). 172 So Tal, “Tetragrammaton,” CSS, 232. 173 Pummer, “Šēmå,” CSS, 216. The section of the composition in question reads (from A. Cowley 1.55):

... ‫רב הוא יתה זזועה דאזרזע על טור סיני‬ ... ‫יהוה )רבה( דאנדה עלמה‬ ... ‫תקיפה ]רבה[ דאנדה חיליה ובוראיה‬ Clearly ‫ יהוה‬would have to be read as šēmå in order to maintain the alphabetic structure. 174 See Tal, “Mårqe,” CSS, 152–53, for information on the poet himself and his chronology, as well as the discussion of his date below (→ §7.1.3). For the ancient Samaritan avoidance of uttering God’s name, see Tal 2013: 117–18, 120. According to Samaritan tradition, the correct pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton was the exclusive reserve of the Samaritan High Priest (thus Bóid 1988: 612). 175 Fossum 1989: 307–08, 325, and 328.

302 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

Hyrcanus (135–104 BCE); the founder of the latter is dated to the first cent. CE.176 The Dosithean martyr Levi (fl. 3rd cent. CE), before his execution, reportedly attacked his executioners: “You have replaced the Great name Y H W H.”177 While the evidence is spotty, and all filtered through the Samaritan Chronicle of Abū lFatḥ (14th cent. CE → §7.1.1), Lowy interpreted this story as representative of the Dosithean opposition to the “orthodox” Samaritan Qere šēmå.178 Whatever the origins of the Samaritan Qere, the μόνον-evidence points towards the use of the hexaplarism ΠΙΠΙ / throughout the original translation, which over time, was replaced by later scribes—as the scribe of SHV (or perhaps a previous scribe) did here (see v 13‫ ג‬below)179—seeking either to clarify its meaning or economize the margin.180 No effort whatsoever was expended by the Caesarean critic(s) to transmit any Qere, be it the Samaritan šēmå or any other. Most likely, they were unaware of the Samaritans’ tradition.181 For additional data and discussion, see below (→ EXCURSUS C). ► / την ισχυν σου (or την δυναμιν σου?): As commentators point out, GDeut rendered the Hebrew in the parallel ‫ =( גדלך‬SP here) with an interpretive doublet την ισχυν σου και την δυναμιν σου.182 However, SH Num translated both ισχυς (14.13, 17; 24.18) and δυναμις (10.15; 33.11) with ‫ ܐ‬, so it is not possible to be sure about which underlies the Syriac here. Presumably Field’s retroversion was influenced by την ισχυν σου at the end of the verse. At the parallel, SH Deut renders the doublet ‫ܘ ܐ ܕ‬ , ostensibly lending credence to δυναμις, but given the variations in equivalencies between the translators of SH Num and Deut, the latter should not be used to clarify the former. While this

|| 176 Fossum, “Dustån and Dosithean Sects,” CSS, 80–82 (cp. Fossum 1989: 308, n. 53). 177 Cited from Lowy 1977: 279; cp. the ET in P. Stenhouse (1989: 217) reading “changed” for “replaced.” 178 Lowy 1977: 279–80 and 280. For criticism of Lowy (generally, not for this specific point, see Bóid 1988: 633). 179 Wevers’ AppII records this as “domine domine (pypy L),” but this misrepresents the situation. L’s is not variant to the original Syriac, instead V’s is. McClurg points this variation out more neutrally (2011: 50). 180 The latter option would have occurred at the Greek level. It is unlikely that scribes would have abbreviated πιπι → π̅ι̅, probably given its similarity with π̅ν̅ι̅. Much more natural is the alteration πιπι → κ̅ς̅, which does save some space. That such occurred on the Greek level is shown in the s-group passages (→ §3.3.3 at Num 21.11‫)א‬. There is at least one known abbreviation of πιπι, namely πιπ (the second π is set directly above ι), as in MS 1173 (Schenker 1975: 78); see the MS: https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.752.pt.2 (fol. 251a, 5th--6th lns. from bottom). 181 Again, it is improbable that Theodoret of Cyrrhus (d. ca. 460 CE) knew of an authentic Samaritan Qere tradition (→ §1.3.1.1). 182 Wevers, NGTD, 63; McCarthy BHQap.

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 303

ambiguity remains, what is unambiguous is that the Caesarean translator(s) chose only one half of the original doublet in GDeut. And irrespective of which he chose, it hardly translates ‫ גדל‬literally and is thus septuagintistic. ► ‫ ܕ ܒ ܬ ܐ‬... ‫ ܐܘ‬... ‫ ܓ‬/ γαρ ... η ... εποιησας συ : Each of these reveal the influence of the GDeut parallel on the translator(s). In particular the latter, in which the Hebrew ‫ כמעשיך‬is represented by a verbal construction, most forcefully demonstrates as much.183 ► ‫ ܐ ܕ‬2° / την ισχυν σου : ‫ גבורה‬occurs only twice184 in (MT) Pent, at Exod 32.18 and the parallel here, and it is translated both times in G with ισχυς. The Hebrew, however, in SP is plural, both according to the majority of SP MSS185 and the reading tradition.186 Num 20.13‫ב‬: This verse has only a couple of matters requiring comment. ► ‫̇ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܐܐ ܗ‬ L / ‫ܐ ܐ ̇ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܗ‬ V: L’s is likely the original, assuming the pronoun which seems otiose.187 Perhaps the original SH Num translator(s) wanted to clarify the construction. The Greek is hardly under question, and the G parallel was what the translator(s) produced as opposed to a strict representation of SP ‫אעבר נא ואראה‬. ► ‫ܒܐ ܣ‬ ‫ ܘ ܐ‬/ και τον Αντιλιβανον : For comment on the use of “Antilebanon,” clearly a septuagintism, see also Num 10.10‫ ב‬below (→ §3.3.2) and literature cited there. The transliteration ‫ܒܐ ܣ‬ ‫ܐ‬188 in the μόνον-passages is unique, as ‫ܒ ܒ‬ (lit. αντι + λιβανος) is used elsewhere in SH, betraying different translators.189 Uniquely, JNum here reads: ‫( ܘ ܒ ܘ‬fol. 300‫)ܐ‬.

|| 183 Wevers specified that the noun is always rendered by GDeut with another noun except in this case (NGTD, 63). Compare the addition κατα τα εργα σου M b d n t 55mx (see AppI), which Wevers held was taken from one of the Three. Assuming this likely reconstruction, the septuagintism is further underscored. 184 According to the reading tradition, SP also only has ‫ גבורה‬twice, here and the parallel in Deut; that at Exod 32.18 is understood as a ptc. (see Ben-Ḥayyim 1977: 63). 185 Unfortunately, this is a case where von Gall chose to defy the majority of (unvocalized) Samaritan MSS in favor of a minority reading which fit the consonantal framework of MT; cp. his app. 186 Read as wkā̊ gēbūrūtək both here and in Deut (Ben-Ḥayyim 1977: 63). The Masoretes also vocalize the form in MT as plural; see also BHSap note ‘c’. Strictly speaking, the defective form could be understood either way. The Jewish Targumim (vid.; TgO specifically) and the majority of P MSS mark it as plural. 187 JNum is unhelpful here largely reproducing PDeut: ... ̇ ‫ܗ ܐ ̇ܐ‬ ‫ ̇ܐ ܒ ܗ‬. Compare ‫̇ܐ‬ ‫ ̇ܐ ܒ ܗ‬. SH Deut, granted a different translator from SH Num, which reads: ... ̇ 188 Exceptionally the term is not found in PS 1.269, cp. 2.1886. 189 The Greek transliteration is found at Deut 1.7, 3.25, 11.24; Josh 1.4, 9.1; and Jdt 1.7. Compare the same locations in SH Deut and Josh. For discussion, see Perkins 1980: 71 and 351.

304 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

His reading does not reflect a different source text. Jacob only clarified that the inherited area encompassed both the Lebanon and the Mt. Hermon environs, the latter of which he identified by the “Amorite” designation Senir from Deut 3.9.190 For the other occurrence of ‫ܒܐ ܣ‬ ‫ ܐ‬in Num 10.10‫( ב‬fol. 276‫)ܐ‬, he produced the same explicatory form. Within the Pent, but beyond the μόνονpassages, Jacob made no effort to reflect Αντιλιβανος where G reads thus instead following P’s ‫ ܒ‬.191 Num 20.13‫ג‬: Typical septuagintism and scribal “updating” occur. ► / ΠΙΠΙ (≠ ‫ܐ‬ SHV JNum192): As was noted above (→ Num 14.40‫)א‬, some Syriac scribes, similar to their Greek counterparts, altered to ‫ܐ‬ . (For a similar scribal updating with → EXCURSUS C.) Observe the following table: Table 3.3.1.2: Occurrences of Passage

Use of

Num 10.10‫ג–א‬

Use of ‫ܐ‬ 1

Num 13.1‫ד–א‬ Num 13.33‫ו–א‬

3 4

Num 14.40‫א‬

1

Num 20.13‫ ט–א‬2*

2 (once as

Num 21.11‫א‬

‫ܐ‬

)

1

Num 21.12‫ב–א‬ Num 21.20‫ב–א‬

in SH Num MSS193

and ‫ܐ‬

1 1*

Num 21.23‫א‬

1

Num 27.23‫ב–א‬

3 (SHV only)

Num 31.20‫ד–א‬

1 (SHV only)

N.B.: *SHV replaced

with ‫ܐ‬

|| 190 On the Antilebanon generally, see Perkins, “Antilebanon,” ABD 1.262. Compare Jacob’s mountain listing in his Hexaemeron (ed. J.-B. Chabot, CSCO 92.114): ‫ܐܪ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܪܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܣ܀‬ ‫ܢ ܪܐ ܘܐ ܣ ܘܐ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ ܘ ܒ ܘ‬.‫ܘ ܐ ܢ ̈ܪܐ‬. 191 See JDeut 1.7 ‫( ܘ ܒ‬fol. 344‫)ܒ‬, 3.25 ‫( ܘ ܒ‬fol. 351‫)ܐ‬, and 11.24 ‫( ܘ ܒ‬fol. 366‫)ܐ‬. 192 On Jacob, see note above at v 13‫ א‬and EXCURSUS C. 193 Included are eligible passages only.

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 305

These data illustrate the irregularity with which the scribal tradition treated ΠΙΠΙ / in Num. Insofar as SH is concerned, SHL transmits a mixed witness, with both and ‫ܐ‬ , whereas the much later SHV only transmits ‫ܐ‬ .194 A couple of conclusions follow: 1) Syriac scribes at some point between L and V obviously changed—intentionally—the older, original .195 2) This process likely began at the Greek level as even L is mixed, transmitting both forms (cp. below v 13‫)ו‬. Had the scribe of L himself changed these he would presumably have leveled the forms. For evidence of Greek scribes having changed the hexaplarism ΠΙΠΙ to the more regular κυριος, both in the running text and marginally, see Num 10.10‫§ →( א‬3.3.2) and 21.11‫§ →( א‬3.3.3), respectfully, below. ► ̣ / ικανουσθω and ‫ܐ‬ / τον λογον : Both are stereotypically septuagintistic. As for the former, the same underlying Greek occurs, via the G parallel, three times in the Num μόνον-passages, here, in v 13‫ו‬, and at 10.10‫→( א‬ §3.3.2). The Syriac imperf. is used for the first two, while the an impv. occurs, anomalously it seems, in the latter.196 Nevertheless, the Greek Vorlage was the same. Note that the recentiores were not consulted in rendering this construction.197 Regarding the latter, most data elsewhere can be mustered for the use of the G parallel when interpreting ambiguous Hebrew forms, specifically ‫→( דבר‬ §2.3.1 at Exod 9.5‫ ג‬and references). While SH did not differentiate between ῥῆμα and λόγος (→ §2.3.3 at Exod 20.21‫)ד‬, no evidence suggests that the Greek was, in this case, anything but the latter. Num 20.13‫ד‬: A few philological notes are in order. ► (‫ܐ‬ (‫ ܕ‬/ του λελαξευμενου (≠ ‫ܪ ܐ‬ JNum = PDeut): As indicated above, the underlying Greek is not disputed. As this is the only occurrence of ‫ ִפּ ְסגָּ ה‬in these passages, it is hardly surprising that the G parallel forms the basis for the present translation. Wevers was correct to point out, however, that the GPent differs, inexplicably it seems, on how the peak was translated, being transliterated in Deut 3.17 and 34.1, while the etymological198 rendition is found at Num 21.20 (the first instance), 23.14, and Deut 3.27.199 It is perhaps worth

|| 194 This witness is missing both Num 13.33‫ ו–א‬and 21.11‫א‬. in several μόνον-passages in Exod. Certainly this 195 Observe that SHV does reproduce process had begun well before the 12th cent. is used for ικανουσθω (1980: 254). Again, this is a 196 Perkins says that in SH Deut only sign of different translators. 197 At the parallel: ἱκανούσθω] α΄ πολύ M (AppII). See the similar evidence at 10.10‫§ →( א‬3.3.2). 198 So Dogniez and Harl, BA 5.97 and 132; cp. later Hebrew (and Aram.) ‫פסג‬, see Jastrow, s.v. 199 NGTD, 64–65, with notes: “Presumably what is meant is a mountain which looked as though it were carved in stone, thus a stony mountain” (p. 64). See also McCarthy who follows this line of thought (BHQap). As the latter correctly points out, the Jewish Targumim and PDeut,

306 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

pointing out that when confronted with inconsistencies, the μόνον-translator(s) nearly always simply adopted the parallel. ► ( ‫ ܘ( ܬ ܐ ܐ‬/ αναβλεψας : The syntax is, unsurprisingly, cribbed from GDeut. Worth observing is the ptc. vs. the impv. which is so fluent in the MS tradition, especially in later witnesses.200 That the μόνον-translation would reflect earlier readings is naturally to be expected. However, the impv. would have equated SP itself in this instance. ► ‫ ܝ‬° / ° ιδε : The prefixed ‫ ו־‬is missing. A number of explanations present themselves. Aside from a simple mistake in transmission, an eye skip from then end of the previous word, ‫הפסגה‬, to the beginning of ‫ ושא‬could be imagined, given the similarity of heh and yodh, ‫ י‬and ‫ה‬, in Samaritan script. However, the likely use of word-divider dots probably militates against this possibility. Perhaps more likely is that the GDeut text used omitted the και.201 Perhaps accidental omission in Greek transmission is likely as use of the και compendium (i.e., Ϗ) in this marginal passage is most probable. Num 20.13‫ה‬: For this verse there is a mixture of septuagintism and bits for which the GDeut parallel cannot account. ►‫ܥ ܒ ܗ ܕ ܢ‬ / Ιησοι υιω Ναυε : SH, especially for common names, retains P generally speaking.202 Though the prefixed -‫ ܠ‬is somewhat ambiguous, as SH used it to specify both dat. and acc. substantives,203 and the GDeut MS tradition (see AppI) at the parallel evinces both dat. and acc. endings to mark Ιησους in this verse, the former is more proper and is found in the majority of witnesses. Thus, Field’s dative should be retained, whether as –ου or –οι.204 It should be pointed out that at the parallel no witness, even SP Deut, adds “son of Nun.” Therefore, the translator(s) must have added them from his reading of SP unassisted.

|| ‫ܪ‬ ); cp. the OL excelsam (!). Cp. ST’s ‫לריש‬ render it as “high summit” (‫ה‬-/‫ܐ ;לריש רמתא‬ ‫“ סכיתה‬the peak of the summit.” Note Fb’s understanding κορυφην ορους “peak of the mountain” (but cp. Fincati 2016: 336) vs. the same at Num 24.14 where it is transliterated βισγα (see both in AppII; the latter a misspelling, see NGTD, 557). Wevers approved of Aquila’s transliteration Φασγα here (NGTD, 64, n. 35); however testimony from Eusebius at Deut 3.17 and 34.1 (see AppII) has Aquila using an etymological rendering: α΄ ἤ λαξευτή. It would seem then that the recentiores could be inconsistent as well. 200 AppI: ἀναβλέψας B V 963 376′O d n t 68′-120z 319mx 509 Arm] ιδε 128z (2°); -ψον rell. 201 AppI: om καί 5° 376′O d n t(–602) Arm Bo SH. Note the similarity in this chain of witnesses with that in the previous note. 202 On this, see Perkins’ ch. 4 (1980: 348–59, esp. pp. 349 and 359). 203 Perkins 1980: 186–88. 204 See Wevers’ comments (NGTD, 65).

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 307

► ‫ ܘܒ ܐ ܝ‬/ κ. παρακαλεσον αυ. : The equivalency in the GDeut parallel for Hebrew ‫ אמץ‬is utterly unique205 and thus septuagintistic. The recentiores, at least Aquila based on the evidence extant in the parallel,206 were not consulted. Jacob apparently did not like the Syriac selected for what is obviously παρακαλεω and thus altered SH to ‫( ܘ ܒܒ ܝ‬fol. 300‫“ )ܒ‬and hearten him.” His should not be seen as representing either a variant to SH or as an instance of his consulting the μόνον-Greek directly (to which he had no access). Instead he likely changed the Syriac based on the context as he probably felt the use of the Syriac equivalent was inappropriate for this case; ‫ ܒ ܐ‬does not cover the same semantic range as παρακαλεω in Greek.207 JNum’s ‫ ܒ‬is much stronger, approximating the sense of ‘urge’ παρακαλεω bears here. Caesarean cross-referencing system: In SH Deut, as pointed out above (→ Num 13.33‫)ו–א‬, the hexaplaric critic(s) marked the corresponding parallels with brief scholia indicating that said passages recalled in Deut were recorded in SP Num in loco. Of these cross-references which survive in the evidence, this is the last supplied occurrence in Deut 1–3 (see Table 3.3.1.1 above). The note in SH Deut specifically marks this passage with a lemniscus ÷, both in the margin and (incorrectly) just after ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ in 3.24. No similar end marker is supplied. Presumably the latter was omitted (purposefully?) by an intervening scribe, since Moses’ recollection of his conversation with the Lord ends after v 28. Num 20.13‫ו‬: The verse continues the typical septuagintism along with some Syriac peculiarities. ►‫ܐ‬ / κυριος : Unlike the cases above in vv 13‫ א‬and 13‫ג‬, here both L and V have ‫ܐ‬ . It is this case which suggests (along with others, → Table 3.3.1.2 above) that the MS Paul of Tella translated for Num read with both ΠΙΠΙ and κυριος in the Samaritan passages. This indicates that Greek scribes had supplied the more usual form, perhaps as a means of contracting the marginal passages. If the Vorlage(n) of the Greek copy Paul translated was mixed, this may have resulted from different scribes having “updated” the form at the different stages of transmission as hinted at by the colophon (→ §3.2). Whatever the case, there is real evidence for this process on both the Greek and Syriac levels of transmission (→ EXCURSUS C), although such alterations should not be attributed to Paul or his team.

|| 205 Thus H-R, 1060 and LALS/LALHB. Wevers called it “contextually most fitting” (NGTD, 65). 206 AppII: α΄ κραταίωσον (-τεωσον cod) M “fortify.” 207 For this, consult the lexica.

308 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

► ‫ ܬ‬: The use of the Syriac fem. imperf.208 for Greek pres. impv. ικανουσθω here differs from the use of masc. imperf. earlier in v 13‫ג‬. Again, there is no reason to question Field’s adoption of the parallel in either case; see further comments above. ► ‫ܗ‬ ‫ ܗ‬/ επιστραφητε ουν : The use of this construction is obviously from the parallel;209 ‫ ܗ‬/ ουν of course does not translate the (admittedly) Hebraic construction ‫לכם‬.210 Num 20.13‫ז‬: More septuagintism. ̈ ‫ ܬ‬/ των οριων : As with so many such cases of pluralization vis-à►‫ܐ‬ vis SP, the translator(s) utilized the parallel. ► ‫ ܘ ܘ ܢ ≠( )ܘ( ܙܘܢ‬JNum211) / ευλαβηθησονται : The translator’(s) cribbing of GDeut here is most palpable given that the Greek has determined not only which verb was selected for the Hebrew ‫ שמר‬but also how it was grammatically construed. SP Num, as with the Deut parallel in SP and MT, reads ‫נשמרתם‬ “you (sc. the Israelites) shall take care” (Sam. voc. wniššā̊ mårtimma)212, from nifal of ‫שמר‬. This hardly equates the μόνον-rendering, which following GDeut, appears to keep focus on Edom, perhaps enhancing Israel’s potential bellicosity.213 The choice of ευλαβεομαι for ‫ שמר‬is unique to GDeut.214 As McCarthy points out (BHQap), MS 963 has a corrected form (AppI: -θησεσθαι 963*; -θησεσθε 963c),

|| ̇ (impv.) is not evidence of SH’s true reading. Rather Jacob merely 208 JNum’s marginal altered SH to conform grammatically to his selected reading in-text ‫( ̇ ܓ‬impv.) from PDeut. 209 Compare AppI: ουν] γουν 646mx; και oI–15. Where did the latter come from? 210 Cp. Wevers’ comments (NGTN, 5, 23, and 28). 211 JNum’s “and they shall quake (in fear)” is difficult to interpret. SH’s here is firm despite that fact that SH Deut 2.4 equates that of JNum. According to the data in PS (1.1691), ‫ ܙ‬is a regularly selected equivalency for Greek ευλαβεομαι in SH (cp. those for ‫ܙܘܥ‬, PS 1.1105–06). It is difficult to know how or why Jacob adopted this reading here since it suggests that he consulted the GDeut parallel (even if via SH) for the Samaritan passage, something for which little evidence exists. (Note JDeut 2.4: ... ‫ ܐܙܕܗܪܘ‬. ‫ܢ ܘ ܘ ܢ ̇ ܓ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ ܘ‬...; fol. 347‫ ;ܐ‬PDeut ‫ ܐܙܕܗܪܘ‬.‫ܢ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܘ‬. without variant.) It is tempting to posit some sort of graphic reads confusion as both ‫ ܙ‬and ‫ ܙܘܥ‬are similarly shaped, as least in Estrangelo, and their meanings are similar in this context. However, both L and V read the same, lessening the probability of this explanation. More likely JNum’s is an exceptional case in which Jacob consulted the parallel in Greek (or SH?) Deut. The variance between SH Num and Deut rests with differing translators, in accordance with other such examples flagged up in this chapter. 212 Ben-Ḥayyim 1977: 292 and 500. 213 Dogniez and Harl: “Le traducteur comprend que c’est Israël qui provoquera cette peur” (BA 5.123). 214 See Wevers description of the equivalencies in GPent (NGTD, 29). Elsewhere, he called GDeut “a somewhat free rendering of the parent text” (THGD, 119). H-R lists only this occurrence for ‫( שמר‬p. 572).

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 309

which while not conforming to more usual lexeme, at least adjusts the grammar to the 2 pl. Note further the reading παραφυλαχθήσεσθε Fb “you shall be on guard / be careful”; if this reading originated with one of the Three,215 the Caesarean critic(s) ignored it. Observe the popular G variant adding yet another υμας was not adopted here if the translator’(s) MSS contained it.216 Num 20.13‫ח‬: Further septuagintism occurs as does a reading confirming SP as the source. ► ‫ =( ܬܘܬܐ‬JNum, om. -‫ )ܠ‬/ εις κληρονομιαν : Field’s hesitation in his reconstruction was born out of the fact that the GDeut parallel lacks this Samaritan exclusivity, which, as BHSap (see note ‘b’) points out, is found principally in SP217 and P (‫ ܪܬ ܐ‬without variant) at the parallel.218 Field’s hesitation, however, is unwarranted as SH Deut 2.31, not known at this time, reads ‫ܐ ܒ ܬܘܬܐ‬ ‫ ܐܪܬ‬for εναρξαι κληρονομια κληρονομησαι confirming the use of ‫ ܬܘܬܐ‬for κληρονομια attested elsewhere.219 Whatever the case, the translator’(s) rendering reflects a true attempt at representing SP and is unlikely to have been the result of (direct) septuagintism.220 See Num 21.23‫ א‬further below. ► ‫ܐ ܕܕܘܪ ܐ‬ / βημα ιχνους : Though the GDeut MS tradition is unambiguous as to the underlying Greek, as both βημα and ιχνος mean ‘(foot)step’ / ‘pace’, SH at the parallel reads differently: ‫ ܕܘܪ ܐ ⁜ܕ ܒ ܐ܌ ܕܪܓ ܐ‬for βημα

|| 215 See Fincati 2016: 331; she comments that it is most certainly not Aquila’s. 216 Wevers believed it as added under the influence of the preceding υμας modifying φοβηθησονται (NGTD, 29; THGD, 119). 217 Kim is of the opinion that SP Deut here was harmonizing internally with Deut 2.9 and 19 (1994: 280; also McCarthy, BHQap). 218 Cp. AppI: (γης) αυτων] + in sorte Latcod 100 Aeth–c = Sam. Does OL’s sorte reflect εις κληρονομιαν or εν κληρω later in the verse? If the latter, then Wevers’ comparison with SP may be inappropriate. 219 See those cases in PS 1.1635. Note that while κληρος could have also served as the underlying Greek (see the PS entry), this is improbable as the MS data from Deut 2.31 shows: κληρονομῆσαι] pr κληρονομια (κληρομια 376*) O–82 SH = M; pr κληρω WI-54n 71′-527y Aeth Bo (AppI; see also MS 58). SH is not expected to reflect the Greek in WI et al, which is represented later in this same verse. by ‫ܐ‬ 220 Pummer (1975–76: 443) in discussing the relationship between Acts 7.5 in comparison with (SP) Deut 2.5, concludes that the presence of κληρονομια there is merely a variant G reading and is not due to any influence from SP. This is true insofar as the reading had wider currency (e.g., PDeut). However, given that the Caesarean-based Samaritan collation was explicitly based on the SP Hebrew, together with the fact that the GDeut MS evidence cannot supply the reading, it seems justified to view this here as an independent act of translation. It should also be pointed out that perhaps Acts is not really quoting Deut 2.5 at all, as Barrett supposes (2004/1.343). NA28 does not italicize the phrase as it usually does for OT quotations.

310 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

ιχνους ποδος.221 βημα is translated in SH Sir 19.30 by ‫ܐ‬ as here,222 whereas Hark Acts 7.5 uses ‫ܐ‬ . P Acts, however, translates ‫ ܕܘܪ ܐ‬like the SH Deut parallel.223 As for ιχνος, SH Deut 11.24 and 28.65 adopt ‫ܐ‬ , as does Josh 1.3 and Dan 10.10, while Bel 19 translates with ‫ܒ ܐ‬ as in SH Deut 2.5 and Gen 42.12. At 3 Kgdms 5.17, the SH chose ‫ܐ‬ while 3 Kgdms 18.44 uses the fem. ‫ܐ‬ . Remarkably, ‫ ܕܘܪ ܐ‬was used for ιχνος in at least one other place at SHmg Lam 4.18, which Ziegler’s AppI clearly shows is Lucianic.224 In summary, while ‫ ܕܘܪ ܐ‬could reflect either Greek word, ‫ܐ‬ was limited to βημα (and its derivatives225). SH translations for ιχνος thus varied. Lastly, in accordance with all other such cases, the reading of Fb πάτημα ταρσοῦ (-σον cod) ποδός “the trampling of a footsole,” if this can in any way be related to one of the recentiores,226 was not adopted. ► ‫ )ܕ(ܒ ܐ‬/ εν κληρω : It is perhaps worth mentioning in connection with the translator’(s) ‫ ܬܘܬܐ‬/ κληρονομιαν above, that despite SP using the same word ‫ ירשה‬for both, only here is the GDeut parallel is maintained. One might have expected the translator(s) to level both instances of ‫ ירשה‬with κληρος. ►( ‫ ܒ ̈ ܐ )ܕ‬/ τοις υιους (Ησαυ): Whatever the case may be for the original reading in the GDeut parallel,227 the passage here strangely includes “to the sons of (Esau).” While the MS tradition makes it clear that the expanded form was present in very early witnesses, there is no evidence that any Samaritan source read so here. Although it is tempting to posit a potential SP variant, rote septuagintism is far more likely the cause, particularly as hexaplaric MSS contain the reading implying the Hexapla Maior read thus (somewhere) and influenced the translator(s). Beyond this, it is possible a later scribe added it out of habit.

|| 221 Wevers: “Hex inserted under the asterisk the word ιχνους before ποδος representing ‫כף‬, which is, however, quite unnecessary” (NGTD, 30). 222 See the entry in PS 2.3191 (the “Σαμ.” attribution for this passage is incorrect). 223 Noted by PS 1.950. ̈ ‫ ;ܘܕܘ̈ܪ ܐ ܕ‬Field 2.760, n. 6). 224 AppI: και τα ιχνη ημων αφανη εγενετο L′ SHmg (‫ܐ ܐܬ ܥ‬ 225 For example διαβηματα, see PS 2.3191. 226 See further Fincati 2016: 331. For πάτημα SH used ‫(ܕܘ ܐ‬e.g., Ezek 34.19). 227 Wevers defended the shorter reading as original in accordance with MT claiming the expanded form was due to leveling with v 4 (NGTD, 30; see THGD, 119, for a fuller explanation). Dogniez and Harl seem suspicious of Wevers’ decision (BA 5.123). Granted the MSS used for Wevers’ reconstruction are quite late (AppI: b 53′-56f n–767 71′-527y Aeth Arm), whereas much earlier witnesses (963, B*, et al) transmit τοις υιοις ησαυ. Whether or not the fuller reading represents the original GPent is not germane to the issue at hand. At issue here is only the MS(S) of GDeut the Caesarean critic(s) used.

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 311

Num 20.13‫ט‬: Despite adhering to the GDeut parallel, the verse is adequately rendered. ̈ ‫ ܐ‬/ βρωματα : For this case see Num 21.22‫§ →( א‬3.3.2). ►‫ܐ‬ ►‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܒ‬1° / αργυριου 1°: As was argued by Wevers, GDeut did not translate the first ‫ בכסף‬as the economy in Alexandria necessitated the exchange of currency.228 Therefore, the μόνον-translator(s) simply consulted hexaplaric sources to supply the missing phrase. ► ‫ ܘ ̈ ܐ‬/ και υδωρ : As has become clear in the case of prepositions especially, as well as the absence or presence of ‫כל־‬, small words in the μόνονpassages were subject to the Greek parallel in question. Here SP’s ‫ וגם‬/ ‫וגם‬ was rendered with a simple και due to the adoption of the parallel. This conforms to the other occurrences of ‫ וגם‬in these passages (see the cases above at Exod 8.19‫ב‬, 11.3, and Num 13.33‫ ב‬above). ► ‫ ܬ ܒ ܢ‬/ ληψεσθε : The translation “take” is an obvious septuagintism; however, while the translator(s) adopted G rotely229 the accompanying μετρω was not. This well illustrates the translator’(s) seeming attention to the letter of SP, at least in terms of word units, while at the same time not observing each and every detail (e.g., the ‫ וגם‬just above).230 In siding with G, the translator avoided Symmachus’ exegesis, interpreting the Hebrew as from I ‫‘ כרה‬to dig’.231 Attribution: For the attribution and the accompanying cross-reference, see the above commentary at Num 13.33‫ו–א‬. For the attribution formula in JNum for this passage, see below (→ Table 5.2.3.2).

|| 228 NGTD, 30. Also embraced by McCarthy (BHQap), who adds that use of αγοραζω likely made specifying money redundant. 229 Uniquely here for MT’s ‫ תכרו‬from II ‫( כרה‬thus HALOT; 4x, each rendered differently; see LALH entry); McCarthy describes GDeut’s equivalency as “neutral” (BHQap). The Sam. voc. understands it as hif. from ‫( נכר‬takkīru; Ben-Ḥayyim 1977: 181 and 500; cp. HALOT, II ‫)נכר‬. ST MSS render ‫“ תזבנון‬you will buy” except MS N reading ‫“ תחכמון‬you will be wise.” The latter is probably a misreading of the Samaritan script: ‫ תזבנון‬/ ‫ תחכמון → תזבנון‬/ ‫?תחכמון‬ 230 Wevers mentioned that μετρω was set sub ÷ (NGTD, 31; but SH only, sub hypolemniscus ⨪, which may have indeed guided the translator’(s) hand. McCarthy seems open to the possibility that GDeut’s Vorlage read differently than MT (BHQap). 231 Pointed out by Wevers who retroverted SH’s ‫ ̣ܬܕ ܢ‬.‫( ܣ‬from root ‫ )ܕ ܐ‬as αντλησετε (see NGTD, 31, n. 11; cp. G and SH Exod 2.16).

312 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

Num 21.20‫ב–א‬: The Command to Battle Sihon SH (L fol. 34a lower mg ind 卐; V fol. 132a bottom mg encircled ind ?232)

‫ ܗܐ ̇ܐ‬.‫ܢ‬ .‫ܐ ܐܪܬ‬ ‫ܬܗ‬ ‫ܨܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܐܕ‬ ‫ܢ‬

]‫ܐ‬

SHV

‫ܐ ܕܐܪ‬ ‫ܘܐ ̣ ܘ ̣ܒ ܘ‬ .‫ܐ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ̣ ‫ ܘܐ‬20̈ ‫א‬ . ‫ܢ ̇ ܐ ܕ ܒ ܢ ܕܐ ̈ܪ ܐ܇ ܘ ܐܪ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܒܐ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ ܐ ܬ‬.‫ܐ ܗ ܐ ܐ ܐܪܬ‬ ‫]]ܒ‬233 20‫ܐ ܬ ܬܗ ܒܐ܆ ב‬° ‫ܟ܇‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܐܕ‬ ‫ܠ‬ ‫ܐܗܐ ܐ‬ ‫[[ ܒ‬SHV < ‫ܒܐ܆‬ ‫ܕܐܢ‬ ‫ ̇ܗ ܢ ܐ‬. ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ ܘܢ ̈ ܐ ̇ܗ ܢ ܕܬ‬ . ‫ܨܘ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫̇ܓ ܢ܆ ܘ ̈ܒ ܐ ̣ ܢ‬ ° ‫ܐ܀‬ ‫ ܘܗ ܒ ܕ ܒ‬Attrib. ‫ܐ‬

]‫ܐ‬

(sic, see discussion234) ‫]ܕܐܢ‬

‫ܕ‬

Field’s Reconstructed Greek [Revised] 20‫ )※( א‬και ειπε ΠΙΠΙ προς Μωυσην. αναστητε και απαρατε, και παρελθετε την φαραγγα Αρνων. ιδου παραδεδωκα εις τας χειρας σου τον Σηων βασιλεα Εσεβων των Αμορραιων, και την γην αυτου. εναρχου κληρονομειν. ° συναπτε προς αυτον πολεμον. 20‫ ב‬εν τη ημερα ταυτη εναρχου δουναι τον τρομον σου και τον φοβον σου επι προσωπου παντων των εθνων των υποκατω [παντος του ουρανου],235 οιτινες [ακουσαντες]236 το ονομα σου, ° ταραχθησονται, και ωδινας237 εξουσιν απο προσωπου σου (↙). [Attrib. και (ταυ)τα μονον εν (? see discussion) των σαμαρειτων] SP Num 21.20‫( ב–א‬Deut 2.24–25) ⟨4Q27⟩238 ≠ ΜΤ ‫{ ויאמר יהוה אל משה קומו סעו ועברו את נחל ארנן ראה נתתי בידך את‬2.24} 20‫א‬ ‫{ היום הזה‬2.25} 20‫סיחון מלך חשבון האמרי ואת ארצו החל רש והתגר בו מלחמה ב‬

|| 232 Based on the facsimile something was used here as an index marker; however, it is not visible in black and white. Nothing corresponding to any such marker is visible in-text. 233 An obvious dittography Field did not reflect in his Greek retroversion. Note that while de Lagarde provided the transcription in full, he did not flag up this dittography with “sic” as he did elsewhere (1892: 115). Br.-M. included the whole passage (in LT) without comment. 234 Wevers’ AppII represents V here, in LT, with “sub toto caelo” (adopted from Br.-M.?). Howtwice, and it is improbable this was meant to be idiomatic (see ever, the scribe clearly wrote discussion below). 235 Emending Field (του ουρανου παντος, with the Syriac in parentheses) as discussed below. 236 Field’s ει ακουσονται is based on SHL’s mistake; see below. 237 Presumably this is the acc. pl. with Field and the majority of MSS at the parallel. Compare however SH Deut 2.25 which according to Wevers’ AppI reads as the nom. pl. Note that the acc. marker -‫ ܠ‬is missing both there and here, though SH was not always consistent in its use (Perkins 1980: 186). 238 For the text in 4Q27, see Jastram’s reconstruction (DJD 12.228–29, marked “21.21a” with von Gall). Only ‫ ויאמר‬and bits of ‫ סיחון‬and ‫ מלחמה‬are extant, with the first word in red ink (on which see his discussion, pp. 210–11). This analysis presumes his reconstruction. While Jastram supplies the reconstructed variant (noted above), Ulrich in his edition does not list ⟨ ‫לרשת את‬ ‫ ⟩ארצו‬amongst the variants (2010: 151).

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 313

‫החל תת פחדך ויראתך על פני העמים תחת כל השמים אשר ישמעו את שמעך ורגזו‬ ‫וחלו מפניך‬ ‫ ⟩לרשת את ארצו⟨ ]רש‬+ 4Q27

20‫ א‬And ‫יהוה‬a said to Moses: “Rise andb break camp and cross over the Wadi Arnon. Beholdc I have ddelivered overd into your handse Sihon, King of Heshbon ofb the Amoritese, and his land. Begin fto take possessionf (of it); join against him (in) battle! 20‫ ב‬b[[In this day, begin to take possession (of it); join against him (in) battle!]]b (dittog. in SHL; see below) Inb this day begin to give your terror and your fear upon the face of allb the peoples, those who are under gall heaveng—who, ifh they hear your name (or: fame), ithey will be troubled, and (labor) pains they will develop before you.” a

SHV: ‫ܐ‬ (the Lord) b > SP ST (STABN: and break camp; SHV dittog. only) c SP ST: see (2ms impv) d SP ST: given e SP ST: sg. f SP ST: take possession (2ms impv; STAVNB ptc.) g L lit. heaven all (V lit. all all heaven); tr SP ST (see discussion) h SHV (ST): when (to be preferred, see below) i SP ST: pr. and

Attribution: And this is only in the (edition/exemplar/Hebrew? see discussion) of the Samaritans. Num 21.20‫ב–א‬: The evidence for this brief passage supplies a number of discussion points both in terms of the translation and MS transmission. Index Markers and Sigla: The text is correctly indexed in L239 at the end of 21.20. The index marker used here by the scribe is unquestionably a swastika (see L further at Num 13.1‫ ד–א‬below → §3.3.3). While jarring and (understandably) odious to the modern, Western reader, the symbol was used by any number of scribes in Late Antiquity in MSS in just such a fashion, in addition to any number of similar symbols, most commonly “squiggly lines” with or without dots, in order to tie given marginalia to various points in the running text. The symbol obviously did not have the entirely deleterious association it now bears after having been appropriated by the Nazi regime.240 Nevertheless, the mark was widely attested in Antiquity and may be found on diverse ancient artifacts found in regions varying from Japan to North America.241 Given the complexity of SH’s margins, scribes often used a wide array of such markers in order to anchor each individual element in the margin to the running text. Were one to

|| 239 V’s indexing was presumably correct, see above note. 240 McClurg, then, understandably attempts to soften what the MS clearly represents, calling the marker “an index that looks like a swastika” (2011: 95, emphasis mine). 241 See ODCC, s.v., and literature cited there. For a history of the symbol, with a great many images and diagrams, see T. Wilson 1896.

314 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

compile all known symbols used for indexing marginalia in Christian MSS, Greek and Syriac, such a list would include this242 and other such similar markers. As Field pointed out, the passage in L lacks any sigla. Their absence is due to scribal inattention and does not mean anything.243 The passage in JNum, however, bears the usual lemnisci (÷) typical of their representation in JPent. This may perchance indicate that SH MSS did supply some such sigla, though since all witnesses differ as to which sigla were employed and when they were used, it is not possible to confirm which Paul of Tella’s Num MS(S) bore. On the likely original sigla, see below (→ §4.4.2). SH’s witness: One gets the impression that the scribe of SHL here succumbed to inattention in his transcription of the passage. Notably, two errors in particular, the long dittography and reversal of ‫ܐ‬ , do not instill confidence. A further error, reading ‫ܢ‬ ‫( ܕܐܢ‬as if subj.), is perhaps more understandable even if clearly secondary.244 Fortunately, the later SHV MS offers correct readings for most of these elements. However, V still evinces secondary readings, namely “updating” to ‫ܐ‬ (→ Num 20.13‫ ט–א‬and EXCURSUS C). Such demonstrates the need to use these MSS critically if Paul’s work is to be recovered.245 The dittography as it stands reads awkwardly, as if the Lord repeats himself for emphasis. Whether or not SHV’s Vorlage read this way, and a later scribe corrected it, is not possible to determine, though nothing in JNum suggests Jacob’s SH exemplar(s) read with the dittography. Whatever the case, censuring the dittography is proper as Wevers did in AppII.246 Num 21.20‫א‬: The verse bears septuagintism throughout. ► / ΠΙΠΙ :: ‫ܐ‬ SHV : For the phenomenon whereby later witnesses replace ΠΙΠΙ, original to the μόνον-translation, with κυριος / ‫ܐ‬ , see discussion at Num 14.40‫א‬, 20.13‫א‬, and 13‫ ג‬above, as well as EXCURSUS C below. ̈ ►( ‫ ܘ)ܐ‬/ και 2° and ‫ܒܐ ܐ‬ ‫ ܗܐ ̇ܐ‬/ ιδου παραδεδωκα εις τας χειρας : Each of these elements disagreeing with SP resulted from adopting the parallel expressions. Wevers pointed to the relative rarity of using ιδου for the

|| 242 E.g., see Amos 5.22 in SHC (fol. 100b, top margin) where a swastika indexes a scholion from Cyril’s Comm. on Amos to the running text. 243 1.251, n. 25. 244 Here V’s is correct for the aor. act. ptc., being + imperf. (Perkins 1980: 328–29). JNum unhelpfully follows PDeut at this point. 245 Compare the haplography in SHV at Num 21.12‫–ג–א‬13a, attribution (→ §3.3.3). 246 McClurg (2011: 95) describes V as if its scribe committed an error by omitting the phrase (“… due to parablepsis between successive occurrences of the Syriac phrase ‫ܐ ܗ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫)” ܐ‬. However, L’s scribe committed the error not V’s. Wevers’ “bis scr L” (AppII) is correct.

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 315

impv. of ‫ראה‬, something ST did not even do.247 The renderings are unremarkably septuagintistic.248 ► ‫ ܕܐ ̈ܪ ܐ‬/ των Αμορραιων (≠ ‫ ܐ ܪ ܐ‬JNum = PDeut249): The GDeut parallel does not read “of the Amorites” but instead “King Seon the Amorrite of Hesebon” (NETS, emphasis mine). The use of the plural genitive is likely due to the influence of the first such rendering by the μόνον-translator(s) found at Num 13.33‫א‬. There, under the influence of the respective GDeut parallel, “Amorite” was rendered in the plural. It is alternatively possible that the Caesarean critic’(s) G MS(S) had the plural as some evidence suggests.250 However, generally speaking, when the translator(s) settled on an equivalency for a Hebrew word, he stuck with it. ► ‫ܐ ܬ ܬ‬° .‫ ܐܪܬ‬- / κληρονομειν ° συναπτε προς : SP reads ‫רש והתגר בו‬ “possess (impv) and engage (in battle; impv) with/against (him).”251 The rendering here, however, follows GDeut with an inf., lacking the “and,” and using the preposition from the parallel. These too are septuagintisms. Num 21.20‫ב‬: The verse is septuagintistic. Issues with ‫ כל־‬surface, both in the original translation and in transmission. For the dittography in SHL, see above notes. ►‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܒ‬/ εν τη ημερα and ‫ܢ‬ ‫( ܕ‬emend with SHV, see above on L’s ̇ error) / ακουσαντες and ‫ܓ ܢ‬ ° / ° ταραχθησονται : The first is merely a prepositional construal based on GDeut. The second, having been emended from L’s secondary, contextualized rendering, also adheres to the parallel.252 The third, a prefixed ‫ו־‬, is also lacking in the parallel.253 ► (‫ܘܢ ) ̈ ܐ‬ ‫ =( ܕ‬JNum) / παντων (των εθνων) and ‫ܐ‬ L V / emend to παντος του ουρανου : Similar to other cases, the word ‫ܐ‬ ‫ כל־‬proves problematic. There are two distinct issues. First, “all the peoples” is

|| 247 NGTD, 41 (basing his count on H-R). Compare, however, TgN’s ‫“ חמון דהא‬see for behold,” which blends both senses. 248 For data on the various witnesses’ use of the sg. or pl. for “hand/s” in the parallel, see McCarthy, BHQap. 249 The lack of the prefixed -‫ ܕ‬shows that Jacob’s was taken from P as opposed to an error for the plural (or evidence for SH originally reading sg.). 250 AppI: των αμορραιων (αμμοραιων 46; αμμορρ. 343 55) 72-707*oII 46cII 343s 68′-83z 55mx Latcod 100. Aside from the OL and scattered hexaplaric MSS, the list is unimpressive. 251 See Ben-Ḥayyim 1977: 130 and 115. Note that unlike MT, Samaritans derives the latter root not from ‫ גרה‬but ‫( יגר‬see MS I in von Gall’s app: ‫)והתיגר‬, hence the vocalization wittīgår. 252 Note also that while there is evidence for the fut. (AppI: ακουσονται C′’–46c 44-610d 53′f 319mx 646), there is no evidence for Field’s conditional ει. 253 The support for it is very scattered (AppI: και 414′-422-616c cII 458n).

316 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

most likely due to the GDeut parallel as a result of the procedure utilized by the μόνον-translator(s). For while there is some, scant evidence in the wider MS tradition for the reading ‫כל העמים‬, none of it is Samaritan.254 As will be discussed below (→ §4.4.1), the presence of παντων in the Hexapla Maior is the likely cause of the extraneous παντων here. No variant to SP is represented. The second case poses a problem in the transmission history. The most probable reconstruction is that the μόνον-translation adopted the hexaplaric reading παντος του ουρανου equating SP here (= MT/SP Deut). Later Syriac scribes bungled the original SH reading ‫ܐ‬ .255 L’s scribe, already proved to be inattentive in this passage, transposed the phrase which is admitted grammatically permissible. V’s scribe most likely rewrote purposefully, as there is a line 256 break after the first . Thus, the second perhaps was a means of aiding the reader since the marginal passage is in smaller script and was already at this point running many lines. ► ‫ ܘ ̈ܒ ܐ ̣ ܢ‬/ ωδινας εξουσιν : The rendering of SP selected by the Caesarean translator(s) adheres to GDeut, referring to the experience of pain in childbirth. This translation, approved of by both Wevers257 and Dogniez and Harl,258 however, is slightly different from Samaritan exegesis. Unlike MT, which derives the form from ‫‘ חיל‬to writhe’ or ‘be in labor’, Samaritan vocalization, according to Ben-Ḥayyim’s record, derives the form from ‫‘ חול‬to dance’ / ‘to whorl around’ → ‘writhe (in pain)’, both here and in Deut 2.25 (which does not otherwise occur in the Pent).259 However fine this distinction may be, as else-

|| 254 Wevers observed that Kenn MS 109 reads this way (NGTD, 42, n. 46). BHSap mentioned a MS from the CG while BHQap includes TgPJ. Wevers and McCarthy differently explain GDeut. The former states that G read ‫ כל־‬not with ‫ שׁמים‬but with ‫ ;העמים‬the latter explains it as an assimilation to the usual phrasing. McCarthy’s is perhaps to be preferred. 255 JNum follows PDeut here and is no help (→ §5.2.3). See SH Deut 2.25: ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ;※ ܌‬also ̇ ‫ ܬ‬for υποκατω παντος του ουρανου. Note that ‫ܐ‬ is comm. Job 37.3 reads ‫ܐ‬ , the masc. pron., is common to both L and V, that is what their (Syriac) gender. Since Vorlagen read just as in Deut 2.25. 256 Again the repeated in this circumstance is unlikely to adhere to any Syriac idiom; for which see Nöld. Gram. §218 and PS 1.1735–37. Note this case concerns an adj not an adv. 257 NGTD, 42. 258 BA 5.125–26. 259 Vocalized wā̊ lu (1977: 93 and 501). See HALOT, s.v.; cp. D. Clines, DCH, ‫ חול‬II ‘be weak’. STJ(A) translates (‫“ ויתלהלון )וילהלון‬and they will be in disarray” (so Tal, DSA, 2‫)חול‬. This understanding is perhaps masked somewhat in Tsedaka’s ET: “… and be in anguish from you.” Compare Aquila’s rendering “they will shudder” (see AppII: α΄ φρίξουσιν 130(s nom)-321-346(s nom)s), similarly not adopted by the translator(s). Wevers noted Aquila differed from his usual equivalency (NGTD, 42, n. 47). Perhaps the MS misattributed, and it is really Symmachus?

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 317

where, there is obviously no connection between Samaritan exegesis and the μόνον-passages. Attribution: The short form ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܒ‬is found only in those attributions in SH Num which omit any reference to the Deut parallel (here, Num 21.22+, 21.22‫ב–א‬, 21.23‫א‬, 21.24+, and 31.20‫)ד–א‬. For whatever reason, the attribution in Num 27 was not abbreviated. Of the other five, two (→ Num 21.24+; 31.20‫)ד–א‬ are used for μόνον-passages which correspond to a parallel from Num not Deut. Though it is difficult to know whether ἔκδοσις (‫ܒ ̇ ܝ‬, fem.) or ἀντίγραφον / ἐβραῖον (‫ܒ ̇ ܘ‬, masc.) was meant by the overly terse - ‫ ܒ‬prefixed to ‫ܐ‬ , it may very well have originally represented the latter, as such terminology occurs in a near majority of the attributions in Num as well as the colophon (→ §3.2). Perhaps a clue lending support in this direction is the attribution found just after260 JNum 21.20‫( ב–א‬fol. 304‫ܐ‬, encircled) which reads:

‫ܒ‬

̈ ‫ܕ‬

‫ܐܒ‬

‫ܘܐܦ ܗ ܆ ܒ ̇ ܘ ܕ‬

And also these are only written in the (‫ = ܒ ̇ ܘ‬exemplar or Hebrew) of the Samaritans.

However, in order for Jacob’s to bear on this point, a Syriac scribe subsequent to both Paul of Tella and Jacob would have had to have been responsible for abridging the attribution. Otherwise, Jacob could not have known whether to write ‫ ܒ ̇ ܘ‬or ‫ܒ ̇ ܝ‬. The situation is unclear. The Caesarean cross-reference in (SH) Deut is present (→ Num 13.33‫ו–א‬, attribution), suggesting that the abbreviating was isolated to Num only, or at least such shortening occurred independent from the para-textual scholia in Deut. That any such attribution was offered in JNum—which was inconsistent in supplying them (→ Table 3.3)—suggests that Jacob read such a note in his SH Vorlage(n), which he could then rephrase while still remaining faithful to the information therein described (→ §5.2.3 and Table 5.2.3.2). It seems perhaps more likely that Syriac scribes were responsible for this abridgement (cp. EXCURSUS B) as opposed to post-Eusebian Greek scribes. However, if this was the case, the shortened forms must have managed to cover the whole of the MS tradition somehow, since the much later SHV transmitted both short (here, 21.24+, 31.20‫ )ד–א‬and long forms (27.23‫ )ב–א‬as does SHL where extant (short: here, 21.22+, 22‫ב–א‬, 21.23‫ ;א‬elsewhere long). If L’s scribe was responsible for these abbreviations, then he did so inconsistently, as that in Num 27 was reproduced in full by SHV, and his decision would have had

|| 260 The attribution in JNum appears to apply to both that here and the passage at Num 21.21+, 22‫ ב–א‬just below it (→ §5.2.3).

318 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

to affect the entire MS transmission. Overall, it is difficult to know which scenario can account for the evidence. Whatever the case for the abbreviated attributions, the originally fuller formula likely indicated ἀντίγραφον / ἐβραῖον.261 Num 21.23‫א‬: “Behold I have given you Sihon … and his land …” SH (L fol. 34b lower mg sub

‫ܢ‬

‫܇‬

‫ܨܘ ܐ ܕ‬

‫ܡ‬ ‫ ܀‬.‫܀‬.

ind ✠; > V 262)

̇ ‫ܐ ܬ‬ ̣ ‫ ̇ܗܐ‬.‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ ܐܪܬ ܬܘܬܐ ܐܪ ܐ ܕ‬. ‫܀‬.‫܀‬.‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕܒ‬

̣ ‫ ܘܐ‬23‫א‬ ‫ܘ ܐܪ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ ܒ‬Attrib.

Field’s Reconstructed Greek [Revised] 23‫ )※( א‬και ειπε κυριος προς Μωυσην. ιδου ηργμαι παραδουναι προ προσωπου σου τον Σηων, και την γην αυτου. Εναρξαι κληρονομησαι κληρονομιαν263 την γην αυτου (↙). [Attrib. μονον εν (? see below) των σαμαρειτων] SP Num 21.23‫( א‬Deut 2.31) ⟨4Q27⟩264 ≠ ΜΤ ‫{ ויאמר יהוה אל משה ראה החלתי תת לפניך את סיחון ואת ארצו החל רש‬2.31} 20‫א‬

‫לרשת את ארצו‬ 23‫ א‬And the Lord said to Moses: “Behold I have begun to deliver overb before you (lit.: your face), Sihon and his land. Begin cto possess (as an) inheritancec his land!” a

a

SP ST: see! (2ms impv) herit (inf.265)

b

SP ST: give

c

b

SP ST: inherit (2ms impv; ‫ ירת‬STVNB) to in-

Attribution: (This is) only in the (edition/exemplar/Hebrew?266) of the Samaritans. Num 21.23‫א‬: The verse, which has been correctly indexed to the running text of v 23 as per SP,267 displays both septuagintism and an attempt by the translator(s) to properly represent the Samaritan Hebrew.

|| 261 Field, for his part, assumed ‫ܨ ܐ‬: “... in exemplari Samaritanorum (‫ܐ‬ ‫( ”)ܒ‬1.251, n. 25). McClurg remained neutral on this point (2011: 95). 262 There is room in the margins of fol. 132b but the reading is missing. However, Num 21.24+ is present, suggesting that the scribe of V should not have purposefully omitted it himself. 263 Field supplied the Syriac, ‫ ܐܪܬ ܬܘܬܐ‬, perhaps reflecting caution (1.251–52). 264 Jastram reconstructs it adhering to textual profile of the MS (DJD 12.230, as “21.23b”). 265 Vocalized alrēšət; see Ben-Ḥayyim 1977: 130 and 501. 266 As above, Field here went with “exemplar” (1.252, n. 29). McClurg is neutral (2011: 101). 267 The same placement is also in JNum (fol. 304‫)ܒ‬.

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 319

►‫ܐ‬ / κυριος : It is noteworthy that the form ‫ܐ‬ is here in MS L, the older witness, as this is secondary to ΠΙΠΙ which was original to the μόνονtranslation; see above discussion at Num 14.40‫א‬, Num 20.13‫א‬, 13‫ג‬, as well as EXCURSUS C. Presumably L’s is the result of previous Greek abbreviation in the margin, i.e. ΠΙΠΙ → ΚΣ. ► ‫ ܗܐ‬/ ιδου and / παραδουναι : As above at Num 21.20‫א‬, both of these were taken from the parallel at Deut 2.31. Note, however, that none of the elements there unrepresented in SP slipped in, e.g., “king of Heshbon” or “the Amorite.”268 This is typical of the Caesarean critic(s) combining both precision and imprecision, i.e., the word-for-word delineation of SP is most often properly accounted for while the translation within said limits is clearly septuagintized. ► ‫ ܐܪܬ ܬܘܬܐ‬/ κληρονομησαι κληρονομιαν : The Hebrew here, ‫החל רש‬ ‫ לרשת‬two imperatives followed by an infinitive, proved problematic to the translator(s), as it did to both ancient269 and even modern translations.270 Wevers interpreted GDeut as having shortened or simplified ‫ רש לרשת‬as κληρονομησαι, while McCarthy seems open to the possibility (following N. Lohfink) that the shorter reading might be original.271 Whatever the case, as SH stands, Field’s retroverted κληρονομησαι κληρονομιαν is correct. Wevers held that the hexaplaric tradition, upon which the μόνον-translation is presumably based, confusingly attempted to supply something for each lexeme.272 Thus Origen added the dative κληρονομια before the GDeut’s infinitive to represent ‫רש‬.273 However, the

|| 268 McCarthy, observing that both GDeut and SP Deut read thus, holds these as assimilations to v 24 (BHQap). 269 Thus McCarthy, who interpreted both PDeut and the Targumim as trying to manage the Hebrew phraseology present in SP (here and Deut), MT, and 4Q31 (‫לר]שת‬ ֯ ‫)החל רש‬. Her opinion is that the Hebrew represents either a conflation of two readings or some sort of idiomatic intensification (BHQap). 270 Compare the following ETs attempting to represent the Hebrew in Deut, some of which resorted to clunky English: NJPS: “Begin the occupation; take possession of his land.” NRSV: “Begin now to take possession of his land.” Tsedaka’s ET (at Num 21.23): “Begin possessing to inherit his land.” Young’s Literal Translation (1862): “[;] begin to possess—to possess his land.” LEESER (1891): “[:] begin to drive him out, that thou mayest inherit his land.” AV/KJV: “[:] begin to possess, that thou mayest inherit his land.” 271 Wevers, NGTD, 45; McCarthy, BHQap. 272 AppI: κληρονομῆσαι 963] pr κληρονομια (κληρομια 376*) O–82 SH; -νομια 58. The early variant in CODEX WI et al did not influence the reading (κληρονομῆσαι] pr κληρω WI-54n 71′-527y Aeth Bo). 273 NGTD, 45. He seemed unsure as to how this came about in light of GDeut at v 24.

320 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

Syriac here can only represent κληρονομιαν274 after the infinitive. It is certainly possible that the hexaplaric reading in Deut 2.31 was adopted, in the dative, and relocated to equate SP. The Greek, then, could have been misread by a later scribe or even the Syrians, κληρονομιαντηνγηναυτου.275 This seems more likely than the translator’(s) having independently tried to render SP, as if (mis)reading ‫ לרשת‬/ ‫ לרשת‬for ‫( יְ ֻר ָשּׁה‬or ‫ )יְ ֵר ָשׁה‬/ ‫ירשה‬. Instead, the hexaplaric data was intelligently used. In light of the Hebrew, it represents an attentive effort on the part of the Caesarean critic(s). Attribution: Of the truncated attributions in (SH) Num, the form here and that at 21.24‫ א‬read the same. See further above at Num 21.20‫ב–א‬, attribution. For the cross reference, see at Num 13.33‫ו–א‬.

3.3.2 Readings Found in (Scattered) Greek Hexaplaric Manuscripts Next in our analysis are those passages found in scattered hexaplaric MSS, only one of which lacks the support of SH (cp. → §§2.5; 4.3.2; 4.3.3). Num 10.10‫ג–א‬: “It is time to leave Horeb …” SH (L fol. 8b lower mg sub 10‫ ב‬.‫ܒ ܪܐ ܗ ܐ‬

‫ܢ‬

‫̈ ܐ‬

‫̈ܪܘܗܝ ܗ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܐܪ ܐ ܕ‬.‫ܐ‬ ‫̇ܗ‬ ‫ܐ‬. ‫ ܐܒ ܗܡ ܐ‬.‫ܢ‬ ‫ܐܒ‬

‫ܐ‬

] > SHV ‫ܬ‬ ̈ ‫ ܐܬܬ‬SHV

‫ܕ‬

ind

276

; V fol.118a LH mg sub ÷ ind ⁜)

‫ܢ‬ . ‫ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܬ‬ ‫ ܘ‬10‫א‬ ‫ ܘ ܬ‬.‫ܪܐ ܕܐ ̈ܪ ܐ‬ . ‫ܐ ܘܢ ܘ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ ܘ‬.‫ ܬ ܬ ܐ‬° ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܒ‬.‫ܐ ܒ ܪܐ‬ ‫ܕܒ‬ 10‫ܪܐ ܬ ג‬ ‫ܪܐ ܪܒܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ .‫ܒܐ ܣ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ ̈ ̇ ‫ܐܒ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܬܘܗ ܐܪ ܐ ̇ܗܝ ܕ‬ ‫ܘ‬ .‫ܐܪ ܐ‬ ‫ ܀‬.‫̇ ܪ ܐ ܕ ܘܢ ܒ ܪܗܘܢ‬ .‫ܒ‬ ° . ‫ܐ ܐܬܬ‬ ‫ܨ ܐܕ‬ ‫ ܗ‬Attrib. ‫ܐ܀‬ ‫̇ ܕܐ ܢ‬ ‫ܐܐ‬

̇ ̇ (10‫ ܘ ܬ ])ב‬SHV ‫ > ] ܪܐ‬SHV ‫ܬܘܗ‬ ‫ܪܬܘܗ ]ܘ‬ ‫ ܘ‬SHV

‫]ܐܬܬ‬

MS 767 (in-text and s nom)

10‫ א‬και ελαλησεν κ̅ς̅ προς μωσην λεγων ικανουσθω υμιν κατοικειν εν τω ορει τουτο 10‫ ב‬επιστραφηται και απαραται υμεις και εισπορευεσθαι εις ορος

|| 274 Cp. SH Deut 2.31 reading ‫ ܒ ܬܘܬܐ‬for the dat. κληρονομίᾳ. 275 JNum is of no help here: ‫ܒ ܘܬܗ ܘ ܐܪܬ ܐܪ‬ ‫ ܐ‬... (fol. 304‫ܒ‬, blocked = PDeut). 276 With slightly more elongated rays. The indexed running text is no longer extant due to folio damage. Presumably the exact corresponding ind marker was in the margin adjacent to (or within) the proper verse. The sigla Burris describes are from SHV, not SHL (2009: 249).

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 321

αμορραιων και προς παντας τους περιοικους αυτου τους εν τη παιδιαδι εις ορος ° και παιδιον και προς λιβαν και ° παραλιαν θαλασσης γην χαναναιων και αντιλιβανον εως ° ° του μεγαλου ποταμου ευφρατου 10‫ ג‬εισσελθατε (-ται*) παραδεδωκα ενωπιον υμων την γην εισελθονται ° κλιρονομησαται την γην ην ωμοσα τοις πατρασιν υμων τω αβρααμ και ° ισαακ και ° ιακωβ δουναι τω σπερματι αυτου μετ αυτους SP Num 10.10‫( ג–א‬Deut 1.6–8) ≠ MT277 ‫{ פנו וסעו‬1.7} 10‫{ וידבר יהוה אל משה לאמר רב לכם שבת בהר הזה ב‬1.6} 10‫א‬

‫לכם ובאו הר האמרי ואל כל שכיניו בערבה בהר ובשפילה ובנגב ובחוף הים ארץ הכנעני‬ ‫{ ראו נתתי לפניכם את הארץ באו ורשו‬1.8} 10‫והלבנון עד הנהר הגדול נהר פרת ג‬ ‫את הארץ אשר נשבעתי לאבתיכם לאברהם ליצחק וליעקב לתת לזרעם אחריהם‬ 10‫ א‬And the Lord spoke to Mosesa saying: “You have dwelt in this mountain long enough. 10‫ ב‬Turn and youb depart and enter to the mountain of the Amoritesc; and to all its inhabitants, those in dthe plaind, in the mountain, and ine the plain andf to the south, and upone the shore of the Sea, the land of the Canaanitesc and the Antilebanong, until the Great River, aethe Riverae Euphrates. 10‫ ג‬hGo inh, I have delivered the land before you. iEnter in and inherit iti, the land which I swore to your fathers, to Abraham, toj Isaac,kto Jacob, to give itel to theirm seed after them. a

> SHV b SP ST: for yourselves c SP ST: sg d SP: the Arabah; ST: valley e > 767 f > SHL g SP ST: Lebanon h SP ST: See i 767: Entering(ptc.? see note) in, inherit j 767: and k SP ST: pr and; and 767 l > SP ST m 767: his

Attribution (SH): This has been set278 (here) from the exemplar of the Samaritans; now Moses mentions (or: recalls) this in Deut since (or: as)279 it indeed was said (previously) by the Lord. Num 10.10‫ג–א‬: The passage was certainly translated from a Samaritan Hebrew text while still containing meaningful amounts of septuagintism (e.g., αντιλιβανον) commensurate with that found in the wider translation. 767’s tradition, where it diverts from SH, is largely secondary. Num 10.10‫א‬: ► κ̅ς̅ and ‫ܐ‬ : As above, contrary to the unified witness of SH Exod (→ §2.3.1 at 7.29[8.4]‫)א‬, the present passage lacks . Certainly for SH, the later SHV did revise the form in comparison with the earlier witness SHL

|| 277 4Q23 cuts off from 9.20—10.13 (frags. 55 and 56) and thus cannot be determined in this case. In fact, the whole of the scroll’s remains resist comparison with the μόνον-type readings, save the “half of the tribe of Manasseh” readings in Num 32 which it does not have at 32.29, 31, and 33 (DJD 12.173). 278 Probably επικειμενα (see PS 2.2559–60) or perhaps παρετεθη / επιθηται (→ §2.2)? 279 On the -‫̇ ܕ‬ ‫ ܐ‬construction in imitation of ως μεν, see Nöld. Gram. §364 and PS 1.146 and 2.2152. Compare the same construction in the collation note at SH Exod 29.20 (→ §2.4.2).

322 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

(e.g., Num 20.13‫א‬, 13‫ ;ג‬21.20‫א‬, → Table 3.3.1.2). Surely an intermediary, postEusebian Greek scribe abbreviated ΠΙΠΙ → ΚΣ, hence ‫ܐ‬ (→ Excursus C). ► ικανουσθω υμιν and ‫ܢ‬ (cp. at 20.13‫ ג‬above): While correct, ‫רב‬ ‫ לכם‬was clearly rendered under the lexical sway of G as opposed to the recentiores.280 Num 10.10‫ב‬: The verse exhibits a blend of septuagintism and genuine SP elements. Further, there is some differentiation between 767 and SH. ► υμεις and ‫ ;ܐ ܘܢ‬αμορραιων and ‫ ܕܐ ̈ܪ ܐ‬: The second is a standard septuagintistic plural for the gentilic.281 The first reflects an “otiose” υμεις282 derived from GDeut specifically; compare Exod 20.21‫§ →( ח‬2.3.3) above. ► περιοικους αυτου τους εν τη παιδιαδι and ‫ܐ‬ ‫̈ܪܘܗܝ ܗ ܕܒ‬ : The phrasing displays some freedom from GDeut. The μόνον-translator(s) ostensibly demonstrated an effort to render SP’s ‫ בערבה‬independently of αραβα in the parallel, something different than in Exod 20.17(13)‫§ →( ו‬2.3.3) = Deut 5.21‫→( ח‬ §§1.1; 2.3.3). Thus it remains to explain παιδιαδι / ‫ܐ‬ (= πεδιον / πεδιας). Given the evinced methodology of the μόνον-translator, it would appear that either his GDeut text uniquely read πεδιον / πεδιας at this place or a mistake was made at some point during transmission.283 Whatever the case, in light of the joint testimony of 767 and SH, it is difficult to imagine the original μόνονtranslation reading αραβα. Though αυτου has hexaplaric attestation, wider evidence cannot corroborate all hexaplaric readings as having exerted decisive ̈ ‫ ܐܪ ܐ ܕ‬beinfluence on the μόνον-translation (e.g., γην χαναναιων / ‫ܐ‬ low).284 ► εις ορος και ° παιδιον και προς λιβαν :: ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܬܬ‬°‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܒ‬.‫ ܒ ܪܐ‬: As previously observed (→ §2.3.1 at Exod 7.29‫)ג‬, the prepositions used in the μόνον-translation largely conform to those employed by the respective G paral-

|| 280 See Wevers’ comments (NGTN, 260 and 262); compare the data at Num 16.3 (where the recentiores differ), as well as the anonymous πολυ υμιν in M 416mx at Deut 1.6 (see AppII, perhaps Aquila’s? cp. Num 20.13‫ ג‬above). Note while GNum evinces some lexical variety, GDeut consistently uses ικανουσθω (also G 3 Kgdms 12.28 and GEzek 44.6 and 45.9). 281 Only one MS corrects to -ρραιον 529c C. 282 Wevers, NGTD, 5. 283 Field (1.236, n. 8) retroverts ‫ܐ‬ correctly with πεδιον (SH Num 19.16; Deut 1.7); πεδιας was also translated with the same. SH regularly produced ‫ ܐܪܒܐ‬for αραβα (see SH Deut 1.7; 2.8; Josh 3.16, etc.). See AppII at Num 26.3 and Deut 4.49, where the SH renders Symmachus’ τη . While Symmachus does read ἐν τῇ παιδιαδι and την παιδιαδα, respectively, with ‫ܐ‬ πεδιάδι at the parallel at Deut 1.7 (apud Eusebius and Jerome; see AppII), the translator’(s) using Symmachus against G and the other recentiores would be exceptional. 284 Wevers AppII: + αυτου O–82 SH(vid) = M.

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 323

lel. The present case is somewhat more complex as SH’s translation policy seemingly reflects a second εις in ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܒ‬.285 The first εις, however, is taken from the parallel, as is GDeut’s και προς λιβα(ν) (:: νοτον) for ‫ובנגב‬. As such, the preposition chain results in accusatives for ορος and παιδιον.286 SHL lacks the second και due to some error in transmission. ► και ° παραλιαν θαλασσης and ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ‬: The SH here is difficult to parse with respect to the possible presence of θαλασσης (≠ GDeut287) in the original μόνον-translation, as 767 might suggest, as well as whether επι is reflected in .288 As it stands, 767’s παραλιαν θαλασσης may best reflect the original μόνον-translation (contra Field and Burris).289 ̈ ‫ ;ܕ‬αντιλιβανον and ‫ܒܐ ܣ‬ ► χαναναιων and ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬: Though both are 290 septuagintistic, the second is much more interesting. Fortuitously, both 767 and SH yield “Antilebanon” specifically. As observed above (→ §3.3.1), SH transliterates ‫ܒܐ ܣ‬ ‫ ܐ‬only here and in Num 20.13‫ב‬, both μόνον-passages.291 In this, SH strictly reproduces 767’s Greek as that which the μόνον-translator(s) produced, which, in turn, confirms the translator’(s) practice of cribbing the G parallel (:: λιβανος) when rendering the Samaritan passages.292 ► ° ° του μεγαλου ποταμου ευφρατου :: ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܪܐ ܪܒܐ ܪܐ‬ : SH’s sequence is correct, apparently uninfluenced by the GDeut parallel, though in agreement with the hexaplaric variant.293 767’s reading is the result of a simple, || 285 See Perkins’ discussion of SH’s treatment of εις in compound prepositional phrases (1980: 77, concerning Deut 1.7 specifically). He concludes that SH must remain neutral when such variants are attested by the MS tradition. Both -‫ ܠ‬and -‫ ܒ‬were used to reflect εις (1980: 75). 286 Wevers, NGTD, 6. 287 AppI: + θαλασσης (-σσαυ 58) 58-376′O d t. 288 SH’s translation policy was inconsistent with respect to both (e.g., see SH and G at Deut 1.7, Josh 11.3, JudgB 5.17, and Ezek 25.16). 289 Burris 2009: 249. If 767 added θαλασσης independently, one wonders why the same was not also added by 767 at Deut 1.7 and 33.19. 290 AppI: χανααν oI–15 46′-52′cII 75n 83z 319mx 646mx Aeth. 291 Again, the use of ‫ܒ ܒ‬ elsewhere betrays different SH translators, or perhaps they had not yet settled on how to render it. See notes at Num 20.13‫ב‬. 292 Dogniez and Harl (BA 5.99) viewed GDeut’s αντιλιβανον as a Hellenized substitution. See also Thackeray, Gram., 166, n. 7, and Wevers, NGTD, 6, for the contrast of “Antilebanon” and “Lebanon” in GJosh (1.4; 9.1 vs. 11.17; 12.7; 13.5, 6, respectively). On the Antilibanos generally, see M. Weinfeld 1991: 191, and J. Tigay 1996: 9, as well as the literature cited at Num 20.13‫ב‬. 293 AppI: Εὐφράτου] pr ποταμου Bc F M 15′-29-82-426-707O b 56f 127n 130-321′-343′s 74-76-134′t 121-318-392y 128-630z 416mx 407′mx LatAug Loc in hept Aeth–M Arab Arm = Sixt M. Wevers described this as “possibly hex” (NGTD, 6), but such hesitancy is unnecessary. Additionally, in AppI, he recorded SH vis-à-vis the lemma: “+ ποταμου Syh.” However, this is incorrect. SHV reads ‫ ݆ ܬ ݆ ܪܐ‬with lower correcting dots meant to reverse the two words. As such SHVc

324 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers uncorrected haplography (του ποταμου ∩ του μεγαλου). As such, 767 is secondary to that preserved in the SH. Num 10.10‫ג‬: The verse shows some of the strongest evidence of a genuine attempt to translate a Samaritan Hebrew source. ► εισσελθατε (-ται*) and : This is the clearest piece of evidence, in the present passage, that the μόνον-translator(s) worked in direct conjunction with an actual Hebrew exemplar. As Pummer previously observed,294 the μόνονtranslator(s) thought he had read, or was in fact using a MS reading, ‫ באו‬not ‫ראו‬, or in Samaritan script (→ EXCURSUS A) ‫ באו‬not ‫ראו‬. No extant evidence, including the GDeut parallel,295 supports this (mis?)reading, including ST (‫חזו‬ MSS J A; ‫ חזי‬MS N).296 Since we know the translator(s) worked so closely with the GDeut parallel, had his exemplar been defective (or had he suspected as much), he could have corrected the error by simply adopting the parallel. Yet this was not the case. Thus, it is safest to presume the μόνον-translator’(s) Samaritan Vorlage contained a variant reading no longer preserved. This case illustrates that the translator(s) worked directly from his Hebrew SP and was not simply copying and pasting the parallel uncritically. ̇ ► εισελθονται ° κλιρονομησαται :: ‫ܬܘܗ‬ ‫ܘ‬ : The original translation may not be recoverable in this instance. The SH’s Greek probably read (εισ)ελθετε/εισπορευεσθε και κληρονομησατε (αυτην?).297 If this is so, MS 767 then would demonstrate further, secondary septuagintism, either on the part of 767 (or its ancestor MS[S]) in both the shift to the participle(?)298 form and the dropping of και, both alterations aligning with the parallel in GDeut 1.8. Such could have easily occurred at the point of integration.

|| (whether corrected by the original scribe or a colleague) agrees with the F M reading along with the majority of the hexaplaric tradition and MT. 294 1998: 274. 295 AppI: ἴδετε] + ecce Latcod 100; + quod ecce (> Tar) Arm = Taro. 296 2Q10 reads ‫ר[או‬ ֿ at Deut 1.8; Baillet did not consider in his description whether or not the resh could, or should, be reconstructed differently (DJD 3.60). 297 Whether or not the SH’s Greek had αυτην is uncertain (cp. SH Deut 1.8, 21; 9.23; 10.11). As ̇ for ‫ܬܘܗ‬ ‫ܘ‬ , the case is a bit more complex. Field (Burris follows) retained GDeut’s εισπορευθεντες κληρονομησατε, but this seems uncertain. Granted there is noticeable variety in SH Deut’s rendering of the Greek ptc. in ptc. + impv. constructions (see Perkins 1980: 328– 29, 330–32), but the insertion of a και between them is more unusual still. εισπορευθεντες κληρονομησατε would more regularly be rendered ̇ ‫ܢ ܬܐܪܬܘ‬ ‫( ܬ‬Deut 4.1) or something similar (Perkins 1980: 329). 298 Or was 767, known for its strange orthography (→ §4.3.2 at n. 47), based on εἰσέλθετε where θετ → θοντ (for τ as ντ, see Num, 431) and -τε → -ται (common in 767)?

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 325

There is further difficulty in deciding the Greek lexeme behind SH’s (2°). Field’s retroversion εισπορευομαι was based on his GDeut text (i.e., CODEX B). However, the MS tradition is split on this point.299 The Syrians did not distinguish between εισερχομαι and εισπορευομαι, translating both with . Given the extant evidence from the parallel, it is not unsafe to presume that 767’s secondary septuagintization only affected the verb’s inflection and not the translator’s choice of lexeme. Thus, the Greek translator probably produced εισελθετε not εισπορευεσθε (contra Field and Burris).300 Ironically, while εισερχομαι is far more common in G generally than εισπορευομαι, the latter is more frequent in GDeut than the former (see H-R, s.vv.). ► και ° ισαακ :: ‫ =( ܐ‬τω ισαακ)301: Here again, as above, 767 possibly shows a further development in offering και Ισαακ, without the repeated τω; SH differs omitting και.302 It is most probable that the original Greek read και τω ισαακ, which each witness has differently altered. ► και ° ιακωβ :: ‫ܒ‬ ° : Again, 767 and the SH disagree, with the former perhaps leveling forms in omitting the article,303 while the latter lacks SP’s conjunction. Perhaps SH omitted this last και by mistake, misreading the ⳤ compendium (viz., τωισαακⳤτωιακωβ) used in its exemplar.304 ► δουναι :: ̇ : Both 767 and the SH align with the SP, apparently unaffected by GDeut’s δουναι αυτοις και. Field’s retroversion δουναι αυτην seems correct and may betray the reading of the μόνον-translator’(s) GDeut MS(S).305 However, assuming this reconstruction, it is difficult to see how 767 could have omitted αυτην (scriptio continua appears unlikely). Perhaps at some point of transmission, the same promise from the context of Exod 6.8 (‫ לתת אתה‬and ‫ )ונתתי אתה‬was unknowingly imposed on the present passage, as no SP or ST evidence suggests the infinitive was followed by an object.

|| 299 Wevers: “[O]nly the text tradition can decide which is original” (NGTD, 7). See AppI: εισελθοντες] ην πορευθεντες 509mx; πορευθεντες Mmg 537b n–767 85′mg a; εισπορευθεντες B b f–129 344mg s 71′-527y 630c z 416mg mx = Ra. 300 Perhaps Field’s (1.236 and n. 8) reconstruction was also influenced by the occurrence of εισπορευεσθαι earlier in the passage? 301 Burris (2009: 249) does not record the SH :: 767 variations for ‫לאברהם ליצחק וליעקב‬. 302 No GDeut MS fails to include the και (AppI). 303 Note AppI. Again, no GDeut MS omits και. 304 The και compendium is at least as old as CODEX S (4th cent. CE; for examples, see T. Skeat, H. Milne, and D. Cockerell 1938: 20 [fig. 6]). It occurs also in CODEX G (5th cent. CE) as well as in the marginal Greek glosses found in SHC. 305 1.236. Compare SH Deut 1.8 (‫ܠ‬ ; AppI: αυτοις] αυτην 121y 68′z; + αυτην oI–15 83z), with both Exod 22.16 (17) and Num 34.13.

326 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

► σπερματι αυτου : 767’s pronoun was perhaps graphically corrupted:

αυτωνμετ → αυτουμετ.306 Aside from a presumed ω/ου confusion, uncial scripts permit a further graphic ν/μ misreading, most probable in conjunction with marginal scriptio continua. Even without assuming SH’s ‫ ܪ ܐ ܕ ܘܢ‬, Samaritan script prevents confusion between ‫ ם‬/ ‫ ם‬and ‫ ו‬/ ‫ו‬, nor do any Samaritan witnesses attest any such variant.307 Attribution: A couple of aspects concerning the present attribution require comment, namely: 1) 767’s lack of any such note, and 2) the witness of the Caesarean, μόνον-collation cross-references as found in Procopius. ► 767’s lack of attribution: As previously discussed (→ §2.5), several μόνονtype readings in Exod survived only in the running text of certain, scattered hexaplaric G MSS. These readings, plainly derived from the same type of Samaritan passages deriving from the Caesarean collation, were at some point promoted to the regular running text by unknown scribes. During the course of this integration, the original attribution notes, as well as any distinguishing textcritical marks, were lost. However, whereas this process in Exod had to be surmised based upon typology alone, in Num the situation is quite different. For in Num, a number of these integrated passages are the very same as those preserved in SH, in their original marginal context with attribution. This posthexaplaric practice of promoting μόνον-passages from the margins of one’s source to the running text is also demonstrated by Jacob of Edessa (in Exod, Num, and Deut → §§4; 5) and s-group MS 343 (in Num only → §§3.3.3; 5.3.5). However, while Jacob often (though inconsistently) retained explicit Samaritan attributions and (some kind of) sigla, MS 343 omitted them altogether, in agreement with the above-surveyed occurrences in GExod as well as the cases examined here. Thus, the omission of the Samaritan attributions was not unusual; rather it was Jacob’s practice which was exceptional (→ Table 5.2.3.2). In Deut, MS 767 itself again lacks attributions for both its μόνον-passages, 2.7‫ ג–א‬and 10.6–6‫–א‬7–7‫–א‬6, the second which JDeut explicitly attributes (→ §4.3.2).308 ► SH’s attribution: For comments on the diversity of attribution formulae in SH Num, see above (→ §3.3.1 at Num 13.33‫ו–א‬, attribution).

|| 306 No GDeut MS reads this way at the parallel. 307 Field mistakenly retroverted SH as σπερματι υμων μεθ υμας (1.236; also Burris 2009: 249). How he came to this retroversion is unknown as no G MS reads thus (AppI: vos Arab), and the Syriac very clearly has ‫“ ܪ ܐ ܕ ܘܢ ܒ ܪܗܘܢ‬to their seed after them.” 308 See JDeut 2.7‫( ג–א‬fol. 347‫ܒ‬, sub ÷) and 10.6–6‫–א‬7–7‫–א‬6 (fol. 363‫ܒ‬, encircled with attribution scholion). For Jacob’s method, attributions, and sigla, see below (→ §5.2).

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 327

► A μόνον-collation cross-reference in Procopius: As outlined above (→ Table 3.3.1.1), the ancient Caesarean, hexaplaric critic(s) supplied cross-references in Deut corresponding to the parallel passages found in SP Num, in conjunction with their supplied attribution notes. When the present hexaplaric crossreference at Deut 1.6–8—the corresponding GDeut parallel for the present μόνον-text—is compared with a similar note in Procopius of Gaza, the latter’s witness can be interpreted as confirming the antiquity of the former. Samaritan Scholia at Deut 1.6–8: Texts and translations SH(V) and Procopius Comm. on Deut (ref. to Num 10.10‫)ב–א‬ SHV (fol.151b encircled, ind at Deut 1.6)

‫ܐ܀‬

‫ܐܕ‬

‫ܒ ܘܢ ܒ‬ ̣

‫ܕܐ‬

‫̈ ܐܐ‬

‫ܒ‬

̣ ‫ܗܪ ܐ ܐܘ‬

÷

Procopius (ind at Deut 1.6; PG 87/1.893 = CatNic 1/3.1423, sub **προκοπιου): Ἱκανοῦσθω ὕμῖν κατοικεῖν ἐν τῷ ὄρει τούτῳ. Οῦδαμοῦ προείρηται τοῦτο σαφῶς, εἰ μὴ κατὰ τὸ Σαμαρειτικὸν μόνον ἀντίγραφον ἐν τοῖς Αριθμοῖς μετὰ τὸν περὶ τῶν δύω σαλπίγγων νόμον ὲν δὲ τοῖς Ἰουδαϊκοῖς, δυνάμει νοεῖται. Ἐν τῷ γὰρ εἰπεῖν μετὰ τὰς σάλπιγγας «Καὶ ἐξῇραν οἱ ὑιοὶ Ἰσραήλ,» δηλοῖ ὡς τοῦ Θεοῦ κωλύσαντος ἐπὶ πλέον ἐνδιατρίψαι τῷ τόπῳ. SH: From here, we supplied in Numbers those which are found in (Numbers) in the exemplar of the Samaritans. Procopius:309 “Suffice it for you to dwell in this mountain…” Nowhere previously is this clearly stated, except only (μόνον) according to Num in the Samaritan (Σαμαρειτικὸν) exemplar (ἀντίγραφον) after the legislation concerning the two trumpets [Num 10.10], while in the Jewish (exemplars) it is (only) implied. For when it says, after the trumpets, “And the sons of Israel set out” [Num 10.12], it makes clear that God prevented them from lingering in the place further. The SH’s annotation, in combination with Procopius’ testimony (died ca. 538 CE), strongly suggests that the cross-reference system was original to the Caesarean Samaritan collation as opposed to being later developed ad hoc scribal notes. Specifically, the note’s first-person narrative (i.e., ‫“ ܐܘ‬we supplied” or “we added,” from προστιθημι) confirms this and relates quite well with the other first-person, μόνον-collation note—the Num 13.1‫ ד–א‬scholion preserved by the s-group. (The relationship between these two notes will be further explored below → §3.3.3). Additionally, both the SH cross-reference and Procopius’ scholion linguistically reflect SH Num’s attribution, viz., ‫ܐ‬ ‫( ܒ ܐ ܕ‬as

|| 309 ET mine with some guidance from Clausner’s LT in PG.

328 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers opposed to Exod’s ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ̇ ܝ ܕ‬, reflecting ἔκδοσις) and κατα το Σαμαρειτικον μονον αντιγραφον. Procopius’ cross-reference does not indicate that the Gazan had access to any such Samaritan text himself. Rather, given Procopius’ transmission of so many other hexaplaric readings, it is far more probable he took this informaiton from his hexaplaric source, integrating it into his own work, itself much based on previous materials. Indeed, his adoption of these notes was most selective, as he preserved only that here, Deut 1.20–23,310 and a similar note no longer extant311 for Deut 1.9–15, 16–18 (→ §§2.3.2 at Exod 18.25–25‫ג–א‬, attribution; Table 3.3.1.1). Why Procopius neglected to make reference to these “Samaritan” passages ad loca is unknown. As the extant evidence stands, he recorded such things at Num 32.33+ (see below) and in his Comm. on Deut (further → §4.3.3). Num 21.22+, 22‫ב–א‬: The Israelite Emissary to the Amorites SH (L fol. 34a LH mg sub ); > V313)

ind

312

; fol. 34b lower mg sub

ind ☩ post

‫ܐ‬

.‫ܐ‬

‫ܐ ܐ‬

‫ܐܘܐ‬

‫ܟ‬

‫ܐ ܐܙܠ ܐ‬ ‫܀‬ ‫ܐ‬

‫ ܒܐܘܪ ܐ‬22+ ‫ ܒ ܕ ܒ‬Attrib.

‫ ܘ ̈ ܐ ܒ‬.‫ ܘܐ ܠ‬. ‫ܐ ܬܙܒ‬ ‫̈ܐ ܐ ܒ‬ 22‫א‬ ̈ ‫ ܐ ܐ ܕ ܒ ܘ ܒ ܐ ܕ‬22‫ ב‬. ‫ܐ ܒ ܒ ܓ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫܀‬ ‫ܒ ܘ‬ ‫̈ܐܒ ܐ ̇ܗ ܢ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ܀‬ ‫ ܘܗ ܒ ܕ ܒ‬Attrib. 22+: Field’s Reconstructed Greek; 22‫ב–א‬: MS 15oI (in-text and s nom, post v 22) ‫ ܒ ܡ‬.‫ ܘܐ ܐ‬. ‫ܐ ܬܙܒ‬ . ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܗ̇ ܢ ܕ‬

22+ (※) εν τη οδω τη βασιλικη πορευσομεθα, ουκ επιστρεψομεν εις δεξιαν ουδε εις αριστεραν ουκ εκκλινουμεν (↙). [Attrib. μονον εν (?) των σαμαρειτων κειμενα] 22‫ א‬τροφην αργυριου μεταδωσεις μοι και φαγομαι και υδωρ αργυριου μεταδωσεις μοι και πιομαι και μονον τοις ποσιν μου παρελευσομαι 22‫ ב‬ον τροπον πεποιηκαν μοι οι υιοι ησαυ οι κατοικουντες εν γαβαλα και οι μωαβιται οι κατοικουντες εν τη ορινη

|| 310 Procopius combined the cross-references for Deut 1.20–23 and 1.9–15, 16–18 into one note. 311 The index markers in SHV are orphaned, and thus the note was originally there. 312 The ind marker, just a squiggly line in-text, is not repeated in the margin next to the reading in question. However, all other marginalia have corresponding markers, and thus no other reading could be tied to the widowed marker in question. 313 While v 22 itself in V spans fols. 132a–b, the margins of the latter had space for the readings. Had they been supplied, both passages would have had to be indexed on fol. 132a.

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 329

SP Num 21.(22+)22‫( ב–א‬Deut 2.27, 28–29a) ⟨4Q27⟩ (DJD 12.230)314 ≠ MT ‫ לא אטה‬22 ‫{ בדרך המלך אלך לא אסור ימין ושמאל‬2.27} 22+ ‫ אעברה בארצך‬22 ‫{ אכל בכסף תשבירני ואכלתי ומים בכסף תתן לי ושתיתי רק‬2.28} 22‫בשדה ובכרם א‬ ‫{ כאשר עשו לי בני עשו היושבים בשעיר והמואבים‬2.29a} 22‫אעברה ברגלי ב‬

‫היושבים בער‬ 22+ In the royal road wea will go. Web will not turn to the right, nor to the left c will we inclinec. a

= SPmss STms; SPmss STmss: I (see discussion) marker (see discussion)

b

= STms; SP STmss: I

c

omit as end

Attribution: (These are) only extant in the (edition/exemplar/Hebrew?) of the Samaritans. 22‫ א‬You shall sella me bfood stuffsb for silver, and I will eat; also for silver you shall sellac me water, and I will drink. Butd eI will cross [sc. your land] on foote; 22‫ ב‬fjust asf the sons of Esau, those dwelling in Seirg, dealt with me, and the Moabites, those dwelling in Adoerh. a

15: share with b 15: provision (cp. SP) c SP ST: give d 15: and only e 15: on foot I will cross f 15: in the same way g = SP; ST 15: Gabala (!, see below) h SH sic, rd. Aroer; SP: Ar (ST315: ‫ ארשה‬/ ‫ ערשה‬/ ‫ אורשה‬/ ‫ עורשה‬/ ‫ ;)עשו‬15: the hill country

Attribution (SH): And this (is) only in the [?] of the Samaritans. Num 21.22+:316 The verse, while partial, prompts a few elements calling for comment, namely the possibility of two SP variants and the precise quantitative nature of the reading vis-à-vis the running text, especially as it concerns the function of the last couple of words. Additionally, while there appears to be some small trace of the reading in scattered GNum MSS, suggesting wider attestation of v 22+, this is a false positive. ► Scattered GNum MS attestation? Wevers recorded in AppI at 21.22 some scattered testimony to the reading “(we will not incline) to the right (n)or to the left.”317 Of the witnesses demonstrating the plus in particular are MSS 58, 767 (in

|| 314 Jastram reconstructed vv 22‫ב–א‬, though not v 22+, in DJD stating “[this interpolation occurs] too far removed from the preserved fragments for certain conclusions, but there is no reason to suppose [its] absence” (p. 215). 315 Specifically MSS J, A, V, N, and B, respectively. These are variant spellings except B’s which is an error. See Tal, DSA, ‫ארשה‬. 316 Though this verse, strictly speaking, does not occur in “scattered Greek MSS” but only SH (and thus more strictly belongs to the first section above → §3.3.1), it is treated here in light of its association with 22‫ב–א‬. 317 AppI: εκκλινουμεν] + (+ εις 58; + neque La) δεξια (-αν 767n) ουδε (ουδ 75n; ουτε 58O d t; + εις τα V; + εις 58) ευωνυμα (ευον. 75; -νιμα 246f; -νοιμα 767*; αριστερα 58 53′f) V 58-376O d f−129 n t 71x-509x 799mx Latcod 100 Bo = Sam ↓.

330 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

the n group in Num), groups d t (both having integrated SP Deut 10.6–6‫–א‬7– 7‫–א‬6 → §4.3.2), and f-129 (→ §3.3.3 at Num 31.20‫)ד–א‬. This naturally prompts the question of whether or not the reading is in reality the remnant of a lost, integrated μόνον-reading. While the witness list is certainly suspicious, the directional “right (n)or left” is placed after the wrong verb. For SP Num 21.22+ reads “in the king’s road I will go, I will not turn [‫ ]אסור‬to the right or the left, [22] I will not bend/incline [‫ ]אטה‬towards a field or vineyard.” Yet the plus in scattered GNum MSS reads “right (n)or left” after “we will not bend/incline [εκκλινιουμεν].” Given the extensive and diverse MS listing, had the reading’s original context been from the Caesarean Samaritan collation, one would have expected at least one or two witnesses to preserve the proper place of “right (n)or left.” Furthermore, GNum’s τη οδω πορευσομεθα just previous to ουκ εκκλινιουμεν is not glossed by any extant MS as the “King’s Road” as it is in SP 21.22a(/MT 21.22b). Thus, Wevers’ in-apparatus “= Sam” should not be interpreted as showing a linear relationship between these witnesses and the μόνονcollation.318 Rather his later evaluation, that the gloss is taken over from the analogous account in GNum 20.17 (οδω βασιλικη πορευσομεθα ουκ εκκλινουμεν δεξια ουδε ευωνυμα) where the Israelites make a similar request of the Moabites, ought to be upheld in preference to understanding “right (n)or left” as “=Sam.”319 The reading is thus “ex par” and not a remnant of the μόνονpassage in SH. ►‫ܐ‬ / τη βασιλικη : Despite the following divergence in v 22+ (i.e., ‫ ܐܙܠ‬and ‫ܟ‬ ) from the majority of extant SP MSS, SH’s Greek clearly worked with a real Samaritan source as GDeut cannot account for ‫ܐ‬ .320 Perhaps GNum 21.22b itself (i.e., οδω βασιλικη πορευσομεθα) helped guide the translator(s). ► ‫ ܐܙܠ‬/ πορευσομεθα (= JNum): The use of the first plural is certain insofar as SH is concerned. For while in GNum 21.22 itself the first plural is transmitted in the majority of witnesses, a common variant also represented in SH Num 21.22txt (sub ÷) reads the first singular.321 It seems therefore improbable that a

|| 318 The “Sam ↓” is of course in reference to AppII where the μόνον-passage is registered; “cf Sam” would have been more appropriate. 319 Wevers described the gloss as primarily in the Byzantine text (NGTN, 352), but the reading is clearly more widespread (and earlier, see the OL) than that. 320 See McCarthy’s comments (BHQap) who, following Tov, appears open to an haplography whereby GDeut’s exemplar follows 4Q31 MT SP reading ‫בדרך בדרך‬. Similar are Wevers’ comments (NGTD, 43). 321 See AppI: πορευσόμεθα 1°] -σομαι Bc 426O 130mg-321′mg-344mg s 71-509x SH (sed hab Sixt) = Sam. Wevers’ reference to SP is of course for Num ad loc. Wevers claimed that SP Num was

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 331

Syriac scribe would have written ‫ ܐܙܠ‬in the mg under any influence of the ‫̇ܐܙܠ‬ in the running text. Further corroboration of this might be had by JNum 21.22a– 22+– 22‫–ב–א‬22b (fol. 304‫ )ܒ–ܐ‬reading:

‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬

‫ܐ܇‬ ‫ܐ܆ ܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ‬

‫ ܘ ܐ‬. ‫ܐ ܐܙܠ‬ ‫[ ܒܐܘܪ ܐ‬22+] . ‫ ̇ ܒ ܒܐܪ‬22a ‫ܐ ܒ ܐ ܐܘ ܒ‬ ‫ ܐ‬22a . - . 322[...] . - . ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܐܙܠ܆‬ ‫ ܐ ܐ ܒܐܘܪ ܐ‬22b ‫̈ ܐ ܕܓ ̈ ܒ‬ . ̈ ‫ܬ‬ -.

Jacob’s reading is mixed (→ §5.2.3 ad loc), cobbled from PDeut 2.27, PNum, GNum, and SP here (via SH); above the former is boxed, while the latter is represented in grey blocking with some overlap. His ‫ ܐܙܠ‬2° equates that of PNum and GNum (both from 21.22b), and thus the first ‫ ܐܙܠ‬likely represents the μόνον-passage as his SH MS(S) transmitted it, although it does equate the PDeut parallel as well. Establishing the first plural is important given the fact that while the majority of SP MSS read ‫( אלך‬and ST ‫)אהך‬, there is a minority of witnesses which transmit the first plural: ‫ נלך‬ABD7 (cp. ‫ הלך‬Q); ‫ ניזל‬STE. In light of these MSS, it is very probable that the Caesarean SP read this way. (Note Samaritan ‫ א‬aleph and ‫ נ‬nun are unlikely to be confused, much like square script.) This probability is buttressed by the fact that no G MSS at the parallel in Deut 2.27 read with the first plural, implying that the translator(s) was not mislead by the text he was cribbing, but rather astutely adjusted its grammatical number. This is thus a true SP variant, which accords, as it would happen, with SP Deut 2.7‫דרך ( ב‬ ‫§ → המלך נלך‬4.3.2). ► ‫ܟ‬ / επιστρεψομεν (≠ ‫ܐ‬ JNum): Despite of the paucity of extant MS support, SH here again possibly preserves another Samaritan variant as STE (‫ )נסטי‬suggests.323 Such a case is strengthened by the above ‫ ܐܙܠ‬. Further confirmation of this being an ancient SP Num variant is suggested by the parallel expression ‫ נסור ימין ושמאל‬at SP Deut 2.7‫ב‬. Viz., if a (pre-)Samaritan scribe based the former on the latter, then presumably this is how his text read at the time.324 The Caesarean critic(s) handily translated ‫ סור‬with επιστρεφω inde|| “probably the basis” (NGTN, 352) for the obelized portion in GNum, though there is enough variation to question this supposition (τῇ ὁδῷ πορευσόμεθα vs. ‫)בדרך המלך אלך‬. ‫ ܐ‬in 22+. See below. 322 Here Jacob produced 21.22‫ ב–א‬without representing the final ‫ܐ‬ 323 On the nature and placement of MS E, admittedly a late MS, in the history of ST, see Tal’s Introduction (1983: 102–05). Compare, however, the arguments proffered by Schorch (2021) on even late ST MSS bearing witness to much earlier readings. 324 Alternatively, the direction of influence could be the reverse. It is reasonable also to imagine that if some SP MSS could have read ‫נלך‬, they also could have levelled forms with ‫נסור‬.

332 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

pendent of the parallels, as the MS evidence for both GDeut 2.27 or GNum 21.22 reveals.325 This is also confirmed by 767’s επιστρεψωμ for ‫ נסור‬at Deut 2.7‫→( ב‬ §4.3.2). Lastly, JNum’s ‫ܐ‬ (‫ )ܘ ܐ‬should not cast doubt on this case, philologically-speaking. His verbiage is taken from the PDeut parallel (2.27: ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘ‬ ), in accordance with his practice. Indeed, at JDeut 2.7‫ב‬, he adopted the JNum parallel phrasing from here (→ §4.3.2). ► ‫ ܘ ܐ‬/ ουδε : The translator(s) produced a septuagintism by using ουδε.326 ► Demarcation of the passage in SH and the function of ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬: A further complication stems from the precise delineation of the reading vis-à-vis GNum. For, SHL at first glance appears not to provide any obvious indication as to how the marginal SP 21.22+ precisely relates to v 22 and whether or not it is wholly quantitative. In other words, there is no siglum serving the role of a metobelus for the reading. When viewed within the wider μόνον-collation and the present attribution (i.e., ‫ܕ‬ ‫)ܒ‬, the simplest way to read the MS is to assume the whole of ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܒܐܘܪ ܐ— ܐ‬is a Samaritan “exclusive” when juxtaposed to GNum. This however, does not make good sense as GNum also reads both τη οδω / ‫ܒܐܘܪ ܐ‬ and ουκ εκκλινιουμεν / ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬in v 22 proper. Thus, when viewing the occurrence in isolation, more than one interpretation is possible: 1) ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬is intended to reflect the Samaritan text the Caesarean critic(s) used, and therefore represents a SP MS which contained the first plural for all three verbs following “the King’s Road.” 2) Neither the first word nor the last, first plural verb are quantitatively textual per se, but as the case in Num 21.12‫–ג–א‬13a (specifically the final και παρενεβαλον / ‫§ → ܘ ܘ‬3.3.3), both serve only to delimit the reading; they are thus inclusio markers. For when dealing with passages or parts of passages which lack inherent sense limits or indications of punctuation, putting the word from GNum just before and/or after the Samaritan quantitative variant would have made good sense. This interpretation is strengthened by the fact that while the earlier two variants (i.e., ‫ ܐܙܠ‬and ‫ܟ‬ ) do have some (albeit small) Samaritan MS support, ‫ܐ‬ lacks any

|| Again, cp. MS STE. The point here is that this alteration, whatever its origins, occurred before the Caesarean SP was acquired and thus represented a real Hebrew reading. 325 Both GNum and GDeut read εκκλινουμεν (εκκλινουσιν 509x) and εκκλινω (εκλινουμεν 376O) respectively. 326 On SH’s use of ‫ ܘ ܐ‬for ουδε, see Perkins 1980: 41. μηδε is unsupported by the MS tradition.

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 333

such backing (SP ‫ ;אטה‬STJ ‫ אסטי‬and ‫ ארום‬STAVNECB)327 but probably was just meant to equate GNum itself. In support of the second option is JNum’s witness to the data (see above). For Jacob’s presentation nowhere represents ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬from 22+. Thus, SHL’s marginal reading represents a mixed, mostly μόνον variation: τη οδω (πορευσομεθα) GNum] τη οδω τη βασιλικη πορευσομεθα, ουκ επιστρεψομεν εις δεξιαν ουδε εις αριστεραν SP Num. Therefore, according to this interpretation of the MS, Wevers’ record328 of the reading is somewhat misleading, suggesting that a Samaritan source reads “and we will not incline.” But this is not the proper way to understand SHL itself. While it is odd that the Caesarean collator(s) would have recorded 22+’s (mostly) quantitative variance without also recording the variant ‫( אטה‬in v 22), understanding SHL otherwise at 22+ creates incongruities with the wider data set. Attribution: For the attribution, see Num 21.20‫ ב–א‬above (→ §3.3.1). Num 21.22‫ב–א‬: This passage consists of one of the more radical deviations between SH and the extant Greek MSS. And though MS 15 displays less septuagintism than SH, the former’s text is at greater variance from SP. The discrepancy between MS 15 and SH also relates to the passage’s placement vis-à-vis v 22. Num 21.22‫א‬: The discrepancies between SH and 15 are somewhat troubling. They appear to suggest that either one significantly revised the other, or that the passage was independently translated twice. The former is much more likely. ► τροφην :: ‫ܐ‬ ‫̈ܐ‬ : The SH is properly retroverted with GDeut’s βρωματα (→ §3.3.1 at Num 20.13‫ ;)ט‬MS 15’s singular requires ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬or ‫ܬܘܪ ܐ‬.329 Strictly, the singular does reflect SP, but the lexical variation was likely caused by 15’s scribe. Τροφη occurs in GPent but once (Gen 49.27), where the context is very different.330 Given the well-attested practice of the μόνον-

|| 1 327 Tal interprets the latter as synonymous with the former; see DSA, ‫רום‬, 4, where this is cited amongst other examples. 328 Wevers’ AppII: τη—εκκλινουμεν] in via regali ibimus, non revertemur in dextram neque in sinistram; non declinabimus SHL (cf Sam); cf. Br.-M. ad loc (1911: 64). De Lagarde’s presentation is neutral (1892: 115) as Field’s appears to be (1.251). 329 Compare also SH Deut 2.28 (‫ܐ‬ ‫̈ܐ‬ for βρωματα) with Gen 49.27, Job 36.31, and Prov ‫ ܐ‬for τροφη). Compare the majority variant, which SH followed, at Gen 30.25 (all have ‫ܐ‬ 49.20 (‫ ܬܘܪ ܐ‬for τροφην; also occurring in Prov 6.8). SH thus demonstrates some inconsistency in translating τροφη. 330 So H-R, 1376.

334 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

translator’(s) cribbing the G parallel, it is certain that SH’s Greek was βρωματα (thus Field, contra McClurg331). ► μεταδωσεις 1°–2° :: ‫ ܬܙܒ‬1°–2°: Both provide the same verb twice, which is contrary to how SP itself reads (‫ שבר‬then ‫)נתן‬.332 This verbal levelling complies with the decision GDeut made in rendering both ‫ שבר‬and ‫ נתן‬with αποδωση.333 It is this Greek verb which SH likely translated from the margins of its exemplar, as analogous equivalencies demonstrate.334 The SH’s Greek does not equate 15’s μεταδιδωμι which would require the shafel verb ‫ ܬܦ‬.335 The shift *διδωμι → μεταδιδωμι is thus a secondary revision present in MS 15, a phenomenon evinced elsewhere in the G MS history.336 ► και μονον :: ‫ ܒ ܡ‬: While both πλην and μονον were used by G to render ‫רק‬, the GDeut parallel here used the former, which SH reflects.337 Furthermore, 15’s και is also secondary being unrelated to either SH or SP.338 ► τοις ποσιν μου παρελευσομαι :: ‫ ܐ ܒ ܒ ܓ ܐ ܕ‬: While both have the possessive (μου / ‫)ܕ‬,339 the word order in 15 does not align with the SP, ST, or the GDeut parallel. Both traditions lack GDeut’s οτι. Num 21.22‫ב‬: Still more radical disparities between MS 15 and SH indicate that the former contains a secondary revision of the passage. ► ον τροπον πεποιηκαν :: ‫ ܐ ܐ ܕ ܒ ܘ‬: McClurg340 is quite right that the SH’s conjunctive representation is not ον τροπον but GDeut’s καθως.341 This is the first element of merit. A further issue is 15’s perfect verb form. Strictly speaking the SH did not grammatically “mirror” the Greek perfect.342 However, given

|| 331 2011: 99. 1 332 ST: 1‫ מור‬and ‫( נתן‬MS J); ‫ זבן‬and ‫( יהב‬MS A). 333 See Wevers’ assessment (NGTD, 43). No Hebrew MS for Deut survives which provides the same verb twice. Note, however, that PDeut also translated with the same verb twice. 334 E.g., SH Exod 21.7, 22.1, Deut 2.28, and 14.20 and 24; thus Field, contra McClurg (2011: 99). 335 SH Job 31.17; Wis 7.13; Prov 11.26. 336 See MSS F*(c pr m) M et al in AppI at GDeut 15.10. 337 SH uses ‫ ܒ ܡ‬for πλην except where a genitive follows, in which case was used (see Perkins 1980: 91). μονον equals ‫ ܒ ܕ‬in SH (e.g., Num 11.14; 12.2; 23.9). 338 McClurg, following Field, elects to retrovert πλην without listing 15’s και μονον as a textual variation (2011: 99). 339 The tradition is split. See AppI: τοις ποσιν B 963 C′’ 53′-56f n s 71′y 630z 28mx 319mx 407′mx Lat cod 100 Arm] + μου rell = M. 340 He notes ον τροπον is rendered by ‫( ܒ ܘ ܙ ܐ‬e.g., Num 14.17, 28; 26.4; etc) or ‫ ܒ ܐ‬in SH Num (2011: 100). ‫ ܐ‬for καθοτι 341 Wevers AppI: καθα 426O; καθοτι 422cII. The SH might have given -‫ܐ ܕ‬ (e.g., Exod 1.17; 10.10; Deut 11.1). 342 Perkins 1980: 238.

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 335

the weight of the passage’s septuagintization, the aorist form in GDeut is more likely (thus Field, contra McClurg). ► γαβαλα :: ‫ ܒ‬: While correct, SH likely produced the P form regardless of the specific Greek orthography in its exemplar(s).343 MS 15, on the other hand, demands explication. McClurg, understandably, struggles to explain 15’s reading, claiming the form may be “a transliteration of ‫ גבול‬which appears at the end of verse 22 [‫ ]בגבולך‬in [MT], although the reasons for this word being taken as a place name and transliterated are not clear.”344 Perhaps an alternative explanation might be that 15 exhibits an attempt to understand “Sons of Esau” in more contemporized political terms, i.e., as Idumaeans. This is certainly the interpretation present in both ST here (‫[ בגבלה‬J and A]; ‫[ בגבעלה‬B1]; ‫[ בשעיר‬B]) and TgN-PJ at the parallel.345 Irrespective of the precise textual mechanisms, certainly no variant Samaritan Hebrew tradition lay behind γαβαλα,346 and it is very unlikely 15’s toponym reflects the μόνον-translation. Lastly, it must be mentioned that while it is tempting to assume 15 preserves the Samareitikon, as defined by the σαμ΄-type (→ §1.3.1.3), due to γαβαλα’s ostensible connection with ST, two facts militate against this: 1) 15’s reading generally disagrees with ST (e.g., μεταδωσεις 1°–2° [lexical selection], τοις ποσιν μου παρελευσομαι [word order], and εν τη ορινη [≠ ST, see below]); and 2) the text of MS 15 generally cannot be connected with ST in the way the σαμ΄passages can.

‫( ܒ ܘ‬sic): SH reproduced the μόνον-translator’(s) sep► εν τη ορινη :: tuagintism347 (the misspelled form, which occurred at the Syriac level, will be discussed below, → §3.3.3 at Num 21.12‫)ב‬. MS 15’s reading is much more interest-

|| 343 See the above discussion and literature concerning SH’s treatment of proper names (→ §2.3.1 at Exod 20.19[23]‫)ג‬. For the various orthographies representing “Seir,” see AppI. 344 2011: 100. 345 TgPJ: ... ‫ בנוי דעשו דיתבין בגבלא‬... ; TgN: ... ‫ בנוי דעשו ]אלייו[ דשריין בגבלה‬... . Of course, TgN-PJ are bearers of a common tradition; MS 15, or its predecessor(s), need not know the Tgs directly. For Γαβαλα, see Josephus Ant 13.396, the erroneous (?) variants (γαβαλα A1?c? γαβαλλα 509 [a2]) in GJosh 15.11, and similarly the mention of Γεβαλ at Ps 82(MT 83).8 (with variants). Probably also important is Josephus’ Ant 2.5–6 (και Ἡσαυ μεν ουτοι παιδες ησαν· … ουτοι κατωκησαν της Ἰδουμαιας την Γοβολιτιν λεγομενην). For a summary of the data concerning the direct association with Seir, see HALOT ‫ ;גְּ ָבל‬and L. Roth, “Gebal, 2,” ABD 2.922–23. 346 SP: ‫( בשעיר‬afšā’ǝr ; see Ben-Ḥayyim 1977: 501), without variant. 347 Wevers AppI: Ἀροηρ] αρ[… 963; αροειρ 413cI 30s 630z 407mx; αρωηρ 59mx; αρωειρ 767n; αρηειρ 77C; αρουηρ 53′f; σαροηρ 75n; αροηλ A; αρ Fb = Compl M. Note PDeut reads .

336 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

ing. Presuming iotacism (rd. ορεινη), 15 reads “(in) the mountainous (region),” not some kind of proper name as has been previously suggested.348 Most likely, either 15 or an ancestor scribe confounded the respective locations of the Moabites and the Ammonites, the latter of whom dwelt in part in the hill-country (see GDeut 2.37). Perhaps intervening MS generations might facilitate this account. Attribution: For discussion of the short form attribution ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬, see discussion at Num 21.20‫ ב–א‬above (→ §3.3.1). Placement and Nature of Num 21.22‫ב–א‬: Two matters must be addressed concerning both the placement and textual nature of the passage in the three extant sources which attest to it. For there is disagreement amongst the witnesses as to where the passage should be placed relative to Num 21.22 itself. Additionally, the μόνον-collator(s) seem not to have communicated precisely how 21.22‫ ב–א‬related to v 22, vis-à-vis ου πιομεθα υδωρ—τα ορια σου. ► Quantitative, qualitative, or a mixture? Comparable to the nature of Num 21.22+ above, there is some difficulty as to how the MSS represent the passage’s textual relationship to the running text of GNum 21.22 vis-à-vis SP. As the evidence stands, the varying witnesses, despite disagreement as to where in the running text the μόνον-text is indexed to, all appear to interpret the passage as wholly quantitative, i.e., supplementary. SP Num 21.22 reads: 22–22+–22– 21.22‫ב–א‬, with 21.22‫ ב–א‬qualitatively replacing the “and we will not drink water from a well, in the King’s Road will go until that we should cross your boarder” common to v 22 in MT and GNum. As such, the passage is both qualitative and quantitative. However, SH, JNum, and MS 15 all record 21.22‫ ב–א‬in addition to v 22 in toto. Thus, there is no evidence in SH of the Samaritan replacement of “and we will not drink water from a well …” in the verse. As a result, Wevers’ record of 21.22‫“ ב–א‬ου (πιομεθα)—fin] cibos argento vendes mihi … qui habitant in aroer SyhL (ex Sam secundum Syh: cf Deut 2:28 29)” is misleading.349 For while Wevers’ delineation correctly aligns with the extant SP vs. G, the SH MS itself does not make any such distinction. And while scribal error may be responsible for this, the understanding represented by JNum suggests that his SH source presented 21.22‫ ב–א‬similarly. ► Placement in SH: The placement of the ind marker for 21.22‫ ב–א‬in SH (= SP) is as follows: ... ‫ܐ ̈ ܐ‬ ‫ ☩ ܐ‬.‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ ܐ‬... 22

|| 348 So McClurg 2011: 100. 349 Both de Lagarde (1892: 115) and Field (1.251) merely indicate where the reading is marked. McClurg understands both SH and 15 correctly as supplementary but does not mention the placement in SH as different from that in 15 (2011: 100).

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 337

There is no metobelus-like marker (or another indexed ☩) either in-text or in the margin which might clarify that the μόνον-passage also is partially qualitative. Certainly, it must be observed that the index marker does correctly mark the location in v 22 where 21.22‫ ב–א‬begins. Thus, it is probable that a second, corresponding index marker simply fell out of the tradition. However, if this occurred, it did so before JNum’s exemplar(s) was fashioned. Perhaps even Paul of Tella’s Vorlage read without any such marker. ► Placement in JNum (→ §5.2.3): Jacob of Edessa took great pains to include μόνον-passages from the SH into his own recension.350 For this reading, Jacob placed 22+ precisely where SHL indicates; however, his integration of 22‫ב–א‬ varies from that in the MS. Rather he joined 22+ and 21.22‫ ב–א‬one right after the other before v 22’s “we will not turn aside into a field or a vineyard” (→ § 5.2.3 and the above transcription). Moreover, no part of v 22, as it is known in G, P, or MT Num, is omitted contra SP, lending credence to the theory that SH (or its exemplar[s]?) failed to label 22‫ ב–א‬as a replacement (at last partially). ► Placement in MS 15: Lastly, MS 15 itself treats the text as a supplement only, integrating the passage into the running text after τα ορια σου. This placement differs from both SH and JNum. MS 15, however, should not be used to support the present suggestion, since in 15’s integration of Deut 34.1b–1‫–א‬2, the scribe blended both texts irrespective of the Samaritan delimitation known from SHM (→ §4.3.2). Num 21.24+: “… and his sons and all his people …” SH (V fol. 132b RH mg ind ☩ pr ‫ܐ‬

‫] [ܐ ܕ‬ .

‫ > ;ܒ‬L) ‫ܐܕ‬

.‫ܐ‬

‫ܘ‬

‫ ܘ ܒ ̈ ܐ ܕ‬24+ ‫ ܒ ܕ ܒ‬Attrib.

O

58 (in-text s nom, pr φονω μαχαιρας) 24+ και τους υιους αυτου και παντα τον λαον αυτου SP Num 21.24+ (Num 21.35?) ≠ MT ‫ לפי חרב ויירשו את ארצו‬24 ‫{ ואת בניו ואת כל עמו‬21.35351} 24+ ‫ ויכהו ישראל‬24

‫מארנן עד יבק עד בני עמון כי עז גבול בני עמון‬ || 350 For Jacob’s use of the SH, see below (→ §§4 and 5). 351 At least for MT 21.35 as opposed to SP which only reads ‫ואת כל עמו‬. Kim (1994: 227) holds SP Deut 2.33 (‫ = ואת בניו ואת כל עמו‬MT, see BHSap note ‘b’) to be the proper parallel here. In light of the potential parablepsis ‫ואת ∩ ואת‬, it is perhaps not possible to know which was originally used by the pre-SP editor(s). In terms of the μόνον-collation, SHV bears no trace of Deut 2.33 having been marked with any cross-reference (→ Table 3.3.1.1).

338 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

Attribution (SH): [This is] only in the [?] of the Samaritans. Num 21.24+ (MS 58): One certainly wonders why this particular reading, of all those μόνον-passages in Num, would be preserved by 58. Granted, there is a resemblance with that here and at Exod 3.22+ (→ §2.5.1), in that it expands the list of personnel explicitly detailed in each story. One also may consider that the ancestor scribe(s) of 58 believed this was a marginal correction, presuming the attribution fell out before integration. Nonetheless, 58’s reading is best viewed as an integrated μόνον-passage and not a reading “ex par.” This is shown by SH’s witness, the presence of other μόνον-texts in 58, and the overall nature of the MS as one whose proclivity was to omit—not retain—readings sub hexaplaric sigla.352 For comments on this last aspect of MS 58, see below (→ §5.3.2). ► The reading’s presentation in editions: Wevers correctly labelled the variant in AppI as “= Sam ↓,” though he omitted any reference to this in his Notes.353 McClurg discusses only SH with respect to SP, not mentioning 58.354 BrookeMcLean, who did not have the benefit of SHV, listed the reading neutrally. Field, similarly without SHV, did not consider 58’s integration as a possible Samaritan reading.355 Num 21.24+ (SH): SHV recorded the reading properly. The reading agrees with SP and ST, and is textually unremarkable. Nothing in the SHL MS can suggest why or how this reading fell out of the tradition. The presence of the same in JNum, however, confirms that the passage was originally there. Num 21.24+ (placement in JNum): Jacob of Edessa’s placement differs, as he put the μόνον-reading after, not before, ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐܕ‬ ‫( ܒ‬fol. 304‫)ܒ‬. While it is tempting to assert that his SH source read this way—which by extension may suggest a variant Samaritan placement—no Samaritan tradition places v 24+ other than where it is. Attribution: On the pithy attribution, see discussion at Num 21.20‫ב–א‬, attribution (→ §3.3.1).

|| 352 Compare, e.g., Wevers’ evaluation of 58’s place within the hexaplaric group of Num: “… of these 58 is the most aberrant” (THGN, 43). 353 See NGTN, 353. 354 2011: 102. Compare, his inclusion of MS 15oI for Num 21.22‫ב–א‬. 355 1.252 (following H-P).

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 339

Num 32.1+ & 29+ (33+): “… and (to) the half of the tribe of Manasseh …” 15oI (in-text, s nom, post Γαδ); cp. Procopius (PG 87/1.887) C′’cat (at v 33+) > SH 1+ και τω ημισει φυλης μανασση … 29+ και το ημισυ φυλης μανασση SP Num 32.1+, 2+, 6+, 25+, 29+, 31+ (Num 32.33) 4Q27356 ≠ MT 4Q23 (DJD 12.173) ‫ עצום מאד‬1 ‫{ ולחצי שבט המנשה‬32.33} 1+ ‫ ומקנה רב היה לבני ראובן ולבני גד‬1

‫ויראו את ארץ יעזיר ואת ארץ גלעד והנה המקום מקום מקנה‬ [‘half tribe of M.’ in vv 2+, 6+, 25+, 29+, 31+] 1+ ... and to the half of the tribe of Manasseh … 29+ … and the half of the tribe of Manasseh … Num 32.1+ and 29+ (MS 15): As previously observed, MS 15 integrated other μόνον-type passages directly into its running text. These include Num 21.22‫ב–א‬ (just above) and Deut 34.1b–1‫–א‬2 (→ §4.3.2). Should the present be added to their number? The wider evidence from GNum 32 and MS 15 itself suggests that this is the case, and as such, the readings at 1+ and 29+ should be reckoned with the other integrated μόνον-passages preserved in MSS with hexaplaric roots (→ §2.5). This reconstruction is also supported by the following facts: 1) Despite the wider MS tradition’s tendency in this chapter towards “ex par” readings (e.g., MSS 71ʹ at v 2, 799* at v 14, d-106 at v 22, et al), MS 15 is the sole witness attesting to the “Samaritan” “ex par” reading. 2) While MS 15 preserves only two of the six occurrences of ‫*חצי שבט המנשה‬, the first is conspicuously preserved.357 This stands in contrast to the Procopius–Catena tradition, which pointed out the foregoing cases only at the common occurrence of ‫ חצי שבט המנשה‬in v 33 (which is not “μόνον”). 3) Against the supposition that MS 15 took such from the catena, one would need to account for the following: a) Why did 15 not insert the text in all (or at least most) of “the forgoing instances” (προειρημενοις) in accordance with the catena’s scholion?

|| 356 Jastram reconstructs with ‫ ולחצי שבט המנשה‬in vv 1, 6, and 29 (DJD 12.253–57). Verses 2 and 31 are too fragmentary; v 25 is extant (col. 28, ln. 6 [pp. 255, 257]): …‫שב[ט המנשה] אל [מושה לאמור‬ ֯ ‫ ויואמרו ב[ני ראו֯ בן ובני גד] וחצי‬25] 357 Field, while observing the catena data at v 33, only mentioned 15’s reading at v 29 not v 1 (1.264, n. 17). What led him to do this is unclear. Perhaps he was influenced by the catena readings. Unlike at Num 21.22‫ב–א‬, H-P made no comment mentioning the 15’s concord with SP at either vv 1 or 29. According to Wevers’ AppII, the catena records these ad loc at vv 2, 6, 25, 29 and 31, though strangely not at v 1.

340 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

b) The catena also preserved σαμʹ-type readings at Num 32.12 and 13; why where these ignored by 15 in preference for the indifferent “the half of the tribe of Manasseh”? c) How is it that there is seemingly no discernible relationship between 15 and the catena’s marginalia elsewhere? 4) MS 15’s partial preservation of the readings in ch 32, while admittedly odd, somewhat parallels that case in Num 21.(22+)22‫ב–א‬, where only 22‫ ב–א‬is preserved but not 22+. 5) Whereas the present case could be conceived as independently “ex par,” the other two μόνον-type passages in 15 cannot. 6) Lastly, the typology of these readings fits that of the μόνον-type, viz., the passages are both quantitative and found in an hexaplaric source. Consequently, the wider context of this hexaplaric MS suggests these also were from the original μόνον-collation. SH’S omission: Nothing present in the margins or running text of SHV (see fols. 145b–146b) suggests any of the “half of the tribe of Manasseh” readings were at one time found in the margins (e.g., orphaned index markers). This coupled with the absence of any such reading in JNum 32.1–31 (fols. 328‫–ܒ‬330‫ )ܒ‬strongly suggests that the SH’s exemplar did not have the reading (→ §3.2). Num 32.33+ (scholia from Procopius and the catena): While 15 lacks any attribution, there are two scholia known from both Procopius and the catena literature which identify the readings as “Samaritan.” Procopius’ scholion at Num 32.33 reads as follows: Καὶ τῷ ἡμίσει φυλῆς Μανασσῆ. Τοῦτων νῦν ἐμνήσθη, μὴ προδηλώσας. ἐν δὲ τῷ Σαμαρειτικῷ κεῖται κἄν τοῖς προειρημένοις.358 “And to the half of the tribe of Manasseh”: Now this is mentioned (here) [in v 33] having not been made explicit earlier. But in the Samaritan [exemplar] this is extant even in the earlier-mentioned instances (προειρημένοις).

The scholion in the catena reads somewhat differently: Αδηλου. νῦν ἐμνήσθη τοῦ ἡμίσεως τῆς φυλῆς Μανασσῆ, ἐν τοῖς προειρημένοις οὐ μνημονεύσας. ἐν δὲ τῷ Σαμαρειτικῷ μνημονεύσεται.359

|| 358 See CatNic, 1/3.1395–96, n. 2; PG 87/1.887–88 only provided the LT. Procopius’ testimony is not recorded in Wevers’ AppII.

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 341

► Of the μόνον-type, the σαμ΄-type, or something else? The present catena scholion, known since the SIXTINE (→ §1.2.1.1; ADDENDUM), has long been reckoned with the so-called Samareitikon. Most recently McClurg’s study interpreted the note as conclusive evidence, for the present case, that the annotation “το σαμ΄” unequivocally refers to the Samareitikon.360 Previous to McClurg, Pummer (→ §1.2.3.7, B) expressed greater disquiet, instead proposing that because both SP and ST contained the relevant references to the “half of the tribe of Manasseh,” “it is therefore not clear to what exactly τὸ σαμαρειτικόν refers.”361 Part of this disquiet was the ostensible difference between the attributions τὸ σαμαρειτικόν vs. (τοῦ) τῶν Σαμαρειτῶν (Ἑβραϊκοῦ). Pummer believed that since G MSS had labelled the “short expansions” from SP at Gen 4.8 (→ EXCURSUS D), the present “half of the tribe of Manasseh” readings in Num 32, and the SHM reading at “Deut 34.12” (5.21‫§ → ח–א‬4.3.2) as “τὸ σαμαρειτικόν,”362 as opposed to the label (τοῦ) τῶν Σαμαρειτῶν (Ἑβραϊκοῦ) evinced by other G MSS at Num 13.1‫ד–א‬, 21.11‫ א‬and 21.12‫§ →( ג–א‬3.3.3), it was thus not possible “to identify the precise referent of … τὸ Σαμαρειτικόν.”363 Part of the problem is how one accounts for the terminological variation. Viz., if the hexaplaric origin of the readings (based on MS 15) is maintained, how is it that these, usually attributed by the form (τοῦ) τῶν Σαμαρειτῶν (αντιγραφου / Ἑβραϊκοῦ), came to be described as τω Σαμαρειτικω? One might recall the secondarily developed form of the Samaritan cross-reference found in Procopius at Deut 1.6 (→ §3.3.2 at Num 10.10‫ג–א‬, attribution). There, Procopius described the Samaritan source as το Σαμαρειτικον … αντιγραφον despite the fact that the hexaplaric evidence (both the SH attribution for Num 10.10‫ ג–א‬as well as the corresponding cross-reference annotation at SH Deut 1.6–8) does not transmit an adjectival form σαμαρειτικον / ‫ܐ‬ .364 Procopius obviously rewrote the attribution; and such is also the case here. He (or the catenist responsible for the Samaritan note’s original introduction into the tradition) re-

|| 359 The Greek is that from the CatNic (1/3.1396). Wevers’ AppII records the same without commenting on the anonymity; cp. Field (1.265, and n. 17). 360 2011: 389. 361 1998: 302 and 304. Also Joosten 2014: 349 (and 350, n. 16). 362 Pummer states this is “according to Masius” but this is incorrect (1998: 305); rather Wevers mislabeled the reading in AppII for reasons which are unclear (→ §§1.3.1.2; 4.3.2). 363 1998: 305. 364 But compare the attributions for readings in SH Exod 18 and 20 (→ §§2.3.2; 2.3.3) where ‫ܐ ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ ܒ‬obtains. Note also Procopius’ parallel cross-references at Exod 18.25–25‫§ →( ג–א‬2.3.2, attribution) in which he describes readings from Σαμαρειτικοις αντιγραφοις, twice.

342 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

wrote the originally hexaplaric data into his own work,365 producing εν τω Σαμαρειτικω by way of abbreviation. Another means of explaining τω Σαμαρειτικω is positing that the terse μόνον-attribution ‫ܐ‬ ‫→( ܒ ܕ ܒ‬ Num 21.22‫ב–א‬, attribution), uniquely found in Num, was the form Procopius (and/or the catenist) found, and he had to interpret this, resulting in the somewhat ambiguous τω Σαμαρειτικω “in the Samaritan.”366 During this process, someone, perhaps even Procopius, summarized the hexaplaric data (i.e., τοις προειρημενοις) into one note. Thus, it is far more likely that the original source was hexaplaric, not any Samaritan Greek translation such as the so-called Σαμαρειτικον. Later, the catenist (though not Procopius!) naturally assumed these “Samaritan” data and the σαμ΄ reading recorded at 32.12 derived from one and the same source.

3.3.3 Readings Found in the S-Group Lastly, certain s-group MSS in Num preserve in their margins a number of μόνονpassages, half of which are explicitly attributed to the Samaritan text. Because these same readings are also present in SH, they collectively confirm the interpretation given for the foregoing cases found in the wider, more scattered hexaplaric MS tradition (→ §§2.5; 3.3.2). The following presents the s-group texts as a group since they resulted from a singular, separate effort, most likely the product (at least in part) of intensive post-hexaplaric scribal activity centered around monastic entities on Athos (→ §3.4). The S-Group’s μόνον-Type Passages: A Short Survey. There are six μόνον-passages transmitted in the margins of the MSS forming the s-group’s subgroup 85′(= 85 + 130)-344; of these six, another sub-group 321′ (= 321 + 346) jointly supports two. Further, MS 343—clearly the outlier of the group (→ §5.3.5)—integrated three of these six into its own running text. Probably, the 343 scribe had at least four of the passages available to him, since Num 21.12‫ ג–א‬was mistakenly integrated where Num 21.11‫ א‬ought to have been placed (see below).

|| 365 Note that Procopius’ annotation includes terminology which is found in other hexaplaric ). The catena’s μνημονευσεται is secondary. Samaritan attributions, i.e., κειται (= pass. of 366 This may have been the case, especially as the μόνον-attribution just previous to those in Num 32 is that at Num 31.20‫ ד–א‬for which SH transmits as ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܗ ܒ ܕ ܒ‬. If each individual occurrence of “the half of the tribe of Manasseh” was attributed and indexed to vv 1, 2, 6, 25, 29, and 31 separately, one would expect the abbreviated form εν τω Σαμαρειτων / ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬, or some such annotation, to have been used.

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 343

Table 3.3.3.1: The μόνον-Type Readings in the S-Group

SP Passage

s-group MSS

other Greek MSS

SH

85′-344

321′

Num 13.1‫ד–א‬

mg+

attrib. only

Num 14.45‫א‬

mg+

321′

txt*

SH

Num 21.11‫א‬

mg+; 85(*?)

txt*↓

SHL

Num 21.12‫–ג–א‬13a

mg+

⟨txt*↑⟩

SH

txt*

SHV

Num 27.23‫ב–א‬

mg

Num 31.20‫ד–א‬

mg*

+

321′

343 SHL

f-129 (txt* v 20‫ א‬only)

SHV

N.B.: + = attrib. (not always to SP); * = lack attrib.; all text marginal in 85′-321′-344 and SH

There are many points of divergence between the testimonies of the s-group and SH(/JNum), which include not only matters of textual minutiae but also elements of presentation and, most significantly, provenance. The first passage in particular has been much discussed in previous literature, on account of the sgroup’s scholion first published by Montfaucon (→ §1.2.1.2). Num 13.1‫ד–א‬: “Let us send men before us to spy out the land …”367 SH (L fol. 14a lower mg sub

368

ind 卍369; > V370)

‫ܪܐ ܕܐ ̈ܪ ܐ ̇ܗܘ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܐܬ ܘܢ‬. ‫ܐ ܒ ̈ ܐ ܕܐ‬ ‫ ܘܐ‬1‫א‬ ‫ܢ ܡ ܨܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܐܐ ܐܕ‬ ‫ ܐ‬.‫ ܘ‬1‫ ב‬: ‫̇ ܒ‬ ‫ܕ ܐܐ ܐܕ‬ .‫ ܐ ܬܕ ܢ‬.‫ܢ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܐܐ ܐܕ‬ ‫ܬܘ ܒ ܐ ܕܐ‬ .‫ܢ ܐܪ ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ ܪ ܓܒ ܐ ܡ ܨܘ ܐ‬.‫ܐ ܘܐ ܘ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ‫ ܘܐܬ ܒ‬1‫ ג‬.‫ܐܦ ܐ ܬ ܪܕܘܢ‬ ̇ ‫ܐ ܐܘܪ ܐ ̇ܗܝ ܕܒ‬ ‫ܘ ̈ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ ܕ ܢ‬.‫ ܘ ܒ ܘܢ ܒܐܪ ܐ‬. ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܐ܀‬ ‫ܐ ܡ‬ ‫ ܘ ܬ‬1‫ ד‬. ‫ܗ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ ܐܦ‬ . ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܀ ܘܗ ̇ ܒ ܕ ܒ ܒ ܐ ܕ‬Attrib. ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ ܕܗܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܐ ܢ܀‬

85′s-344s (marginal → PLATE V.1); > 321′s 371

|| 367 Supplied as “12.16‫ ”ד–א‬in T-F. The LXX versification is followed here. 368 Br.-M. somewhat misleadingly placed SH sub ÷ (1911: 454; cp. Wevers AppII at 10.10‫)ג–א‬. 369 Burris describes the marker as “what seems to be an index sign that is similar to an asterisk” (2009: 292); the siglum is clearly a swastika. See above at Num 21.20‫§ →( ב–א‬3.3.1) where the same symbol is used in L (fol. 34a; with the direction of the rays reversed). 370 The passage ought to be on fol. 120b in SHV; perhaps it is missing due to lacuna as the following folia are missing (→ §3.3.1 at Num 13.33‫)ו–א‬.

344 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

Attrib. και τουτων μνημονευει Μωυσης εν τοις πρωτοις του Δευτερονομιου α και αυτα εκ του των Σαμαρειτων Ἑβραικου μετεβαλομεν καταλληλως τη των οʹ ερμηνεια τη εν τω Δευτερονομιω φερομενη (γενομενη 130) 85′-321′-344372 1‫ ※( א‬344)373 και ειπεν Μωυσης τοις υιοις ι̅η̅λ Ηλθετε (-θατε 344) εως ορους του Αμορραιου (αμωρ. 130*; αμωρρ. 130c), οπερ κ̅ς̅ ο θς̅ ημων διδωσιν ημιν. 1‫ב‬ ειδετε (ειδε 130-344) οτι εδωκεν κ̅ς̅ ο θς̅ σου εμπροσθεν σου την γην· αναβας κληρονομησον, καθα ελαλησεν κ̅ς̅ ο θς̅ των π̅ρ̅ω̅ν̅ σου σοι (συ codd)· μη φοβου μηδε οκνησης. 1‫ ג‬και προσηλθον προς (> 85) Μωυσην και ειπαν Αποστειλωμεν (-λομεν 344) ανδρας εμπροσθεν ημων, και κατασκοπησωμεν ° (-σωσιν ημιν 344) την γην, και υποστρεψουσιν ημιν λογον περι της οδου, διʼ ης ανελευσομεθα, και τας πολεις, εις ας εισελευσομεθα °. 1‫ ד‬και ηρεσεν ο λογος εν οφθαλμοις Μωυση SP Num 13.1‫( ד–א‬Deut 1.20–23) ⟨4Q27⟩374 ≠ MT ‫{ ויאמר משה לבני ישראל באתם עד הר האמרי אשר יהוה אלהינו נתן לנו‬1.20} 1‫א‬ ‫{ ראה נתן יהוה אלהיך לפניך את הארץ עלה רש כאשר דבר יהוה אלהי‬1.21} 1‫ב‬ ‫{ ויקרבו אל משה ויאמרו נשלחה אנשים‬1.22} 1‫אבותיך לך אל תירא ואל תחת ג‬

‫לפנינו ויחפדו לנו את הארץ וישיבו אתנו דבר את הדרך אשר נעלה בה ואת הערים‬ ‫{ וייטב הדבר בעיני משה‬1.23a} 1‫אשר נבוא עליהן ד‬ Attribution (s-group): And Moses mentions this in the first chapters of Deuteronomy; a thing which we have translated from the Hebrew of the Samaritans, quoting in corresponding order the LXX version of Deuteronomy.375 1‫ א‬And Moses said to the sons of Israel376: “You have come unto the amountain of the Amoritesa, which the Lord our God is giving to us. 1‫ ב‬Seeb the Lord yourc God dhas deliveredd the land before youc (lit. your face). Goc up, takec possession ein the way whiche the Lord fyour Godf saidg to youc. Doc not fear, nor should youc hbe terrifiedh!” 1‫ ג‬And they drew near toi Moses and said: “Let us send men before us (lit. our face). And theyj1 will kcross throughk the land j2for usj2, and they will makel ma (formal) reportm to us concerning the way in which we will go up, as well as (concerning) the cities, thosen into which we will enter.” 1‫ד‬

|| 371 As Burris points out (2009: 292), MSS 321′ oddly preserved only the attribution. 372 Wevers AppII only has “(ex Sam secundum 85′-321′-344 …).” MSS 321′ were not known at the time of Br.-M. 373 Wevers AppII: 13.1 fin] + (※ 344 mend) και … ; probably he was viewing the asterisk in light of normative hexaplaric practice; his remark (“mend”) was not repeated at Num 31.20‫ א‬where 344 also bears an asterisk. This is an inconsistency in his editions as he ignored the asterisks thus used in SH Exod. For discussion see below (→ §4.4.2). 374 Jastram convincingly argues (DJD 12.218) 4Q27 had the passage based on the typical line count of the columns. 375 Fernández Marcos’ ET (2000: 167, n. 59); differences from SH are underlined (see discussion below). 376 STA replaces “Israel” here with ‫“ ישרון‬Jeshrun”; on which see Tal 2003: 115.

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 345

And mthe matterm was agreeable beforeo Moses. a

SP ST and s: Amorite Mountain b SP ST and 130-344: sg; s: + that c SP ST377 and s: sg d SP ST: is giving/gave378; s: gave e s: just as f SP ST and s: the God of your (sg) fathers g SP ST and s: spoke h s: be hesitant (or: be cowardly; cp. ST; see discussion) i > 85 j1 s-344: we j2 > s-344 k SP STJ (STm) and s: spy out; STmss: “might endear” (see below note) l SP ST and s: return m SP ST and s: word n > s o SP ST and s: in the eyes of; STA: sight of

Attribution (SH): And this is only transmitted in the Hebrew of the Samaritans. Now Moses also mentioned this in Deut, as (something) already (‫ܘ‬ ‫= ܗܐ‬ ηδη379) having previously been said. Num 13.1‫ד–א‬: arrangement and s-group peculiarities. The first significant element of the passage is the presentation of the textual data in the MSS. In fact there is great discrepancy between SH and the s-group for this, a point not properly emphasized by previous studies. The s-group, whose oldest text-form is most likely found in MS 344, placed the attribution scholion before the passage,380 whereas in SH, the attribution follows the μόνον-reading.381 While this in isolation may not betray anything remarkable, the s-group’s note also contains material additional to what is transmitted by SH; furthermore, what is common to both is given in a different order (→ attribution). Thus, it is clear that either the s-group or SH (or either sources’ ancestor[s]) changed the attribution formula from the common source. This inference is further confirmed when the textual data are surveyed, as both passages disagree in many points, at times in such a way that prevents discerning which is more original. The historical implications of the witnesses’ differing arrangement and textual discrepancies will be discussed below when both attributions are examined in detail. ► sub ※ in MS 344: Aside from the variance in the order of elements, the sgroup disagrees with SH, marking the passage sub ※. This is one of three passages to which some member of the s-group attaches the siglum ※ (here, Num

|| 377 For “take possession” some ST MSS read ‫( ירת‬AMB) or ‫( ירות‬E) instead of ‫( רת‬J; ms impv). 378 According to the reading tradition, this could be either an act. ptc. or 3ms perf. vocalized nā̊ tån (Ben-Ḥayyim 1977: 491 and 189–90); ST’s ‫ יהב‬is similarly ambiguous. Ben-Ḥayyim’s concordance listed the occurrence here as a perf. with that at the end of the preceding verse (vocalized the same) as the ptc. Tsedaka’s ET has “gave” for both. 379 See PS 1.959. 380 Field’s description (1.239, n. 1) is to be preferred over Wevers’ here. 381 It should not be suggested that SH levelled all attributions, placing them at the end of all the μόνον-type passages (cp. the attribution at SH Exod 8.5[9] which precedes the reading). It must also be pointed out that all other s-group attributions follow after the respective μόνονpassages, save Num 14.45‫ א‬which is itself misattributed.

346 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

14.45‫ א‬in MSS 85-321′, and 31.20‫ ד–א‬again in MS 344). These of course vary from SH Num’s utilization of a stylized lemniscus . (Note that the hypolemniscus ⨪ is what was used most of the time in the running text of the MS.) For 13.1‫ד–א‬, MS 344 (bi-columnar) has the attribution scholion placed under the left-hand column with the μόνον-passage under the right-hand column marked with asterisks along the left side of each line of the reading (12 lns.; see fol. 208bα–β → PLATE V.1).382 Both the attribution and reading are indexed with the siglum also immediately to the left of the line ending 13.1. Wevers’ interpretation of 344’s ※ (“mend”) assumes that the normative hexaplaric practice was intended here (see above note). However, this is unjustified, since the passage is both in the margin and explicitly attributed to the Samaritans. Thus conditions extend beyond usual hexaplaric practice. Given the use of the asterisk in SH Exod, 344 probably preserved the original siglum,383 though this cannot be established beyond all doubt (→ §4.4.2). ► 321′’s omission: MSS 321 and 346’s failure to produce the passage while retaining the attribution is odd, as the opposite phenomenon is more expected textually.384 Unlike s-group outlier 343, 321′ follows 85′-344 in keeping the texts they did preserve in the margin. The omission was probably accidental or, assuming the note was not(?) properly understood, perhaps the result of using the scholion primarily as a cross-reference. Num 13.1‫א‬: As Field implied, and Rahlfs and Glaue pointed out,385 the SH’s passage is much closer to GDeut than that from the s-group. The first verse demonstrates more unity between the two than the rest of the passage. ̈ ► τοις υιοις and ‫ ܒ ܐ‬: When compared with the GDeut parallel (προς υμας, without variant), it can be stated that the μόνον-translator(s) more literally rendered the Samaritan prefix ‫ ≠( ל־‬SP / MT Deut ‫)אליכם‬. Thus, while the G parallel normally determined the translator’(s) selection of Greek prepositions

|| 382 For whatever reason, in 344mg, the scribe(s) used different scripts for the attribution and the passage itself, the former being more uncial-like while the latter roughly equates the cursive script of the running text. The implications for this discrepancy are unclear. However, unlike K. de Troyer (2020: 104, with n. 19), it seems improbable that two different scribes at two distinct times added these separately, as the scholion without the passage is nonsensical. Note that the script used for the scholion is used regularly for the remaining μόνον-materials (i.e., scholia and readings) found in 344mg. 383 Field marked his retroverted SH sub ※ (1.239, designated “Aliter”), footnoting SH’s stylized lemniscus. See de Troyer’s comments on the attention 344’s (second?) scribe granted to hexaplaric sigla with respect to marginal readings (2020: 103–07). See further below (→ §3.4). 384 Burris, who I thank for flagging this up, mentions this without comment (2009: 292). 385 1911: 64, n. 1. A similar sentiment was made more recently by Pummer (1998: 273).

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 347

(e.g., Exod 8.19[23]‫§ → ב‬2.3.1 and passim), here such was more carefully differentiated (see Num 13.33‫ ג‬which is similar). ► του Αμορραιου :: ‫ ܕܐ ̈ܪ ܐ‬: Whether or not the translator(s) produced the plural here is difficult to establish. GDeut’s practice was to use the plural, save for the current parallel at Deut 1.19 and 20.386 In isolation, the variation between the s-group and SH387 is somewhat difficult to explain. Granted, the earlier rendering at Num 10.10‫§ →( ב‬3.3.2) supports the plural.388 However, since the singular is in compliance with the parallel, it is most probable that the sgroup represents the original. Perhaps the Syrian scribe(s) added a seyame out of habit. ► οπερ κ̅ς̅ :: ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ̇ܗܘ ܕ‬: The s-group here reads more idiomatically than SH (= ὃ κυριος in the parallel). οσπερ / οπερ was rendered by the Syrians with ‫( ܐ ܐ‬see Wis 19.18). On κ̅ς̅ and ‫ ܐ‬, see at Num 20.13‫ ג‬as well as EXCURSUS C. ► ημιν and : Against the GDeut parallel, the μόνον-translation has “to us.” Irrespective of the original389 parallel, the translation is in agreement with SP.390 Num 13.1‫ב‬: Verses 1‫–ב‬1‫ ד‬exhibit greater difference between the s-group and SH. The difficulty lies with identifying which of the readings better represents the original μόνον-translation, while at the same time trying to explain how the secondary reading(s) came about. ► ειδε (130-344) :: ειδετε (85) and ‫ ܘ‬: The latter is septuagintistic, agreeing with the uniform GDeut text against SP, ST, and all extant, parallel Hebrew evidence.391 Contrarily, 130-344’s reading agrees with SP (‫ראה‬, rē’i392) and ST (‫חזי‬, without variant) in reading the singular. Certainly, it is not unimaginable that ειδεοτιεδωκεν could be corrupted to ειδετεοτιεδωκεν, perhaps under the influence of GDeut. This would suggest a secondary, independent septuagintism (cp. GDeut 1.8, 21) on the part of MS 85, itself not free from error in || 386 Wevers, NGTD, 12. 387 Though Field diligently recorded this, neither Wevers’ AppII nor Burris (2009: 291) distinguish between the s-group and SH. 388 In the μόνον-readings, the plural occurs at Num 10.10‫ ב‬and 21.20‫א‬. JNum 13.1‫( א‬fol. 281‫)ܒ‬ has the plural, though this also could have come from PDeut. 389 υμιν] ημιν A 82*vid-426c O-618oI 551cII (1°) Arab Armap = M; υμας 246f. Wevers was unsure which was original in GDeut (NGTD, 12). Perhaps by the translator’(s) time the latter was the reading. 390 The same applies to ο θς̅ ημων / ‫( ܐ ܐ ܕ‬AppI): ο θεος υμων 58oII-72c O-376O-707oII b–537* 56′-129f WI-127n s–85mg 730 71′-527y 18′-630′z 28mx 59mx 407′mx Aeth. 391 On the GDeut variance vis-à-vis the extant Hebrew, see McCarthy’s evaluation (BHQap); she is of the opinion that GDeut, PDeut, TgPJ N all contextualized the form to the plural (following Wevers 1997, see her reference). 392 Ben-Ḥayyim 1977: 491.

348 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

the μόνον-passages (e.g., om. προς in 13.1‫ג‬, κατασκοπησωμεν at 13.1‫ג‬, om. κ̅ς̅ in Num 27.23‫)א‬. However, the next case militates against this explanation. ► οτι εδωκεν :: ‫ ܐ‬: In relation to the above variant, the s-group, in using οτι aligns itself with the PDeut and Jewish Tg traditions in exhibiting a conjunction393 against SP and ST. However, the choice of verb is acceptable. The SH is vice versa, lacking any conjunctive particle but reading a verb which is obviously influenced by GDeut’s παραδεδωκεν (see Num 10.10‫ ג‬where 767 confirms the retroversion → §3.3.2).394 The established septuagintism of the translation better supports SH’s παραδιδωμι. Perhaps, the s-group represents a scribal process as follows (for this and the above variants): ειδετεπαραδεδωκεν (SH’s Vorlage) → ειδετεοτιδεδωκεν (85’s Greek) → ειδεοτιδεδωκεν (s-85). This better explains the s-group MSS while also maintaining the character of the μόνον-translation established thus far. ► εμπροσθεν :: προ προσωπου395 / ‫ ܡ ܨܘ ܐ‬: While both can serve SP’s ‫לפני‬, GDeut does not evince εμπροσθεν whatsoever.396 Again, based on the characteristic septuagintism of the translation, the s-group is secondary at this point.397 ► σου 1°–3° and σοι :: ‫ܢ‬ ‫ ܕ‬1°–3° and ‫ܢ‬ : SH’s Greek is septuagintistic. The corresponding pronouns in GDeut are all plural without exception in extant MSS.398 All SP and ST MSS read the singular (without variant) both here and in Deut 1.22. While an explanation based on scribal error is desirable, the shift in the second person singular to second plural is so thoroughgoing that one should seriously consider the possibility that the Hebrew the translator(s) were working from read this way.399 Certainly, mechanical means in Greek (υμων /

|| 393 GDeut AppI: παραδεδωκεν] pr οτι 19b Aeth = Tar. ‫ ܐ‬in 394 See the use of ‫ ܒ‬at SH Num 14.1; 21.23; 31.41, 47, and 32.9, et al versus that of 21.3 and 32.4. Field correctly distinguished SH’s verb, whereas Wevers (AppII) and Burris (2009: 291) fail to mention the variance. 395 Field correctly retroverted based on GDeut (1.239), while both Wevers (AppII) and Burris (2009: 291) do not mention the variance. 396 Eleven times in GPent according to H-R (459, Gen and Num only). In Deut, scattered evidence is found in AppI (1.33; 3.28; 9.3; and 31.3 [twice]) and only three occurrences in AppII (σ΄ in 10.11 and 23.13; Fb at 25.9). 397 SH used ‫ ܡ‬for εμπροσθεν (see Gen 45.5; 46.28; Num 14.43). 398 See Wevers AppI at Deut 1.21: υμων 1°] > d–106; υμων 3°] > 669*z; υμιν 2°] > 72oII-618oI 53′-56f 75′n 71′-527y Aeth. Note also while rampant υμων / ημων confusion occurred in the tradition, the form remained plural. 399 A mechanical explanation is also unlikely with respect to Samaritan Hebrew. That is to say, while it is feasible the translator(s) misread the suffix in Samaritan Hebrew ‫ ־כם‬as ‫־כ‬, the reverse is less probable.

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 349

υμιν → σου / σοι or σου / σοι → υμων / υμιν) are unlikely to explain the difference between the s-group and SH. That the translator(s) would have altered the entire verse, in addition to those differentiations present in v 1‫( ג‬some of which ≠ GDeut), simply to conform to the GDeut parallel, overreaches the septuagintism typical of the μόνον-passages as a whole. The translation is septuagintistic—but within limits. Compare also, the cases at Num 21.11‫( א‬where the 2 pl. in s-group and SH ≠ SP) and 27.23‫( ב‬SH’s 2 pl. ≠ SP, s-group, and GDeut). ► αναβας / κληρονομησον / φοβου :: / ‫ ܬܘ‬/ ‫ ܬܕ ܢ‬: As with the pronouns in v 1‫ ב‬the verbs also differ between the s-group and SH, the former transmitting second singular, while the latter second plural. Whereas the GDeut parallel greatly influenced SH’s Greek, the s-group is only influenced in the way ‫ עלה רש‬is translated, utilizing the septuagintistic formula: participle + imperative.400 ► καθα :: ον τροπον / -‫ ܒ ܐ ܕ‬: As McClurg rightly explained (→ §3.3.2 at Num 21.22‫)ב‬, and as Field earlier retroverted,401 SH’s Greek here is clearly from the parallel and as such likely the original translation. Regardless of the origins of the s-group’s καθα, both ably render ‫כאשר‬.402 ► ελαλησεν :: ‫ ܐ‬: This is the fourth of five lexical variants in 1‫ ב‬alone. SH consistently differentiated between ειπον and λαλεω, and thus its Vorlage read ειπε(ν).403 It is not unimportant that the ειπεν is septuagintistic and without variant in the GDeut tradition. If it can be held that SH translated the original μόνον-passage, as opposed to the s-group (= SP and ST both here and in Deut), then it is possible that whatever alteration led to the s-group’s ελαλησεν, also accounts for the above καθα. ► θς̅ των π̅ρ̅ω̅ν̅ :: ° ‫ ܐ ܐ‬: The omission of “of [your] fathers” in the SH is due to an homoioteleuton(/arcton?).404 It is fortunate, however, that this mistake, be it a misreading by the Syrians or a previous Greek copyist, affords the opportunity to confirm that the SH’s Greek did read with the plural. This is so, since the same mistake cannot be reasonably reproduced from a text with the singular: θεοστωνπατερωνυμωνυμιν → θεοσυμωνυμιν (via των ∩ υμων), but not θεοστωνπατερωνσουσοι → θεοσσουσοι. The first || is based on an imperative verb (Perkins 1980: 255–56; cp. 400 The SH need not imply that ̇ ‫ܘ‬ SH). Num 10.10‫ ג‬εισελθονται (sic) κλιρονομησαται 767 / ‫ܬܘܗ‬ 401 1.239. 402 GPent used both with a fair amount of frequency (so H-R). 403 This was correctly recognized by Field (ειπε [1.239]); both Wevers (AppII) and Burris (2009: 290–93) omit mention of the variance. 404 Field’s assessment “fort. excidit των πατερων” is correct (1.239).

350 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

possibility would involve the second plural pronoun, whereas the latter is much less likely to produce any such eye-skip at all (i.e., των ∩ πατερων would still preserve πατερων).405 ► οκνησης :: δειλιασητε / ‫ܪܕܘܢ‬ ‫ ܬ‬: Wevers406 presumed that SH’s ‫ܕ‬ (ethpa.) reflects the s-group’s οκνεω; Field, however, was quite right to retrovert SH in accordance with the GDeut parallel.407 The disagreement is not merely verbal number, as Wevers’ AppII purports, but also of the very word used to translate. Thus, SH’s Greek was septuagintistic and, as such, likely represents the original μόνον-translation. On the other hand, the s-group’s, while giving good, coherent sense, is difficult to parse in relationship to SH. It is tempting, however, to see some semantic connection with ST’s figurative ‫( ואל תשתפל‬var: ‫ ולתשתפל‬MS C). ‫ שפל‬in the ethp. occurs in STJ four times:408 here, the parallel in Deut 1.21 (for Hebrew ‫)חתת‬, the similar warning in Deut 31.8 (also ‫)חתת‬,409 and Gen 42.1 (rendering ‫)תתיראו‬. Tal accordingly interprets these as meaning ‘to fear’.410 Certainly a sense of fear is present, as ‫ שפל‬was used twice to translate ‫חתת‬, in parallel to ‫ לא תירא‬/ ‫אל‬. Still wider Aramaic suggests the notion of lowliness, humiliation, or cowardice (≈ ‫)חתת‬. ST then appears to represent a developed sense of being overcome by fear. This is particularly so in the case of Gen 42.1—the only instance of the four from a different context. The idea there is that Israel’s sons were paralyzed by fear,411 something οκνεω captures well.412 Fear causes cowardice, in turn causing

|| 405 An explanation claiming that the SH copyist(s) erred, while possible, is unlikely. JNum’s reading reflects SH’s, implying the original SH read this way. Had the error been committed by the SH copyist(s), it would have had to have been produced by both this particular MS and the one Jacob of Edessa was using. 406 Also Burris (2009: 292) following AppII. 407 1.239. SH Num 22.16 and Judg 18.9 evnice ‫ ܐܢ‬for οκνεω (see also Acts 9.38 [both P and Hark]), while the present root obtains at SH Deut 1.21; 31.6, 8; and Josh 1.9; 8.1 (all representative of δειλιαω). 408 According to the CALex (searched July 2015). See Tal’s Introduction for the sources he used to reconstruct Deut (1983: 21). 409 Variant: ‫( תרקף‬MS E) interpreted by Tal as “to be dismayed” (DSA, 1‫רקף‬, ‫ קל‬2). 410 DSA, ‫שפל‬, ‫אתפעל‬, 1 (where he cites Deut 1.21 and Gen 42.1 directly). M. Sokoloff does not list any such connotation for Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (2002: 564). 411 Vocalized tittīrā’u as if hithp. from ‫( ירא‬Ben-Ḥayyim 1977: 393, 128; ≠ MT’s ‫ ִתּ ְת ָראוּ‬from ‫ראה‬, see HALOT, s.v.); note the ST variants: ‫“ תדחלון‬you fear” (MECB; ‫ תדעלון‬V) and ‫תחסכון‬ “you hold back” (A and m). 412 While a neutral sense of hesitation occurs (e.g., GNum 22.16), the “collateral” senses surveyed in LSJ (s.v., I.3) often bear a sense of shame, fear, cowardice, or indolence; see the glosses in BrillDAG, s.v., and Spicq, TLNT, s.v.

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 351

inertia. In each of these contexts, the sons (or nation) of Israel were reproached for fear-induced inaction. Certainly any direct connection between ST and the sgroup here is unlikely—unless the s-group had access to readings from σαμʹ (see below after attribution). Whatever the case, the s-group rendering has obviously moved away from SH’s representation. Num 13.1‫ג‬: The differentiation between the s-group and SH continues. ► αποστειλωμεν (85-130; -λομεν 344) and ‫ܪ‬ : Field retroverted SH as αποστειλωμεν in compliance with the parallel. 344’s is merely an orthographic variant found in other MSS at the parallel.413 The scribe clearly meant the subjunctive (cp. κατασκοπησωσιν) and ω / ο switching is not uncommon in the MS tradition (cp. MS 767 → § 4.3.2 at Deut 2.7‫)ג–א‬. ► εμπροσθεν :: προ προσωπου / ‫ܨܘ ܐ‬ ‫ ܡ‬: For comment, see 13.1‫ב‬ above.414 ► κατασκοπησωμεν ° (-σωσιν ημιν 344) την :: -‫ܒ‬ ‫ ܘ ܒ ܘܢ‬: The diverse representation of the passage continues with the translation of ‫ ויחפדו לנו‬which, contrary to Wevers’ (and Burris’)415 collation, is very different. First is the s-group: MS 344 preserves the oldest representation of the translation. This is indicated not only by its closeness to SP but also in its preservation of the indirect object. Despite the lexical disagreement with SH, both it and 344 attest ημιν / showing it was part of the original translation. Being, together with MS 85, the oldest MSS in the group by roughly 150 years (→ §3.4), 344 can be expected to transmit the oldest text the s-group has to offer. The corruption away from 344’s text—which still yields good sense—could be explained graphically (perhaps some sort of aural confusion also contributed?). Given that the previous verb is first-person plural (aor. subj.), it is easier to imagine that scribes would make this mistake. Moreover, one must consider which is more probable: that 344 corrected the text or that MSS following 344’s type corrupted it. Importantly, the remainder of the s-group’s representation cannot be called septuagintistic (≠ και εφοδευσατωσαν ημιν).416

|| 413 GDeut AppI II: αποστειλωμεν] ο΄ οι λ΄ αποστειλωμεν 344s; -λομεν Fb 72οΙΙ 343s 630*z 407mx. 414 Field appears to have changed his mind at this point: “προ προσωπου (s. εμπροσθεν)” (1.239). But as stated above, this is unlikely as εμπροσθεν was rendered by SH with ‫ ܡ‬which is, in any case, incongruent with the septuagintism typical of the translator(s). 415 AppII: κατασκοπησωμεν (-σωσιν ημιν 344s SH); also Burris 2009: 292. 416 Cp. AppII: σ΄ ινα (> Fb) κατασκεψονται (+ nobis terram SH) Fb(s nom) 108b(s nom et ind ad προτερους) SH. One wonders if the s-group was influenced lexically by the context of GNum 13.3 itself: αποστειλον σεαυτω ανδρας, και κατασκεψασθωσαν την γην των Χαναναιων … .

352 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

Second is SH:417 Matters surrounding ‫ܒܐܪ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ ܒ ܘܢ‬are complex. Field’s retroversion, upheld by Wevers et al,418 is incorrect.419 Rather, had the SH translator(s) seen εφοδευσατωσαν (without variant in GDeut) ημιν την γην in ̇ the margins of their exemplar, ‫ܐܪ ܐ‬ ‫ ܓ‬would have resulted as SH 420 Deut 1.22 proves. Instead other scenarios must be formulated to account for the reading. The first considered prospect is scribal confusion via the Hebrew. This would require guttural confusion421 with ‫ פ‬/ ‫ פ‬and ‫ ד‬/ ‫ ב → ד‬/ ‫ ב‬and ‫ ר‬/ ‫ר‬, respectively. While feasible, it hardly constitutes lectio facilior. The immediate context of the chapter—the spies and their activities—should not have permitted the accidental confusion, at any level, resulting the in loss of “and let them spy out….” A second possibility is that the translator’(s) Vorlage read differently.422 Properly retroverted, the SH reflects και διηλθετωσαν ημιν (εν?) τη γη / την γην. However, the ημιν here feels awkward. Perhaps the Caesarean SP had been originally levelled not only with the Deuteronomic parallel but also the accounts the spies themselves give of their actions in both Num 13.32 ‫הארץ אשר‬ ‫( עברנו בה לתור אתה‬stated by those spies who spoke negatively) and 14.7 ‫הארץ‬

|| 417 SHL is confirmed by JNum (fol. 282‫)ܐ‬: ‫ܐܪ ܐ‬ ‫ܘ ܒ ܘܢ ܘ ܓ ܢ‬. Jacob added ‫ܘ ܓ ܢ‬ from PDeut in accordance with his typical practice (→ §5.2). 418 Wevers, AppII; Burris 2009: 292; also see von Gall’s App ad loc (vid). 419 Field himself displayed some disquiet, i.e.: “εφοδευσατωσαν (‫( ”) ܒ ܘܢ‬1.239). 420 SHV was not available to Field. Compare, α΄ in SHV Gen 42.9 (AppII): κατασκοποι (‫ܓ ̈ ܐ‬ .‫ ]ܐ‬SH M 57-413cI(s nom) 127(nom absc)-344s Barh. ‫ ܒ‬is simply too SH)] αʹ εφοδευται [‫̈ ܒܐ‬ general to have represented εφοδευω. Compare the Symmachan reading in SHV Deut 1.22. 421 Guttural confusion (or switching) is of course well attested by Samaritan sources, and according to Ben-Ḥayyim’s rules the ‘ayin here was not pronounced (wyå̄få̄du, Ben-Ḥayyim 1977: 104, 491, 519) and thus could have been replaced (2000: 39 and 42). Note that in opposition to rule four (that an initial ‘ayin is pronounced before an ‘a’ vowel), the case at Num 21.18 (‫ חפרוה‬pronounced ‘å̄få̄ruwˈwā [1977: 104]) still produced ‫ ח‬/ ‫ ע‬confusion in the MS tradition (von Gall MSS H and P have ‫)עפרוה‬. Furthermore, as Florentin explains (2012: 341), Samaritan scribes did not have fixed orthographic practices, unlike their Masoretic counterparts. For more on Samaritan guttural confusion and its place within the wider Hebrew from the Second Temple period, see Schorch 2008: 177–78, with literature. 422 The Samaritans themselves apparently had problems with the Hebrew as ST attests. Tal interprets MS J’s ‫ ויגשון‬as “that they may explore,” while MSS VMBA (‫ )וישודון‬and MSS EC (‫ )וישעדון‬mean “that they might endear” (Tal 1999: 309, with n. 39; cp. DSA, ‫שעד‬, where MS C is recorded as ‫)וישחדון‬. For ‫ שעד = שוד‬/ ‫ שחד‬in the imperfect, see R. Macuch 1982: 190–91. Note that one ST witness (a citation from TM) reads ‫“ וירומון‬they might search” (thus Tal, DSA, 3‫)רום‬. See also McCarthy’s summary (BHQap). Von Gall also provided the differing Arabic versions in his apparatus.

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 353

‫( אשר עברנו בה לתור אתה‬Joshua and Caleb’s account). It is then feasible that the μόνον-translation originally read και διηλθετωσαν (εν αυτη)423 και εφοδευσατωσαν ημιν την γην,424 reflecting SP ‫ויעברו )בה( ויחפדו לנו את הארץ‬. Thus, one could presume an haplography, perhaps approximating a single line of marginal text: καιδιηλθετωσανεναυτηκαιεφοδευσατωσανημιντηνγην → (και -τωσαν ∩ και -τωσαν) → καιδιηλθετωσανημιντηνγην.425 Granting this reconstruction, in which SH and the s-group both committed different haplographies, SH may still preserve a true SP variant. ► και υποστρεψουσιν :: αναγγειλατωσαν / ‫ =( ܘ ܕ ܢ‬JNum): Field correctly reconstructed SH, which in this case corresponds directly, more or less,426 to the GDeut parallel. Note that, according to SH, the μόνον-rendering cannot be reconciled to the extant witness of SP (‫ וַ יָּ ִשׁיבוּ‬from √‫ = שוב‬ST ‫ויעזרון‬427 from √‫)חזר‬ outside of the GDeut parallel,428 unlike the s-group. ► λογον :: αποκρισιν (?)429 / ‫ܐ‬ (= JNum): Though either the s-group or SH can render SP, only the latter is septuagintistic. The SH, presuming with the wider data that it is closer to the original μόνον-translation here, also varies in translation for the next verse’s ‫ דבר‬in accordance with the GDeut parallel. This is different from the s-group, which produces the same λογος. Determining how the s-group’s λογον came about is not easy to explain. An interesting comparison is the σαμ΄-reading at Num 31.16: δια λογου Φοφωρ Cʹ’.430 However, against || 423 Cp. SH and GNum 14.7 (with the hexaplaric reading). 424 εφοδευω takes the accusative; cp. SH Deut 1.22 reading ‫ ܐܪ ܐ‬... ̇ ‫ܘ ܓ‬. While it is odd the Syrians would translate the accusative την γην with ‫( ܒܐܪ ܐ‬instead of ‫ ) ܐܪ ܐ‬compare, ̇ ‫ ܘ ܒ ܒ‬for και διηλθεν πασαν (την) αιγυπτον. As in other cases, the SH Gen 41.46: ‫ܪ‬ translators for Num and Deut need not be the same person. Further, the haplography suggested here may have also influenced the scribe(s). 425 Perhaps παρερχομαι is also possible (cf. GNum 13.32 and 14.7) as it is far commoner in GPent than διερχομαι. 426 Field (1.239); Burris (2009: 292), following Wevers, neglects to indicate as much. In light of the septuagintism in the passage generally, αναγγειλατωσαν is preferable; απαγγελλω (e.g., SH Gen 46.31; Num 11.27) is also possible (AppI II). 427 MSS EC ‫ויעזרו‬. 428 See Wevers who called GDeut’s rendering “unusual” (NGTD, 14). 429 So in SH Deut 1.22; see PS 2.2930. Note however, SH Job 15.2, 31.14, and the sub ※ reading (restored to .‫ ܣ‬by Ziegler) at 32.13mg all produce ‫ܐ‬ (‘a return of word’ → ‘reply’ = Sir .‫ ܬ‬.‫ ܐ‬at Mic 3.7 (= Prov 15.1; Sir 5.11). 8.9); see also ‫ܓ ܐ‬ 430 Pummer (following Kohn) believed this possibly was related to ST’s ‫( על ממלל‬1998: 301– 02, but compare his n. 176).

354 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

this, the s-group’s περι της οδου following can hardly represent ST’s ‫;ית אורעא‬431 SH’s ‫ ܐܘܪ ܐ‬is closer to ST semantically, but is obviously derived from GDeut’s consecutive accusatives αποκρισιν την οδον.432 As it stands, the s-group’s λογος avoids sure analysis, though the correspondence to the σαμ΄ reading is conspicuous.433 ̇ ‫ ܕܒ‬: Neither the s► διʼ ης ανελευσομεθα :: διʼ ης αναβησομεθα / group nor the SH’s word order corresponds to SP or ST. While the order of both corresponds to the GDeut parallel, the verb choice in the s-group disagrees with that in GDeut 1.22 (αναβαινω). It is difficult to imagine SH reflects anything other than the parallel, given the practice of the μόνον-translator(s).434 ► εις ας εισελευσομεθα ° :: ‫ ܗ ܕ‬: Both the s-group and SH agree save the latter’s final (= εις αυτας, contra Field) which corresponds to SP.435 While the s-group fails to reflect ‫עליהן‬, what is more difficult is the s-group’s verb choice. As discussed above (→ §3.3.2 at Num 10.10‫)ג‬, it is not possible to know what SH’s translated, though the GDeut parallel used εισπορευομαι, 436 not εισερχομαι. Presumably, GDeut was the basis of the μόνον-translation, as opposed to what the s-group preserves. Were the s-scribes influenced by the recentiores?437 Num 13.1‫ד‬: SH displays typical septuagintism, while the s-group continues to differ in a couple places. ► ο λογος :: ρημα / ‫ܐ‬ : While SH did not distinguish between ρημα / λογος,438 given that the GDeut parallel very strongly supports ρημα, there is no reason to assume the μόνον-translation read otherwise.439 If this is so, this is

|| 431 MS E has ‫ ;מן שבילה‬MS C ‫“ ית שבילה‬the path.” 432 AppI: της οδου 72O Latcod 100 (+ eius) Arm. No MS has περι. 433 Or perhaps the s-group simply replaced with the more common expression? See Dogniez and Harl’s comments (BA 5.116). 434 Compare SH’s use of in Num 13.17 (18), 14.40, and Deut 1.22, each reflecting , reflects ανερχομαι based on the MS αναβαινω. SH 3 Kgdms 13.12, also translated with evidence. The verb, however, is otherwise unattested in G (thus LEH2 and H-R, 87). 435 On ‫ אליהן‬/ ‫עליהן‬, see McCarthy (BHQap). For SH’s non-translation of εις in the εις ας construction, see Perkins 1980: 126–27 (on SH Deut 1.22 itself). 436 See AppI. The evidence for some form of (εισ)πορευομαι is overwhelming. 437 AppII: εισπορευσομεθα] ο΄ θ΄ πορευομεθα 344s; σ΄ α΄ εισελευσομεθα 85(s nom)-344s; ελευσομε[θα] M. Note that while both are used by GPent, εισερχομαι occurs three times more often than εισπορευομαι. Perhaps this is a replacement by the more common verb. Both suggestions are not mutually exclusive. 438 See the above discussion → §2.3.3 at Exod 20.21‫ד‬. 439 See AppI. Field (1.239) retroverts ρημα, while Wevers (AppII) and Burris (2009: 291–92) presume the s-group’s λογος.

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 355

further proof of the translator’(s) submission to the GPent parallel. What led to the s-group’s modification is unknown; perhaps this happened when the same occurred in v 1‫( ג‬αποκρισιν → λογον). Both witnesses’ word order matches SP against the parallels. ► εν οφθαλμοις :: ενωπιον (?)440 / ‫ ܡ‬: Both can reasonably reflect the sense of SP. Here again, despite the imprecise nature of Wevers’ AppII (which Burris follows), the s-group and the Greek underlying SH differ. Had the Syrians seen ̈ εν οφθαλμοις, -‫ ܒ ܐ ܕ‬would have resulted (e.g., SH Num 33.55, 3 Kgdms 22.43, 4 Kgdms 3.2; Josh 23.13, Judg 14.3, et al). Most forcefully for this point, the SH translator(s) did so already at Exod 11.3b, twice (→ §2.3.1). Instead, SH demonstrates the rampant septuagintism of the μόνον-translation. Of interest is how or why the s-group came to differ. In accordance with Wevers’ reconstructed GPent οφθαλμοις (in any context) is relatively rare.441 What would have prompted the s-group’s literalistic revision? Attributions: Much like the textual minutiae of the passage itself, the attributions differ considerably. While the above pointed out that the witnesses present their attributions differently, the following will focus on the content and provenancial context of the attributions’ information, in an effort to determine their respective historical backgrounds. ► Attribution in SH: This annotation, again coming after the marginal reading, presents specific elements as follows: 1) the passage is ‫ܕ‬ ‫“ ܒ‬only in the Samaritans’ Hebrew [of Num]”; 2a) that Moses himself later mentioned ( ) this conversation; 2b) this reminiscence occurred in (the common text of) Deut; and 2c) the recall of what was said in Deut is produced as having been said already in Num.442 The note is reflective of those extant in SH Num generally. Compare that in JNum 13.1‫( ד–א‬fol. 282‫)ܐ‬: 443

.⟨ ‫ܒ‬

̈

⟩‫ܕ‬

‫ܐ⟨ ܒ‬

‫ܒ ̇ ܘ ⟩ܕ‬

‫⟩ܘܐܦ⟨ ܗ‬

|| 440 As Wevers pointed out (NGTD, 14), the Hebrew ‫ בעינ־‬was translated variously by GDeut: τοις οφθαλμοις (3.27 [twice], 34.4), εναντι [κυριου] (“nine times”), εναντιον (12.8, 15.18, 24.1), and only once as ενωπιον (1.23). Field reconstructed SH based on the last listing’s variant (εναντιον) in conformity with CODEX B (1.239). 441 Mostly in Gen (12 of 19 times) reflecting one’s having “raised his eyes.” 442 On these, see above (→ §3.3.1 at Num 13.33‫ו–א‬, attribution). Again, Burris understands element 2b differently (2009: 292–93).

356 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

⟨And also⟩ this is ⟨written⟩ only in the (Hebrew or exemplar?) ⟨of the Samaritans⟩.

Importantly, Jacob transmitted the chief descriptor (‫ܕ‬ ‫ )ܒ‬found in the first part of the SH attribution; this is the sole piece of information he could not have attained from the form of the attribution preserved in the s-group.444 ► Corresponding Cross-Reference from SHV Deut: As discussed above (→ §3.3.1 at Num 13.33‫ו–א‬, attribution), the original Caesarean hexaplaric ἔκδοσις not only supplied the Samaritan passages ad loc, but also provided complementary cross-references at the place of the Deuteronomic recall. The note parallel to the present case reads as follows: (twice) ‫ܐ ܀‬

̈

‫ܒ‬

‫ܗܪ ܐ ܐܬܬܘ‬

‫ܘ‬+

in Deut 1.20 (fol. The corresponding index markers are placed above ‫ܐ‬ 152b, RH margin) and just after ‫ܐ‬ in v 23 (fol. 153a, upper margin).445 While there is no explicit mention of the Samaritan text, the common verbal indicator for these cross-references ‫“ ܐܘ‬added” ( in the afel or ettafʿal, for προστιθημι) is preserved. These annotations can be split into two groups (→ Table 3.3.1.1): 1) those explicitly mentioning the Samaritan text (Deut 1.6–8; 1.42, 44; 2.24– 25) and 2) those which read, as the present cross-reference, without ‫ܐ‬ but with ̈ ‫ܒ‬ some form of ‫ܐ‬ ‫( ܐܘ‬here, Deut 1.27–33; 2.2–6, [27]28–29, 31; 3.24– 28). and Importantly, the first cross-reference explicitly mentions both ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܐܘ‬. There is thus no reason to doubt the notes are of the same mind, originating with the Caesarean collation; see further above (→ §3.3.1 at Num 13.33‫ו–א‬, attribution).

‫̈ ܐ‬

|| 443 RH margin, encircled. Future MS autopsy is required for this note. The reconstructed words, for which space allows, are taken from the similar annotation at JNum 13.33‫( ו–א‬fol. 284‫)ܒ‬. For Jacob’s Samaritan attributions, see below (→ Table 5.2.3.2). 444 When Jacob bothers to reproduce these, they are in general agreement with the information SH provided as opposed to verbatim representations (→ §5.2.3). Thus Jacob’s ‫ ܒ ̇ ܘ‬need imply SH’s Vorlage read γραφομενα. not disagrees with SH’s ‫ ;ܒ ܒ ܐ‬nor does his ‫ܒ‬ 445 This is provided twice because the reading spans two folia; otherwise, one of the ind markers could have been orphaned, perhaps being later confused for something else.

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 357

► The S-Group Attribution Scholion: The much referenced scholion found in 85′-321′-344 differs from that in SH in many ways, viz., placement (see above), provided details, and (with respect to common elements) the order thereof. Yet the most critical difference is not the communicated information but the origins of that information. Simply put, the Samaritan collation in the sgroup has no discernible historical background—the SH’s does. As such, there is no reason to assume the s-group’s attribution scholion is pristine, untouched by later scribal activity. Where then did it come from? And why does it differ so significantly from the SH’s, whose textual pedigree is easier to document? These are important questions, especially in light of the generally positive assessment of this note and its alleged connections with Origen’s own hand—a valuation as old as Montfaucon (→ §1.2.1.2). His assessment has (via Field’s endorsement) profoundly influenced all subsequent scholarly discussion.446 However, Montfaucon came to this conclusion in 1713, without the benefit of SH, specifically the Num colophon reviewed above (→ §3.2). Field’s description—so influential on later scholarship as the publication of record—basically rehearsed Montfaucon’s (→ §1.2.2).447 Whatever the case for the note’s author, the divergence between SH and the s-group is still acute. Presuming the genesis of each source’s μόνον-passage was in fact the Caesarean collation, one source represents an altered version of the attribution. Which version of the attribution scholion is secondary? ► ► Provided Details and Order thereof: In contrast to SH, the s-group’s attribution claims: 1) the passage is mentioned (μνημονευει) in the beginning of Deut; 2) these are from “the Hebrew [text of Num] of the Samaritans,” and MSS

|| 446 A rough break-down of opinion on the authorship of the scholion: Origen’s (or very probably): Montfaucon 1714: 19 (PG 15.37); Field 2005: 155 (1.lxxxiii): Stuart [1826]1832: 681; Kohn 1865: 65; Rahlfs/Glaue 1911: 64; Swete 1914: 437; Devreesse 1954: 130, n. 6; Tal 1989: 433–34; Fernández Marcos, 2000: 167, amongst many others. Not Origen’s (or such is not self-evident): Kahle 1915: 23–24; Pummer 1998: 272–73. Understandably, some avoid the matter (e.g., Waltke 1965: 67 [vid]; Jellicoe 1968: 129, 245). For Origen’s supposed involvement with the hexaplaric SP collation, see further below (→ §6.2). 447 Note that while Field had access to SH Num, the extant evidence at that time lacked the colophon.

358 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

3) a supposed direct citation of the collator(s): “which we excerpted adapting448 (them) in conformity with449 the (passages) from the οʹ ερμηνεια of Deut.” Again in comparison to SH: the first component is put in the second place, and the key descriptor, i.e., μόνον / ‫ܕ‬ ‫ ܒ‬, was omitted. SH’s second part is placed first and altered; parts 2a and 2b are preserved, but the s-group scholion makes a point of mentioning that such is found in the beginning of Deut—something not provided by SH in the present450 attribution. Lastly, there is (what appears to be) a direct citation of the original Caesarean critic’(s). This last piece of information is most remarkable and crucial for historical analysis. ► ► Why is the οʹ ερμηνεια specifically referenced? When compared to the SH Deut cross-references, the claim that the passage had been adapted from the οʹ ερμηνεια is most natural. In fact, when compared to the cross-reference found at SHV Deut 1.6–8 (→ §3.3.1 at Num 13.33‫ו–א‬, attribution; §3.3.2 at 10.10‫ג–א‬, attribution), there is a genuine family resemblance between the two: (μετεβαλομεν καταλληλως ≈)

‫( ܀‬s-item 2 =) ˹‫ܐ‬

‫( ܐܘ‬των οʹ ερμηνεια ≈) ‫ܗܪ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܘܢ ܒ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬ ‫̈ ܐܐ‬

÷

‫˺ܒ‬

There is no reason to assume an overly literal interpretation, restricting the translator(s) procedure to having cribbed text later transmitted sub οʹ only.451

|| 448 Though Fernández Marcos translates μετεβαλομεν as “translated” here (cp. in Josephus, Ant. 1.10; also JW 1.3, where this sense is evident), the dual notions of copying/transcribing and adapting/changing, both activities denoted by μεταβαλλω (see BrillDAG, s.v., 1, a; also LSJ, s.v., II), better convey the process described by these scholia. Compare Stuart’s much earlier rendering ([1826]1832: 681) “… which we have also transferred from …” which adhered more to Montfaucon’s (… transtulisse …, & quidem modo ad Editionem LXX. accommodato … , → §1.2.1.2). That the verb does not demand an act of translating per se, but rather implies copying/excerpting, i.e., a literal change in position (i.e., from one place to another), compare the instance in the prologue to the Acts of Pilate: καὶ μεταβάλλετε εἰς ἕτερα βιβλία “…and translate (or copy) it into other books …” (M. James’ ET; 1924: 95). James’ “copy” seems more natural there as far more users of the MS in question would copy than translate a given text. Whether or not one understands the verb in a strict sense as “translate,” the activity was nevertheless carried out by cribbing the parallels, which the note specifies in any case. 449 My “in conformity with” is a gloss from BrillDAG, s.v. 450 Note, however, that at Num 13.33‫§ →( ו–א‬3.3.1, attribution): ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ ܕ ܐܦ‬ ... ‫ܐ܀‬ ‫ܐ ܕܬ‬ ‫ܒ‬. 451 E.g., ο΄ πορευομεθα 344s at Deut 1.22 disagrees with both the SH and s-group.

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 359

The SH Deut cross-reference and the s-group scholion do not contradict each other here; only GDeut was meant (→ §4.4.1). ► Which attribution is more “original”? However, even if the differently expressed contents of the attributions in SH and the s-group were to be explained or reconciled, one of them is still secondary. When the attributions found in the s-group are viewed as a whole, in comparison to the same in SH, it becomes clear that the former are indeed secondary to the latter.452 Of the five attributions in the s-group (Num 31.20‫ ד–א‬lacks any attribution whatsoever), only three mention the Samaritans (here, → 21.11‫א‬, and → 21.12‫)ג–א‬.453 The other two either attribute the reading to οʹ (but → Num 14.45‫ )א‬or cross-reference Deut only (→ 14.45‫?א‬, 27.23‫ !)ב–א‬Even worse, only one of the five makes clear that “only” SP Num has the passage in question (→ Num 21.12‫ג–א‬: εν μονοις των σαμαρειτων).454 Yet this is the defining, textual characteristic of the Caesareabased, hexaplaric Samaritan collation. How could this have been mentioned only once? Thus, the s-group attributions do not present an untouched, unchanged witness. In fact, as the below will ably argue, the s-group’s sampling of μόνονpassages was most likely the result of a consciously executed, partially accomplished, and poorly transmitted Samaritan collation in Num. The scribe(s) had many sources, hexaplaric and otherwise—something those marginalia of MS 344 make clear; for in addition to any number of hexaplaric recentiores, s-group MSS also transmit σαμ΄-type readings (→ §3.4). On the whole, the s-group’s marginalia is affected, cobbled together from various, diverse sources—including more than one Samaritan source. Probably, the present s-group attribution was similarly cobbled together.455 One ought to seriously consider that μετεβαλομεν—Δευτερονομιω was taken (or adapted) from a different context, perhaps from the missing section of the Num colophon (→ §3.2, after ln. 6). This reconstruction seems likely since the extant hexaplaric colophons transmitting first-person citations very often provided these excerpted testimonies in the final lines of the corresponding subscription (→ APPENDIX). According to this reconstruction, the s-scribe(s) took the original || 452 Field stopped short of explicitly describing the s-group notes as secondary, describing those in SH as “fuller and more perfect” (Norton’s ET, 2005: 154; 1.lxxxii: plenio vero et perfectior). Or did Field mean “more complete”? 453 The latter two, however, are suspiciously close to each other. 454 Noticeably, of all the μόνον-attributions in the s-group, this one is closest to SH. 455 It might be pointed out that the s-group transmits a number of unique scholia (see Exod 36.9; Num 1.24–37, etc.). Clearly, the scribes were actively looking for these or even composing some themselves.

360 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

μόνον-attribution (≅ SH) and flipped the order of elements (cp. 344’s scholion at Gen 4.8 → EXCURSUS D), removing the mention of “only” along with SH element 2c (both of which are implied), and split element 1 by (a) inserting the Caesarean first-person citation between ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܕ‬and ‫ ܬ‬, (b) altering ‫ܗ ܒ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܒ ܒ ܐ ܕ‬to αυτα εκ του των Σαμαρειτων Ἑβραικου, and (c) repurposing ‫ܬ‬ to reflect the adapted GDeut text (φερομενη), as opposed to the SP passage itself (φερομενα). εν τοις πρωτοις may have been taken from another μόνον-attribution (cp. that at Num 13.33‫ )ו–א‬or added ad hoc.456 This reconstruction is of course only an hypothesis. Nevertheless, whatever the process might have been, there is no evidence whatsoever that μετεβαλομεν—Δευτερονομιω was taken from an hexaplaric MS at Num 13.1. Conclusion: In the end, SH’s representation of the data is better provenanced, and analysis of both the attributions and the passage must account for this. Simply expressed, the translation policy of SH disallowed tinkering with the chosen exemplar(s) of the Caesarean ἔκδοσις, either its text or apparatus. With respect to the Samaritan materials, theirs was unequivocally a translation activity—not a collation project; whereas the s-group’s scribe(s) had no such implied purpose. Rather, the s-group scribe(s) had available to him many sources and used these to construct his marginal apparatuses—doing so, materially speaking, approximately 300–350 years after SH (→ §3.4). Was one of these sources the σαμʹ translation of Num 13.1‫ד–א‬, or some such parts thereof? Was the passage “corrected” on the basis of this translation? Whether or not one might admit such a possibility, the septuagintism of the μόνον-translation in SH is well represented in general, something the third part of the s-group attribution scholion (ironically) confirms;457 and yet the s-group’s passage contradicts this septuagintism at many points in its own reading. The result of these observations is clear: the present s-group passage and its attendant scholion are texthistorically secondary, irrespective of its textual agreement with SP. Num 14.45‫א‬: “… just as bees do …” SH (L fol. 19b RH mg ind

post ‫ܪܐ ̇ܗܘ‬

‫ ;ܒ‬V fol. 123b mg ind ☩) ‫ܘܢ ܘܪܕ ܐ ܢ ܐ ܕ ̈ܒ ܢ ܕܒ ̈ܪ ܐ ܀‬

‫ ܐܘܪ‬45‫א‬

|| 456 While this may seem like too much effort on the part of the s-scribe(s), it bears pointing out that this is the first of the passages he supplied. Perhaps the original s-collator(s) assumed his readers would read the note into the succeeding cases. 457 Again, as has been pointed out before (e.g., Pummer 1998: 274).

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 361

‫ܐ‬ ‫]ܐ‬

‫ܐܒ‬ V

SH

]

‫ܐܦ‬

‫ܐܐ‬

‫ܕܒ̇ܘܕ‬

‫ ܒ‬Attrib.

V

SH

85′-321′-344s (s nom), 343 (in-text, s nom) 45‫ א‬οʹ (+ ※ 85-321′) εις συναντησιν αυτων, και κατεδιωξαν (-ξεν 85-344) αυτους, ωσει ποιησαισαν αι μελισσαι 85′-321′-344 Attrib. και τουτων μεμνηται μωσης εν δετευονομιωι 344 (ind at 15.1 [mend]) 45‫ א‬εις συναντησιν αυτων και κατεδιωξεν αυτους ωσει ποιησαισαν μελισσαι 343 SP Num 14.45‫( א‬Deut 1.44) ⟨4Q27?⟩458 ≠ MT ⟨4Q27?⟩ ‫{ לקראתם וירדפו אתם כאשר‬1.44} 45‫א‬a ‫ וירד העמלקי והכנעני הישב בהר ההוא‬45 ‫{ וישבו אל המחנה‬1.44} 45‫א‬b ‫ ויכום ויכתום עד חרמה‬45 ‫תעשינה הדברים‬ … 45‫ א‬to meet them and theya pursued them as bees do. [45] and they smote … a

85-343-344: sg

Attribution (SH): [This is] only in the [exemplar or Hebrew?] of the Samaritans; Moses also recalls it in Deut. Attribution (344): And Moses recalls this in Deut. Num 14.45‫א‬: Despite its relative brevity, this passage is codicologically significant due both to the variety of sigla and attributions applied to the text by different witnesses as well as 343’s integration. Why is 14.45‫א‬b unmarked? The first point of interest is the failure of the collator(s) to mark the second section of the “Samaritan” Hebrew for the verse.459 The reason why the collator(s) seemingly ignored—or rather left unattributed—the second part of the SP verse, is because 14.45‫א‬b = G. As explained above (→ §1.3.2.2), the Caesarea-based collator(s) did not account for the SP = G category, for the SP = G class cannot be μόνον. Thus, και 4°—παρεμβολην falls under the regular hexaplaric schema. Sigla and “Sub-”Attributions (s-group and SH): The witnesses evince some diversity in sigla with respect to the current passage, and it is difficult to know how or why these came to be. ► sub ※ (MSS 85-321′): As described above (→ Num 13.1‫)ד–א‬, several of the μόνον-passages in the s-group are transmitted sub ※ (Num 13.1‫[ ד–א‬344 only], here, and 31.20‫[ ד–א‬344 only]). However, this is the sole occurrence in the sgroup where the asterisk is found for a μόνον-reading in a MS other than 344.460

|| 458 Jastram only says: “Col. III–V have no surviving fragments” (DJD 12.220). 459 While verse divisions are a product of the later Middle Ages, the present verse division represents an inherent sense division, viz., 15.1, the next verse, begins with divine speech covering a different topic. 460 Field claimed MS 85 did not have the asterisk (1.242, n. 32).

362 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

► sub ? in SH: Of the eleven μόνον-passages in SHL—the much older witness usually proffering the siglum for Samaritan excerpts in Num— only three of these (Num 14.40‫א‬, here, and 21.20‫ )ב–א‬are without any “sub” siglum. This bears no significance (other than perhaps scribal laziness), as nearly all are correctly attributed as “only” of the Samaritans.461 ► sub οʹ (85′-321′-344): The reckoning of the present passage with the οʹ-text is somewhat odd.462 However, given the secondary nature of the s-group’s overall attestation to the attributions, one needs to view the s-group’s suspiciously. Is this a loose indication of the s-group’s source from which the scribe(s) had taken the reading, viz., from an hexaplaric MS, that is, a copy of the “οʹ-text”? As it stands, scribal confusion may have been the cause, perhaps resulting from the s-group’s attribution having been corrupted (see below). Num 14.45‫( א‬MSS 85′-321′-344 and SH): The reading is regular, without any substantial issues. ► και κατεδιωξαν (130-321′) and ‫ ܘܪܕ‬:: κατεδιωξεν (MSS 85-344): The divergent text exhibited in 85-344 (as well as 343 in-text) is surely a secondary reading; that -ξαν could be misread as -ξεν is unremarkable (especially in cursive scripts). The same verbal shift is found in a majority variant in GDeut 1.44.463 All SP and ST464 evidence bears the plural. ► ωσει ποιησαισαν and ‫ܕ ̈ܒ ܢ‬ ‫ ܐ‬: In conformity with the typical μόνονtranslation’s septuagintism, the optative was adopted in complete conformity with the GDeut parallel.465 While the Greek of the s-group (ωσει ποιησαισαν) equates that in GDeut,466 the Syriac of SH Deut is somewhat different. SH Deut ̈ 1.44 reads ‫ܐ ܕ ܒ ܢ‬ ‫ܐ‬, differing in both the translation of the conjunction and the verb. Perkins discussed the oddity of the rendering at 1.44, noting that it differed from the more normal use of a participle in translating the optative in a

|| 461 Only those for Num 10.10‫§ →( ג–א‬3.3.2) and 14.40‫ א‬lack the descriptor; nevertheless, the typology is the same. 462 Montfaucon originally labelled the μόνον-portion of the reading as “Αλλος” (1713: 159; PG 15.745–46). Field, however, has mss 85 and 130 as sub οʹ (1.242, n. 32). 463 See AppI, where the variant is quite popular. Perhaps the alteration occurred under the influence of the singular earlier in the verse. 464 ST: ‫( ורדפו‬MS J = SP); ‫( וארדפו‬MSS MB; proleptic aleph, see Tal, DSA, s.v.); ‫( ואכתתון‬MS A, “and they crushed”). 465 The variants are negligible (Wevers’ AppI). 466 While Wevers provides the separated conjunction ως ει as opposed to the s-group’s unified form, certainly this is the result of scriptio continua.

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 363

Greek comparative clause.467 It is more probable that such indicate different translators for SH Num and SH Deut, as has been pointed out throughout this chapter, as opposed to different base-Greek. Num 14.45‫( א‬MS 343): MS 343 bears comment. Much like MSS 58, 767, and 15, this witness took some of the originally marginal μόνον-passages and consciously integrated them into its running text (→ Table 3.3.3.1). However, unlike 58, 767, and 15, whose readings had to be argued for (for the most part) on the basis of their respective hexaplaric pedigrees and SH parallels, 343 can more plainly be connected directly to its source. For the integrated Samaritan readings 343 used clearly betray the precise text form of 85-344 (e.g., κατεδιωξεν).468 This permits a concrete connection between the source and the scribe(s) who integrated, and as such, serves as a microcosm of the kind of post-hexaplaric activity in which other hexaplaric scribal “integrators” engaged (i.e., MSS 58, 767, and 15, as well as Jacob of Edessa → §5). Here 343 reads without the article μελισσαι.469 For the possible motives of 343’s integration as well as its overall placement within the s-group with respect to the μόνον-readings, see below (→ §§3.4; 5.3.5; 5.4). Attributions and cross-references: Both the Greek and Syriac traditions preserve attributions, though those in the Greek tradition are restored here based on indirect or corrupted evidence. ► Attribution in SH: For the meaning of the attribution in SH, see that at Num 13.33‫§ →( ו–א‬3.3.1, attribution). Presently, of the constituent parts of the attribution formulae, parts 1) and 2a)–2b) are alone represented. From Num 13.33‫ ו–א‬onwards, the attributions in SH (or rather their Greek exemplar[s]) omit any mention of the things in Deut 1–3 appearing “as470 already having previously been said [in Num],” which in any case is implied. ► Corresponding Cross-Reference from SHV Deut: As has been observed above, the Caesarean μόνον-collator(s) provided Samaritan cross-references in the hexaplaric ἔκδοσις of Deut. The cross-reference corresponding to the present reading is as follows (SHV, fol. 153b RH mg):

|| 467 Perkins 1980: 286–287. According to Perkins’ analysis, the Syriac translator of the passage in Num chose the more normal method. 468 343 at Num 21.11‫א‬, 21.12‫ ג–א‬and 27.23‫ ב–א‬generally aligns closer with the text represented by MSS 85-344 than that of MS 130. 469 Burris’ apparatus is correct on this point, though he mistakenly represents 344 as reading -ξαν (2009: 349). 470 See note 137 above.

364 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

‫ܐ܀‬

‫̇ܗܘ ܕ‬

‫̈ ܐܐ‬

‫ܒ‬

̈

‫÷ ܘܗ‬

At the beginning of the parallel in Deut, SHV erroneously placed the in-text indexing siglum:

... ‫ܢ‬

‫ܢ ÷ ܘܪܕ‬

‫ܐܘܪ ܐ ܕ‬

‫ ܐܘܪ ܐ ܕ‬. The companion index It ought to have been placed before ‫ܢ‬ marker is correctly placed after ‫ܕܒ ̈ܪ ܐ‬. ► Reconstructed s-group attribution from MS 344: Though Wevers records no such attribution formula extant in the s-group MSS, there is in fact a crossreference annotation in MS 344 just following its rendition of the present μόνονpassage. Brooke-McLean dutifully recorded this and indexed it to the place where the MS itself (wrongly) marked it at 15.1 (→ PLATE V.2).471 It would seem that the s-group here attests only to the latter half of the fuller attribution in SH. How the misplacement of the corrupted attribution occurred in 344 is unknown, especially as the beginning of Num 15 bears a greater connection with (Exod and) Lev472 than Deut. Perhaps a later scribe was confused and unthinkingly added an extra index marker attaching the partial attribution in 344 (cp. Num 27.23‫ )ב–א‬to the text immediately adjacent to it, the beginning of ch 15. ► Possible Greek Cross-Reference in the Catena? Though no explicit mention of SP Num is made in the catena at Deut 1.44, there is an interesting annotation which bears some resemblance to the cross-referenced annotation in SH: Catena at Deut 1.44: Text and translation CatNic ind post Deut 1.44 (1/3.1430 = MS 417cII) ΑΝΕΠΙΓΡΑΦΟΥ. Ταῦτα ἐν τοῖς Ἀριθμοῖς κεῖται ἡνίκα κατεδίωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ Ἀμορραῖος, ἤγουν ὁ Ἀμαλὴκ καὶ Χαναναῖος. This is in Numbers when the Amorite (that is to say Amalek and the Canaanite) pursued them. Though this text is somewhat difficult to associate directly with the SH Deut cross-reference (there is no mention of the Samaritans), the placement, con-

|| 471 See AppII (1911, 1/3.462). Note the reading is indexed correctly; the attribution is not. 472 See G. Dorival, BA 4.331.

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 365

tents, and precise vocabulary of the anonymous annotation (cp. Num 32.33+ → §3.3.2 at the catena scholion) should at least prompt suspicion.473 Note especially the linguistic similarity with the first half of the current SH Deut cross-reference: ‫̈ ܒ ̈ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܗ‬....474 Was this anonymous annotation originally based on the hexaplaric, Samaritan μόνον-type attribution–cross-reference tandem? Or was the catenist working independently of any such influence? Perhaps the notes suffered over time, as in the s-group. Hopefully, forthcoming studies on the catena traditions of Deut can shed light on this matter. Num 21.11‫א‬: “You shall not quarrel with the Moabites …” SH (L fol. 33b lower mg sub

ind

, ante v 12475; > V476)

‫ ܘ ܐ ܬ ܬܘܢ‬.‫̈ܐܒ ܐ‬ ‫̈ܒܒܐ‬ ‫ ܐ ܬܗܘܘܢ ܒ‬.‫ܐ‬ ̈ ‫ ܒ ܐ ܓ ܕ ܛ‬.‫ܐܪ ܐ ܕ ܘܢ ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܐܒ‬

‫ܕ‬

̈ ‫ ܀‬.‫ܗܘܝ‬

̈ ‫ܐ‬

‫ܬ‬ ‫ ܘܐ‬11‫א‬ ‫ ܐ ܓ ̇ܐܬܠ‬.‫ܬܗܘܢ‬ ‫ ܀‬.‫ܪܐ ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܗ‬ ‫ ܘܗ ܒ ܕ ܒ ̇ ܝ ܕ‬Attrib. ‫ܐ܀‬

85′s-344s (85 s nom?) → PLATE V.3 343 (in-text, s nom) 11‫ א‬και ειπεν κυριος προς Μωυσην Μη εχθραινετε τοις Μωαβιταις, και μη συναψητε (-ται 344*) προς αυτους. ου γαρ μη δω υμιν απο της γης αυτων εν κληρω, τοις γαρ υιοις Λωτ δεδωκα το ορος εν κληρω 85′-344 Attrib. και τουτων μεμνηται μωσης εν δευτερονομιω α μεν εν τω (των 130) σαμαρειτων ευρομεν 130-344 “11‫{ ”א‬21.12‫ }↓א‬και ειπεν κ̅ς̅ προς μωυσην λεγων {21.12‫ }↓ב‬συ παραπορευη σημερον τα ορια μωαβ τ‹ην› αροηρ {21.12‫ }↓ג‬και προσαξετε εγγυς υμων αμμαν μη εχθραινετε αυτοις και μη συναψητε προς αυτους ου γαρ μη δω απο της γης υιων αμμαν συγκληρον οτι τοις υιοις λωτ δεδωκα αυτην εν κληρω {21.13a↓} και απηραν εκ της φαραγγος ζαρεθ 343

|| 473 Compare SP Deut 1.44 itself: ... ‫ויצא העמלקי והכנעני הישב בהר ההוא‬. As McCarthy notes, SP here reconciles towards Num’s ethnic designation(s) for the group Deut usually calls “the Amorite” (BHQap). See also Kim, who explicitly calls SP Deut’s a “harmonizing alteration” (1994: 287). 474 Compare the s-group’s “attribution” at Num 27.23‫ב–א‬. 475 De Lagarde (1892: 115, n. 13) indexed the reading before v 13; Wevers’ AppII and McClurg just to (2011: 81) followed. However, the MS clearly has the corresponding index marker the right of the last line of v 11, itself ending with the first word of v 12 ( ). Field’s placement is correct (1.250, n. 14). 476 There does not seem to be any indication that V had this passage. The margins of fol. 132a, however, are rather full. It is not impossible that it was removed by a (previous?) scribe though the general retention of these passages in SHV Num militates against this explanation.

366 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

SP Num 21.11‫( א‬Deut 2.9) 4Q27 (DJD 12.228–29, as v “12a”) ≠ MT

‫{ ויאמר יהוה אל משה אל תצור את מואב ואל תתגר בם כי לא אתן לך‬2.9} 11‫א‬ ‫מארצו ירשה כי לבני לוט נתתי את ער ירשה‬ ‫⟨ ]בם‬+ ‫ ⟩מלחמה‬4Q27 ‫ > ]לך‬4Q27

11‫ א‬And ‫יהוה‬a said to Moses: “Youb shall not be enemies to cthe Moabitesc, nor shall youb join against themd. For I will not give eto yoube from theirf land by lot; for to the sons of Lot I gave git, the mountain,g by lot.” a

s: the Lord b SP ST: sg c SP ST: Moab d 4Q27: ⟨+ in battle⟩ e > 4Q27 f SP ST: his SP: Ar (ST: ‫ ארשה‬J / ‫ עורשה‬N; ‫ סמקה ירקה‬A “red/green gem/plant”?477; cp. above at Num 21.22‫ ;)ב‬it > s

g

Attribution (SH): And this is only extant in the [edition = ἔκδοσις] of the Samaritans. Now Moses remembers it in Deut. Attribution (130-344): And Moses remembers this in Deut, something which we found (here) in the [exemplar = αντιγραφον or Hebrew = ἑβραικῷ ?] of the Samaritans. Codicological matters: Both Brooke-McLean and Wevers’ AppII list MS 85 as having the reading without attribution. While 21.11‫ א‬specifically does not have any such annotation, the next reading does; as both are in such close proximity, it is possible the scribe was saving space on the page by having the second stand for both. (The wording of the two s-group attributions is very similar; perhaps this lends credence towards such an interpretation.) A similar phenomenon may possibly be observed for JNum 21.20‫ ב–א‬and 21.(22+)22‫ב–א‬, all of which inhabit the same folio (304‫)ܒ–ܐ‬.478 343’s Misplacement of Num 21.11‫א‬: As described above (→ Num 14.45‫)א‬, MS 343 promoted three marginal s-group μόνον-passages from the margins to its own running text. However, in the present case, 343 confused 21.11‫ א‬and 21.12‫–ג–א‬13a, omitting the former altogether. Apparently the scribe’s eye skipped (in the margin) from και ειπεν—μωυσην (11‫ ∩ )א‬και ειπεν—μωυσην (12‫)א‬ or υιοις λωτ δεδωκα το ορος εν κληρω (11‫ ∩ )א‬υιοις λωτ δεδωκα αυτην εν κληρω (12‫)ג‬, or both, replacing the instructions concerning the Moabites with those regarding the Ammonites. As a result 343 reads awkwardly for Num 21.11[=11– 12‫–ג–א‬13a]–12–13, thusly: …12‫ … ג‬οτι τοις υιοις λωτ δεδωκα αυτην εν κληρω 21.13a και απηραν εκ της φαραγγος ζαρεθ 12 και παρενεβαλον εις φαραγγα ζαρεθ 13 και εκειθεν ... . The scribe’s overly perfunctory reproduction even repli-

|| 477 Tal’s DSA is unclear at this point; cp. entries under ‫ סמק‬generally meaning “(to make) red” or “gem” (but ‫“ סמקה‬pr. n. (place)”), with entries under ‫ ירק‬meaning either “green (plant)” or “gem.” 478 For analysis of the μόνον-passages in JPent, see below (→ §5.2.3).

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 367

cated 85′-344’s most pronounced error: υμων (21.12‫ )ג‬for υιων. While it is unfortunate that the MS’s witness cannot be used to for examination of the present passage, because of the mechanical nature of 343’s blunder, it can be used for the analysis of Num 21.12‫ ג–א‬below despite its dislocation.479 Num 21.11‫א‬: The present passage contains a few items of interest related to the history of the translation: 1) The reading exhibits disagreement with the pre-Samaritan witness 4Q27 (e.g., + ‫מלחמה‬, om. ‫ → ;לך‬Num 27.23‫ א‬below). This is in accord with the analysis thus far—that the Caesarean translator(s)/collator(s) dealt with a base text closer to extant SP codices than one reflecting the pre-Samaritan type (→ §2.3 at Exod 7.29[8.4]‫ד–א‬, 20.17‫ו–א‬, and 20.21‫ט–א‬, among others). Compare Jastram’s reconstructed variant at Num 21.20‫§ →( א‬3.3.1). 2) The common testimony of the s-group and SH demonstrates thoroughgoing septuagintism—including verbal number, something which the s-group and SH previously disagreed upon (→ Num 13.1‫)ד–א‬. 3) The passage may reflect early confusion in Samaritan transmission or, possibly, an old variant (e.g., το ορος / ‫ܪܐ‬ ≠ ‫)ער‬. : As noted elsewhere (→ Num 14.40‫א‬, 20.13‫ א‬and 13‫ג‬, Table ► κυριος :: 3.3.1.2, 10.10‫א‬, and EXCURSUS C), the evidence in Num illustrates the irregularity with which the scribal tradition treated ΠΙΠΙ / in Num. To this can be added the fact that the s-group does not exhibit ΠΙΠΙ whatsoever in the μόνονpassages they transmit—despite the likelihood that the original translator(s) used the form ubiquitously. While the witnesses whose passages were integrated (e.g., MSS 767, 15, et al) can be excused for having “updated” the graphically represented divine appellation in conformity with their running text (ΠΙΠΙ in the running text of Greek MSS is exceptionally rare → EXCURSUS C), the failure of the s-group to produce even one such occurrence in the margins represents a secondary development. Note that each occurrence of κυριος in MS 344’s μόνονtexts was abbreviated. (AppII does not always signal these.) As these overlap with cases where SHL retained , it is clear that someone at some point replaced ΠΙΠΙ → κ̅ς̅. This may have been the result of Greek scribes abbreviating or seeking to clarify the meaning or otherwise “normalizing” the form. For an outline of the history of the hexaplaric ΠΙΠΙ, → EXCURSUS C.

|| 479 McClurg relocates the passage (2011: 81 and 85) without any explanation.

368 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

̈ ► εχθραινετε τοις Μωαβιταις and ‫ܐܒ ܐ‬ ‫̈ܒܒܐ‬ ‫ܬܗܘܘܢ ܒ‬480: Much akin to that at Num 13.1‫ב‬, the plural verb of the GDeut parallel influenced the translator(s). This, of course, presumes that the exemplar(s) used by the Caesarean text-critics did not have any such variations.481 As the evidence stands, however, this is a septuagintization.482 Naturally, such influence also included the gentilic. ► συναψητε (-ται 344*) προς αυτους and ‫ ܬ ܬܘܢ ܬܗܘܢ‬: The reading is of interest especially as 4Q27 is reconstructed to have added ‫ ≠( מלחמה‬SP). The hitp. ‫ גרה‬occurs four times in the MT Pent, all in Deut (2.5, 9, 19, 24); as each of these parallels a μόνον-reading, SP attests the verb eight times: Table 3.3.3.2: Presence of ‫ מלחמה‬Modifying ‫ גרה‬in 4Q27, SP, MT, G, and SH

Passage

Parallel

4Q27

SP

MT

s-μόνον / GDeut SH-‫ܕ‬

Num 20.13‫ח‬

Deut 2.5

—

no

—

—

no

21.11‫א‬

Deut 2.9

[yes]

no

—

no

no

21.12‫ג‬

Deut 2.19

[no]

no

—

no

no

21.20‫א‬

Deut 2.24

yes

yes

—

—

yes

Deut 2.5

x

—

no

no

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

2.9

x

—

483

no

2.19

x

—

no

no

yes

yes

2.24

x

—

yes

yes

yes

yes

‫ ܒ‬/ Deut

The table above is revealing with respect to how the translator(s) worked when rendering the Samaritan text vis-à-vis GDeut.484 For despite the rote septuagintism of the translation, when SP lacked ‫ מלחמה‬ad loc, the translator(s) did not supply it. This is a curious display of meticulousness, approaching (though not attaining complete) word-for-word precision (→ §4.4.1), especially as there would be some degree of ambiguity for συναπτω without an attendant

|| 480 Field’s hesitation here is unnecessarily (1.250). SH conforms to normal usage in both the lexical decision (see Num 25.17 and 18; Deut 2.9 and 19) and grammatical conversion (Perkins 1980: 252, where the parallel is given as an example of μη + pres. impv.). 481 No extant SP or ST MSS support a plural. 482 While there are variants, only one reflects the singular (AppI): εχθραινετε] εχθραινε 72oII. 483 Kim holds this was harmonized based on context, i.e., Deut 2.5 and 19 (1994: 283). 484 Pummer discussed that at Num 21.12‫ ג‬without addressing the others (1998: 274).

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 369

πολεμος.485 However, the μόνον-translator(s) did not consider this an issue, and the scribes who transmitted the Caesarean ἔκδοσις, as well as the Syrians who translated it, made no efforts to improve or clarify the meaning. Additionally, again in reference to the methodology of the original translator(s), the recentiores were not consulted; an interesting choice as the renderings of both αʹ and σʹ are less ambiguous.486 ► υμιν and ‫ܢ‬ ; αυτων and ‫ ܕ ܘܢ‬: Again given the lack of evidence to the contrary, these are septuagintistic (≠ SP ST). Note that υμιν / ‫ܢ‬ , despite the plural, represents SP as having something, contrary to 4Q27. ► το ορος and ‫ܪܐ‬ (= JNum): How το ορος came about is difficult. Pummer, previously suggested that the “Greek translator of the expansion followed the Samaritan pronunciation where ‫ ער‬and ‫ הר‬were homophone.”487 Pummer’s proposal is not without difficulty. First, it suggests the μόνον-translator(s) understood the niceties of the Samaritan reading tradition; but the translation very much attests to the opposite. Second, if it where so that the translator(s) treated ‫ ער‬in this way, it could not explain the later occurrences of ‫ ער‬in the passages where the septuagintized equivalent obtains: την Αροηρ / ‫ ܕ ܘ‬in Num 21.12‫( ב‬below) and εν τη ορινη (MS 15) :: ‫ ܒ ܘ‬in Num 21.22‫§ →( ב‬3.3.2 above).488 Why would the translator(s) (μόνον or otherwise) have done this only once? Even if the translation had been constructed in error for this first occasion, one would expect the translator(s) to back-track and emend the mistake, to provide the proper designation for the Moabite locale. Rather another solution should be sought. A more probable hypothesis for the whole of the μόνον-type evidence is that the Hebrew simply had a different consonantal text here than the extant SP. While there is no surviving MS evidence for such practice with respect to this specific geographic location,489 it is possible that the exemplar the translator(s) used read ‫ חר‬for ‫ער‬.490 This then

|| 485 See Wevers’ comments (NGTD, 29 [at 2.5]); cf. both LSJ, s.v., II.1.a–b (vs. II.2) and LEH2, s.v. 486 AppII (at GDeut 2.5): α΄ μη ερ{ε}ισητε εν αυτοις “you shall not quarrel with them” σ΄ μη παροξυνθητε προς αυτους “you shall not provoke them” 130(s nom)-321′s SH [ ‫ ܐ ܬܬܓ ܘܢ‬.‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ ܬܪܓ ܘܢ ܬܗܘܢ‬.‫]ܒ ܘܢ ܀ ܣ‬. 487 1998: 273 (emphasis mine). 488 Pummer points out the difference at Num 21.12‫( ב‬1998: 273–74) without attempting to reconcile it with his suggestion. 489 See von Gall at Num 21.11‫א‬, 12‫ב‬, 22‫ב‬, Deut 2.9, 18, and 29, each without variant for ‫ער‬. Similarly ‫( ערער‬Num 32.34; Deut 2.36, 3.13, and 4.48) is also lacking evidence of guttural confusion. ST cannot account for this either: ‫( ארשה‬J); ‫( סמקה‬A); ‫( עורשה‬N); all are proper names. 490 This is based on Ben-Ḥayyim’s study. He found that the Samaritans’ reading of the Torah reflected a vocalic blurring of gutturals which historically took place “no later than the end of

370 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

could have lead the translator(s) to read ‫ חר‬as ‫ הר‬by means of graphic confusion, which may or may not have been encouraged by whatever their GDeut parallel read—something which is impossible to determine.491 ► εν κληρω and ‫( ܒ ܐ‬both twice): Unlike before (→ §2.3.3 at Exod 20.21[17]‫)ט‬, the translator(s) rendered SP correctly against the second occurrence in the GDeut parallel κληρονομειν.492 Perhaps he was aided by the lack of a prefix ‫( ל־‬also at 21.12‫[ ג‬twice] and 20.13‫[ ח‬twice]).493 Attributions: The s-group’s attribution, together with that at Num 21.12‫–א‬ ‫–ג‬13a, represents one of two attributions which closely parallel those in SH. ► The s-group witness (MSS 130-344): The s-group witness to the attribution claims: 1) that Moses remembered this in (the common text of) Deut; and 2) that “we found” such in494 (the text of Num) of the Samaritans. Noticeably absent from this annotation is any mention of “only.”495 Most important, however, is the first person testimony (“we found”), ostensibly from the collators(!), something not occurring in the current SH attribution. Since it resembles lanaguge in the following SH attribution, it will be discussed below (→ Num 21.12‫–ג–א‬13a, attribution). ► SH’s attribution: Much a kin to that at Num 13.1‫ →( ד–א‬attribution), the elements found in both the s-group and SH attributions are preserved in a dif-

|| the Second temple period” resulting in the merging of ‫א‬/‫ה‬/‫ח‬/‫א( ע‬/‫ה‬/‫ח‬/‫ )ע‬a single consonant (2000: 38). Technically, the presupposed phonetic distortion should not have occurred according to Ben-Ḥayyim’s guttural rules, exception four (see his discussion, 2000: 39). The vocalization ʿår is used in the reading tradition (1977: 341 and 501). 491 The MS tradition is a jumbled mess of variants and mistakes. AppI: Ἀροηρ] αρωηρ 108b 75′n 392y 59mx; αροειρ 120z; αοηρ 370mg t; αρθηρ 53′-56f; litt οηρ inc F; litt αροη sup ras A; αροην 551cII; σιηρ 107′-125d; σιειρ 82O 44-106* d 630z 407mx; ασηρ 707oII 85′ mg-321′ mg s 55mx; σηιρ 74′-76-370txt t; σηηρ 602t; sēyar Aeth–C; σηειρ B 376O WI-127-767n 71′-527y 509mx Sa; (monte) seir Latcod 100; ση [… 963. In particular the variant witnessed by Latcod 100 suggest that it is possible the μόνονtranslator’(s) GDeut exemplar(s) read εν ορει ση(ε)ιρ. If this was so, then the translation could still have been the product of septuagintization. Wevers attributed the popular reading in 963, B et al as paleographically inspired: αροηρ → αοηρ → ασηρ → σηρ → σηιρ (THGD, 143; also NGTD, 33). 492 Or did the translator’s GDeut text exhibit a variant? See AppI: κληρονομειν] -μιαν (-μιν 73c) 73′cI 53′f; -μεις 458c n; in hereditatem Latcod 100 Arm Bo = M. Note again the OL. 493 Vocalized yå̄rišša (Ben-Ḥayyim, 1977: 130 and 501); ST has ‫ יורתה( ירתה‬MS N). 494 Field correctly emended MS 130 (his only witness for this attribution) from των to τω (1.250, n. 14); MS 344 confirms his emendation. 495 Field suggested that perhaps the note read μόνον instead of μεν (1.250, n. 14). However, his was made on the basis of MS 130 alone and perhaps under the influence of εν μονοις in the s-group attribution at Num 21.12‫–ג–א‬13a. MS 344, however, unambiguously reads α μεν. Neither Br.-M. nor McClurg commented on Field’s suggestion.

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 371

ferent order. SH’s alone makes reference to the unique character (i.e., ‫ܕ‬ ‫ )ܒ‬of the Samaritan passage. This attribution in SH Num is the second of four instances (20.13‫ט–א‬, here, 21.12‫–ג–א‬13a, and 27.23‫ )ב–א‬where ‫ ܒ ̇ ܝ‬is used, implying ἔκδοσις (→ Num 10.10‫ג–א‬, attribution). In contrast, the s-group’s requires ἀντιγράφῳ or (perhaps) ἑβραικῷ (cp. attrib. at 13.1‫ ד–א‬above). Num 21.12‫–ג–א‬13a: “You shall not quarrel with the Ammonites …” SH (L fol. 33b lower mg sub

ind ⁜; V fol. 132a LH mg encircled ind ☩496)

‫̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬12‫ ב‬. ‫ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ̈ .‫ ܐ ܬܗܘܘܢ ܘܢ ܒ ܒܒܐ‬.‫ܢ‬ ‫ ܘܬ ܒ ܢ ܨ ܒ ̈ ܐ ܕ‬12‫ ג‬. .‫ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܐܪ ܐ ܕܒ ̈ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ ܐ ܓ ܐܬܠ‬.‫ܬܗܘܢ‬ ‫ ܘ ܘ ܀‬.‫ܐ ܕܙܪܬ‬ ‫ ܘܐ‬13a .‫ܒ ̇ܗ ܒ ܐ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐܒ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܗܘܝ ܀‬ ‫ܒ ܕܒ̇ܝܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܕܒ̇ܝܕ‬

‫ܐ‬

]‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܬ‬SHV — ‫ > ]ܗ‬SHV

‫]ܕ ܘ‬

‫ ܕ ܘ‬SHV(vid) ‫ ܕܙܪܕ ]ܕܙܪܬ‬SHV ‫ܐ‬

‫ ܘܐ‬12‫א‬ ‫ܕ ܐܒ ܕ ܘ‬ ‫ܘ ܐ ܬ ܬܘܢ‬ ‫ܕ ̈ܒ ܐ ܕ ܛ‬ ‫ ܘܗ‬Attrib. ‫ܐ܀ܗ‬

‫ ]ܕ‬+ ‫ܕ‬

‫ ܒ‬SHV

85′s-344s (343s in-text at 21.11‫↑א‬, s nom) 12‫ א‬και ειπεν κυριος (κ̅ς̅ 344497 343) προς Μωυσην λεγων 12‫ ב‬Συ παραπορευη σημερον τα ορια Μωαβ την Αροηρ, 12‫ ג‬και προσαξετε (-ται 344) εγγυς υμων Αμμαν (εμμε 130). μη εχθραινετε (-θρεν. 130) αυτοις (αυτον 130) και μη συναψητε προς αυτους· ου γαρ μη δω απο (εκ 130) της γης υιων Αμμαν ⸂σοι εν κληρω⸃ (⸂συγκληρον⸃ 343), οτι (το 130) τοις υιοις Λωτ δεδωκα αυτην εν κληρω (οτι—κληρω bis scr 344) 13a και απηραν εκ της φαραγγος Ζαρεθ και παρενεβαλον (> κ. παρε. 343) Attrib. και τουτων μεμνηται μωυσης (μωσ. 344) εν δευτερονομιω α (> 130) εν μονοις των σαμαρειτων ευρομεν 85′-344 {“21.11‫ ↑ ”א‬12‫ }א‬και ειπεν κ̅ς̅ προς μωυσην λεγων {12‫ }ב‬συ παραπορευη σημερον τα ορια μωαβ τ‹ην› αροηρ {12‫ }ג‬και προσαξετε εγγυς υμων αμμαν μη εχθραινετε αυτοις και μη συναψητε προς αυτους ου γαρ μη δω απο της γης υιων αμμαν συγκληρον οτι τοις υιοις λωτ δεδωκα αυτην εν κληρω {13a} και απηραν εκ της φαραγγος ζαρεθ ° 343

SP Num 21.12‫( ג–א‬Deut 2.17–19) 4Q27 (DJD 12.228–29, as “13a”) ≠ MT ‫{ אתה עבר היום את גבול מואב‬2.18} 12‫{ וידבר יהוה אל משה לאמר ב‬2.17} 12‫א‬ ‫{ וקרבת מול בני עמון אל תצורם ואל תתגר בם כי לא אתן מארץ‬2.19} 12‫את ער ג‬ ‫ ויסעו מנחל זרד‬13a ‫בני עמון לך ירשה כי לבני לוט נתתיה ירשה‬ 12‫ א‬And the Lord saida to Moses, saying: 12‫“ ב‬You are crossing this day the

|| 496 Wevers AppII, also McClurg (2011: 86), correctly places SHV’s ind marker at the end of v 11. 497 344’s abbreviated form is unacknowledged in AppII.

372 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

boardersb of Moab (that is) the Adoerc 12‫ ג‬And youb will draw near dto the sons ofd Ammone. Youb shall not be enemies to themf; nor shall youb join against them. For I will not give from the land of the sons of Ammon gto you by lotg; hfori to the sons of Lot I have given it by lot.”h 13a And they departed from the torrent of Zarethj. k(And they encamped …)k a

SP ST: spoke b SP ST (‫ ת)י(צ)ו(רון‬but pl): sg c SH sic rd. w/SHV s: Aroer; SP: Ar (ST: ‫ ארשה‬J / ‫ ערשה‬Α/ ‫ עורשה‬N; ‫ ער‬V; cp. at Num 21.21‫ )א‬d s: you(pl gen) e 130: Emme f 130: him g 343: belonging to h written twice in 344 i 130: which j SP ST SHV: Zared k > 343

Attribution (SH): And this is only extant (here) in the [edition = ἔκδοσις] of the Samaritans [SHV: + only]. Now Moses recalled this in Deut. aThis is only found in the [edition = ἔκδοσις] of the Samaritans.a [a–a > SHV] Attribution (s-group): And Moses recalls this in Deut, which [> 130] we found only in the [?] of the Samaritans. The passage, intimately connected with that immediately above, contains an equal amount of septuagintism. Graphic error led to corruption in the s-group, whose witness is secondary to SH for the passage. Num 21.12‫–ג–א‬13a (= “21.11‫ ”א‬in MS 343↑): MS 343’s wrongful integration of this passage at 21.11‫א‬, as discussed above, still serves as a witness for the sgroup here. Key to the relationship between 343 and the remainder of the sgroup, in addition to those features discussed immediately below (MSS 85′-344), are the following items: ► εγγυς υμων Αμμαν (v 12‫)ג‬: The graphic error made by the s-group, υιων → υμων, is retained uncorrected by 343. Given that all s-group MSS bear the mistake (and that the mistake reads awkwardly), it is difficult to know at what point it came about (see below). ► textual distinction from MSS 130 and 344: The variants in the passage amongst the s-group (e.g., εμμε 130, αυτον 130, εκ 130, and οτι—κληρω bis scr 344) better align 343 with MS 85. Generally, however, 343’s readings align overall more closely with 344 than 85 (→ §3.4). ► συγκληρον : This is an interesting ad contextum variant which is perhaps graphically inspired σοιενκληρω → συγκληρον (?). It is nevertheless secondary. ► Omission of και παρενεβαλον : The last words of this reading are best construed as distinguishing the end delineation of the passage. The difficulty with assuming that και παρενεβαλον was meant to be part of the μόνον-reading proper is that it agrees with G itself (hence ≠ μόνον). Consequently, the και παρενεβαλον / ‫ ܘ ܘ‬is more easily interpreted as the end delimitation to the passage (cp. ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬at Num 21.22+ above → §3.3.2). This implies 343’s “omission” of και παρενεβαλον is not textual so much as a result of the process of the

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 373

integration, viz., probably, 343 omitted it as the scribe understood it was only part of the indexing system.498 Num 21.12‫( א‬s-group and SH): The first verse contains some interesting elements—including what could be a legitimate textual variant in the Samaritan tradition. ► και ειπεν and ‫ ܘܐ‬: The reading contradicts all Samaritan MSS here as well as the non-Samaritan evidence at the parallel.499 Thus, septuagintism is not an option for the variation.500 Graphic confusion is unlikely in either square or Samaritan script (‫)ויאמר → וידבר‬. However, interestingly SP Deut itself reads ‫( ויאמר‬with ST) at the parallel. Thus, the s-group / SH rendering here likely transmits a true variant SP reading. ► προς Μωυσην and ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܬ‬SHV :: ‫ܐ‬ SHL: The s-group / SHV aligns 501 L with SP and ST. SH ’s could represent a misreading of scriptio continua (–ριος ∩ –ρος) on the part of the original SH: ειπενκυριοσπροσμωυσηνλεγων → ειπενκυριοσμωυσηλεγων. (This presupposes that the Syrians’ exemplar(s) did not abbreviate κ̅ς̅ in this specific place as MSS 344 and 343.) However, since SHV is unlikely to have corrected such a reading, it is better explained as a mistake in Syriac transmission on the part of SHL’s scribe alone.502 Num 21.12‫ב‬: The verse contains two septuagintisms. ̈ ► τα ορια and ‫ܐ‬ : The GDeut parallel influences the original μόνονtranslator(s) as all extant Greek evidence suggests.503 ► την Αροηρ and ‫( ܕ ܘ‬sic, for ‫)ܕ ܘ‬: Importantly, here the translator(s) was influenced by GDeut in providing Αροηρ for ‫ער‬, unlike the case discussed above (→ Num 21.11‫)א‬. The Syriac confusion between ‫ ܪ‬/ ‫ܕ‬, particularly in this case, is well documented and has been pointed out previously on several occasions.504

|| 498 Or did this entail another haplographic error on the part of 343 at the point of (or after) integration: και παρενεβαλον (v 13a) ∩ και παρενεβαλον (v 12, → Num 21.11‫ ?)א‬Jacob’s reading is ambiguous here, as I interpret Jacob as utilizing 12‫ ג–א‬only (fol. 303‫)ܒ‬:

‫ ܘܐ‬21.13 (proper) ‫ ܀‬.‫ܕ ܒ ̈ ܛ ܒ ̇ܗ ܒ ܪܬ ܐ‬ JNum 21.12‫ ג‬... 499 N.B.: While 4Q27 is reconstructed with ‫ וידבר‬it is just as possible to reconstruct with ‫ויאמר‬ . ... ‫ ܘ ܘ‬.

‫ܬ‬

(see DJD 12.229). 500 AppI: ελαλησεν] ελαλη 707oII. 501 Variant: ‫( למשה‬MS B). could be due to SHL’s reading or a blending with the PDeut’s . 502 JNum’s ‫ܐ‬ 503 See AppI: montem Latcod 100. The OL apparently read τοορον (?). 504 Field did not specifically identify this as a graphic confusion (1.250, n. 15). The text was itself corrected by de Lagarde (1892: 115, n. 13); see also A. Hayman’s comments (ed. 1991: ix, n.

374 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

Num 21.12‫ג‬: The verse bears the rote septuagintism typical of the translator(s) as well as noticeable inner-Greek corruption within the s-group. ► προσαξετε (-ται 344) and ‫ܬ ܒ ܢ‬, εχθραινετε (-θρεν. 130) and ‫ܬܗܘܘܢ‬ ̈ ‫) ܘܢ( ܒ ܒܒܐ‬, συναψητε and ‫ ܬ ܬܘܢ‬: The shift in verbal number is in agreement with GDeut (→ Num 13.1‫[ ד–א‬SH], Num 21.11‫[ א‬both]) and thus septuagintistic, for with few exceptions the plural is maintained in the parallel.505 This is balanced, as above, with the correct delineation of the verse, i.e., the omission of εις πολεμον. ̈ ► εγγυς υμων :: ‫ ܨ ܒ ܐ‬: Here, the translator(s) show that the rendering of ‫ מול‬is dependent upon the GDeut parallel (→ §2.3.3 at Exod 20.17‫[ ו‬twice]). Note also αʹ (εγγισεις) εναντιον M C′’cat(s nom), further suggesting Aquila was not consulted in the translation process. The graphic error committed here by the sgroup alone, i.e., υιων → υμων, coincidently appears in CODEX F at Deut 2.19; unlike the s-group, Fb corrected the mistake.506 ► αυτοις and ‫ ܘܢ‬:: αυτον 130: The choice of dative is likely under the influence of GDeut. Furthermore, MS 130’s alteration may be graphic αυτοισκαι → αυτονκαι or perhaps ad contextum as only the singular Αμμαν is mentioned in the s-group, as opposed to the plural υιων. ► προς αυτους and ‫ ܬܗܘܢ‬: On balance with the first direct object, the second is more difficult to attribute to the parallel which uses the dative. Ms 426O and SH’s προς αυτους (even in conjunction with αυτους 963* 59mx) ad loc hardly establishes such a case. However, grammatically reconstructing an alternative Hebrew exemplar with ‫ ל־‬is more difficult. Whether derived from ‫ גרה‬or II‫גור‬, the most common preposition is either ‫ ב־‬for the former or ‫את־‬/‫ על‬for the latter. It can cautiously be labelled a septuagintism, in addition to the “correct” omission of εις πολεμον (→ Table 3.3.3.2 above). ► MS 130 (εμμε 130, εκ 130, το 130): The variants attested in MS 130 suggest commonplace textual corruption. Perhaps these passages were not treated by 130’s scribe with the same kind of care demonstrated by the scribes of the other s-group MSS. Of the variants of relevance only εμμε lacks parallel507 and could be perhaps assigned to some kind of graphic error. εκ underscores the decision of

|| 10). JNum is of no use here since Jacob used Greek traditions for proper names (on which see Salvesen 1999 and Marsh 2011). 505 AppI II: προσαξετε] προσεταξεν 52cII d; -ξεις 426O = M; α΄ εγγισεις M C′’cat(s nom); εχθραινετε] εχθραινε 85*(|)s. 506 See the same error by MS 963* in Deut 2.36 (AppI). 507 AppI: Ἀμμαν] αμμα 619y; αμαν 767* n; emman Bo; Ἀμμαν 2°] emman Bo.

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 375

the original translator to mimic the GDeut parallel, since 130’s preposition is also possible. ► οτι—κληρω bis scr 344: The highly repetitive nature of the present and preceding passage can explain 344’s dittography (cp. the similar case in SHL at Num 21.20‫)ב‬. Num 21.13a (→ attribution below): The partial verse is interesting as it relates to the extent to which the Caesarean collator(s) sought to provide Samaritan readings as well as to the methods by which these readings were documented in hexaplaric MSS. ► Ζαρεθ and ‫ ܕܙܪܬ‬:: ‫ ܕܙܪܕ‬SHV : Proper names have always been an issue in translation, viz., does the translator use the form of the name with which he (and his likely readership) is already familiar or does he transliterate a given name? This is particularly so when dealing with the SH; for while the translators utilized a “mirror translation” methodology, the results from proper names are generally mixed (→ §2.3.1 at Exod 8.19[23]‫)ג‬. However, in this instance, both the Greek and Syriac evidence felicitously points towards the spelling Ζαρεθ in the μόνον-translation. Note the s-group-343 itself, produces Ζαρεδ in Num 21.12 proper, in conformity with the majority of G MS tradition.508 This indicates that the sscribes did not “correct” the location’s name when adding the passage into their margins. The same obtains for SHL.509 How did this orthography originate in opposition to the majority of G parallels? Dental stops could of course become confused but how this came about is unclear. The alternative is to suggest a variant SP reading.510 Graphically, the name could conceivably be confused in square script ‫זרת → זרד‬, but this is less likely in Samaritan letters ‫→ זרד‬ ‫זרת‬.511 Given the improbability that the Hebrew tradition was confused, it is more likely Ζαρεθ was taken from a Greek parallel regardless of the fact it is not possible to establish with precision which orthographic tradition was used.512

|| 508 AppI: Ζαρεδ] ζαρεθ Fb b(−537) 127-767n 343s 509x 318c(vid)y 18-669z 55mx 799mx Bo; zireth Lat cod 100; ζαρετ B 52*cII d t 318*(vid)y; ζαρελ V; ζαρε A oI 121y; sared Sa. 509 It is possible that SHV altered the form via attraction of its selection for Num 21.12. SHV reads ‫ ܙܪܕ‬in each occurrence, be it in Num or Deut, as does P. 510 ST has ‫ זרד‬here as SP. The reading tradition vocalizes zå̄råd (Ben-Ḥayyim 1977: 324). 511 For Qumran evidence, variants are lacking, e.g., 4Q27 at 21.12 (col. 13. frag. 17 ln. 15): ‫זֿ ֯ר]ד‬. 512 In addition to that in Num 21.12, observe those in Deut 2.13 and 14: AppI (v 13): Ζαρεδ 1°] ζαρετ A B b 509mx Latcod 100; ζαρεθ Fb2 707oII 610d 246f 85txt s 18-68′c pr m -83-120z 28mx Bo; γαζερ WI n; Ζαρεδ 2°] ζαρε A(c) 121y; ζαρετ B b Aeth–C; ζαρεθ 85txt s 28mx. AppI (v 14): Ζαρεδ] ζαρετ A B b(–19) 44d WI n 121y 509mx Latcod 100; ζαρεθ F M oII–72 85txt s 68′83-120z 28mx Bo; ζερεθ Fb.

376 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

► και παρενεβαλον and ‫ ܘ ܘ‬: As argued above (→ Num 21.12‫ג–א‬, 343), the reading is used more as an endpoint marker for the passage generally. S-group and SH attributions: The s-group and SH traditions differ greatly as to the precise content and the order of such in the marginal attributions. ► The s-group’s attestation: As explained above (→ Num 13.1‫ ד–א‬at attribution), the present annotation is the best preserved of those in the s-group. As such, unsurprisingly, it is also the closest to the parallel note in SH. Conspicuously, this is the lone s-group attribution which describes the passage as a SP exclusive (i.e., μονοις). The order of elements is as before (→ Num 21.11‫ )א‬with the mention of exclusivity added to the second component. The place of the attribution amongst the other witnesses depends greatly on how one reconstructs the origins of SH’s note, which admittedly begs explication. ► SHL and SHV’s attestation: Presuming the older of the two SH witnesses transmitted the more original form of the attribution, the order of elements is as follows: 1) these things are extant (≈ κειμενα → §2.3.1 at Exod 18.25–25‫ג–א‬, attribution, and §2.4.2 at Exod 29.20) only in the ἔκδοσις (= ‫ )ܒ ̇ ܝ‬of the Samaritans; 2) Moses recalled this speech in Deut; and 3) another, ostensibly repeated claim that “these are only found513 in the (ἔκδοσις) of the Samaritans.” As the repeated μόνον-clause is exceptional amongst all other SH Num attributions514 and differs from both the s-group (reading ευρομεν not ) and SHV (< — ‫)ܗ‬, an explanation should be sought. SHL’s is textually the more difficult reading. It makes little sense to repeat the same sentiment (i.e., that it is only in that of the Samaritans) in such close || ‫ ̈ܒ‬, 513 McClurg, apparently working directly from the MS, mis-transcribes the Syriac as translating “These are only with those commended [interpreted as a peal pass.(?) ptc. from , as both Field (1.250, n. 15) √ ‫ ] ܒ‬of the Samaritans” (2011: 86). However, the MS reads and de Lagarde (1892: 115, n. 13) had correctly transcribed. The scribe’s shape of the coph has an angled peak, something which his beths do not exhibit. Furthermore, while the cheth is somewhat ambiguous, as with many Syriac MS hands, the curvature of the bottom loop of the letter is best used as a guide when in doubt as often it is difficult to distinguish (for example) between cheth and one or two adjacent, non-final nuns (e.g., the shape of ‫ܐ‬ in the reading itself [v 13a]). (Admittedly, I mis-transcribed the Syriac here in my earlier attempts. I would like to thank Leonhard Becker of MLU Halle who caught my mistake.) 514 Such language (“we found,” “you will find,” etc.) is, however, commonly used in wider data set; e.g., the collation note for the Samaritan Incense Altar in SH Exod (→ §2.4.1) and the χολ scholion in SH Deut (→ §4.3.4). Compare also the SH Deut 1.6–8 cross-reference (→ §3.3.1 at Num 13.33‫ו–א‬, attribution).

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 377

proximity. It would further make little sense to de-personalize a supposed firstperson snippet of testimony from the original collators. However, if the SH Num colophon (as above reconstructed → §3.2) indicates that the Syrians translated a copy of a MS itself (at least) a generation departed from the Eusebian exemplar, then one could presume that perhaps some merging of marginalia occurred. If the Caesarean collator(s) had originally separated 12‫ ג–א‬and 13a and recorded them as two, distinct readings, one could then propose that element 3 of the extant attribution only applied to v 13a. This would then result in two regularly formed attributions.515 Given the proximity of the readings, it is imaginable that such a conflation could occur in the intervening MS generation. And while it may appear strange to originally have separated vv 12‫ ג–א‬and 13a, both are distinct narrative components: the first recorded direct speech, the second related the camp’s movements.516 If this reconstruction is feasible, then the later witnesses’ corruptions thereof would logically stem from this merging. For SHV’s part, the repetition would seem odd, as if an earlier scribe had committed a dittography; hence, its omission (cp. SHV at Num 21.20‫§ → ;ב–א‬3.3.1). Something similar could have occurred in the s-group. Additionally, one must be wary of accepting the s-group’s testimony prima facie. Probably SH’s Vorlage read something like (ταυ)τα μονον εν η των σαμαρειτων ευρομενα. If so, it is possible the s-group scribe(s) felt ευρομενα should have read in accordance with a first-person excerpt, viz., εὕρομεν, similar to the μετεβαλομεν provided in the attribution to Num 13.1‫–א‬ ‫ד‬. The similarity of the attributions at Num 21.11‫ א‬and 21.12‫ ג–א‬could then have prompted scribal levelling, explaining why ευρομεν occurs in the s-group version of the former. This reconstruction more easily explains the difference between the s-group and SHL than presuming the Syrian translator(s) misunderstood a putative ευρομεν. Against this one could propose that the scribe of SHL misread his Syriac exemplar which really read . But this disregards the common practice of the prosthetic aleph on the indicative of .517

|| 515 Field was unsure to what element 3 of SHL’s attribution related, suggesting it was meant for the marginal reading for vv 14–15 (1.250, n. 15). However, SHV confirms this is from Symmachus (see McClurg 2011: 88–89). 516 By analogy, the two readings at Num 21.(22+)22‫§ →( ב–א‬3.3.2), despite their close proximity, each had their own attribution. 517 Compare the SH Prov colophon (→ APPENDIX) as well as the χολ scholion in SH Deut, where ‫§ →( ܐ‬4.3.4). the Syrians translated ευρομεν with

378 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

Num 27.23‫ב–א‬: “… for the Lord your God will fight them for you …” SH (V fol. 140a LH mg sub ÷ ind ☩; > L, lac.518) ‫ ܗ ܐ‬.° ‫ ̈ܪ ܘܢ ̈ ܐ‬.‫ܐ‬ ‫̈ ܗ ܕ ܒ‬ ‫̈ ܐܕ‬ ̈ .° ‫ ܐ ܕ‬23‫ ב‬. ‫ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܬܐ ܗ ܕܐ‬

‫ܐܒ‬

‫ܕ‬

‫܀‬

.

‫ܒ ܘܢ‬ ̈‫ܬ‬ ‫ܐ‬

‫ܒ‬

‫ ܗܘ‬. ‫ܕܒ̇ܝܕ‬

‫ܬܗ‬

‫ ܘܐ‬23‫א‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܕ ܐܐ ܐܕ‬ ‫ ܘܗ ܒ‬Attrib. ‫ܐ܀܀‬ ‫ܐ‬

85′-321′-343txt (s nom)-344 → PLATE V.4 23‫ א‬και ειπεν προς αυτον Οι οφθαλμοι σου ιδοσαν (ειδ. 343′) οσα εποιησεν κ̅ς̅ (> 85′-321′) τοις δυσι βασιλευσιν ° ουτως ποιησει κ̅ς̅ πασαις ταις βασιλειαις εις ας συ παρελευση (-σει 343) εκει 23‫ ב‬ου φοβηθηση (-σητ 130) ° οτι (> 130) κ̅ς̅ ο θς̅ σου αυτος πολεμησει αυτους μεθʼ υμων Attrib. και ταυτα κειται εν τω δευτερονομιω s-343 SP Num 27.23‫( ב–א‬Deut 3.21–22)519 4Q27 (DJD 12.243–45, as “23b”) ≠ MT ‫{ ויאמר אליו עיניך הראות את אשר עשה יהוה לשני המלכים האלה כן‬3.21} 23‫א‬ ‫{ לא תיראם כי יהוה‬3.22} 23‫יעשה יהוה לכל הממלכות אשר אתה עבר שמה ב‬

‫אלהיכם הוא הנלחם לכם‬ ‫ ]ויאמר‬+ ‫ ]מוש[ֿה‬4Q27520

23‫ א‬And hea said to him: Your eyes saw that which the Lordb did to thec two kings. Thus, the Lord will do to all the kingdoms (to) which you are crossing there. 23‫ ב‬Do not feard, fore the Lord yourf God, he will fight themg withh youi. a

4Q27: Moses b > 85′-321′ c SP ST: these d on verbal number, see discussion; SP STJVN: + them (> STACB) e > 130 f SP ST: pl g > SP ST h SP ST: for i SP ST s: pl

Attribution (SH): And this is only transmitted (here) in the [edition = ἔκδοσις] of the Samaritans. Now Moses recalls it in Deut. Attribution (s-group): And this is extant in Deut. (mend; see discussion below.) Num 27.23‫ב–א‬: The passage adheres to the μόνον-characteristics of the foregoing. This includes some disassociation with the pre-Samaritan type (e.g., 4Q27’s ‫ )]ויאמר מוש[ה‬and attendant septuagintism. Codicological matters: Field took issue with how Montfaucon indexed the reading, the latter having associated the reading with 28.1’s και ελαλησεν and following. Field was more careful to mark the text before και ελαλησεν.521 Field was of course correct and the reading is clearly indexed by both SHV and 344

|| 518 This passage is simply missing in JNum. I cannot discern the cause. 519 T-F versifies differently beginning v 23‫ ב‬after ‫( לא תיראם‬cf. Ben-Ḥayyim 1977: 508). 520 See Jastram for the reconstructed heh as opposed to reš in ln. 31 (DJD 12.245). 521 1.260, n. 1; cp. Montfaucon 1713: 168; PG 15.775–76.

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 379

(neither then available to either scholar) after 27.23 τω Μωυση / ‫ܐ‬ .522 MS II 344 abbreviated δυσι with Β (not in App → PLATE V.4). Num 27.23‫א‬: The verse contains a few items of interest, particularly those which depart from the pre-SP layer as well as the extant GDeut parallel. ► ‫( ויאמר‬4Q27 + ‫)]מוש[ֿה‬: According to Jastram’s reconstruction of the fragments from 4Q27, Moses is specified as the speaker in this verse. The variant, in isolation, bears no great importance. However, in accordance with general trend in the μόνον-passages, whenever pre-SP and SP disagree, the hexaplaric collation reflects the latter. ►‫ܐ‬ (twice, once in v 23‫ )ב‬:: 85′-321′’s omission: The more recent SH witness provides ‫ܐ‬ instead of both times in the verse. Since SHL is not extant, it ought to be taken with a pinch of salt (→ Table 3.3.1.2 at Num 21.11‫;א‬ EXCURSUS C). MSS 85-130-321-346’s omission of the first κυριος is likely a mistake due to the abbreviated form κ̅ς̅ which MS 344 itself exhibits; nothing Samaritan supports an omission. ► ιδοσαν (ειδ. 343-344) and ̈ (vid)523: The rendering only shows the alteration in verbal aspect, which the μόνον-translator(s) adjusted while still having used the parallel (reading εωρακασιν). Perhaps this was changed to the aorist by the translator to reflect something which had occurred in the more recent past (from the perspective of Num 21), as opposed to much later in Deut. If so, it demonstrates the sensitivities of the translator(s). ► βασιλευσιν ° and ° ‫ ̈ ܐ‬: Both the s-group and SH do not reflect ‫האלה‬, an omission neither GDeut nor any Samaritan evidence supports.524 It is possible that the translator’(s) eye skipped over it, given mem ‫ מ‬and kaf ‫ כ‬in Samaritan script (‫)המלכים האלה כן = המלכים האלה כן‬. However, it is more likely such occurred in Greek transmission: βασιλευσιντουτοισουτωσ → βασιλευσινουτωσ. Either way, it is an error as opposed to a true variant. ► εις ας and -‫ܕ‬ ‫ܗ‬525: Another departure from the GDeut parallel is this construction which the latter rendered as εφ ας. While the above has shown that the μόνον-translation generally followed the prepositions of the parallel (→ Num 13.1‫ א‬above and references elsewhere), this is not the case here.526 Wevers || is just to the left of the end of v 23. 522 See MS 344 (fol. 234bβ, lower mg); the ind marker 523 The scribe vocalized ܶ ܰ ̈ ̣ (ḥzayeyn) indicating the 3rd fem. plural perf. ind. (see Nöld. Gram. §176e) against any possible confusion with the fem. third pl. imper. ܶ ܳ ̈ (ḥzāyeyn) or the fem. pl. ptc. ܳ ܴ̈ (ḥāzyān). (The yuds are quite small and close together, especially in the margin.) A participle would presume the Greek present tense (Perkins 1980: 200; 231–32). 524 See AppI: τουτοις > 630z Bo Sa17; ST: ‫( אהלין‬J) / ‫( אלין‬A). 525 See Perkins 1980: 126–27, on SH’s omission of εις, especially with the use of . 526 AppI: εφʼ ας] εν αις 59mx; εφ ης 392txt y; εφ αις 121c y z–630 55mx.

380 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

admitted GDeut’s present attempt “result[ed] in awkward Greek.”527 Perhaps such inelegance resulted in the μόνον-translator’(s) differentiation; or perhaps, his GDeut MS(S) read differently. ► παρελευση (-σει 343) and ‫)?( ܒ ܐ‬528 :: διαβαινεις (GDeut 3.21) / ‫ܒ‬ ‫)?( ܐ‬: At issue here again is the exact relationship between the μόνον-reading and the corresponding GDeut parallel, since the latter attests διαβαινω without any real lexical variant in the MS tradition.529 Perhaps this is another case where the s-group and SH’s underlying Greek differ (cp. ανελευσομεθα :: αναβησομεθα / in Num 13.1‫ ג‬above). Of course, SH did not differentiate between every Greek lexeme, something several previously analyzed cases reveal. Compare the following instances in (SH) Num: Table 3.3.3.3: παρερχομαι or διαβαινω in SH Num?

παρερχομαι

SH

διαβαινω

SH

13.33

‫ܒ‬

32.7

‫ܒ‬

20.17 (2x)

‫ܒ‬

32.29

‫ܒ‬

20.19 (2x)

‫ܒ‬

32.30

‫ܒ‬

20.21

‫ܒ‬

32.32

‫ܒ‬

21.22 (2x)

‫ܒ‬

33.8

‫ܒ‬

21.23

‫ܒ‬

33.51

‫ܒ‬

32.21

‫ܒ‬

35.10

‫ܒ‬

32.27

‫ܒ‬

34.4 (2x)

‫ܒ‬

Given the general unity of the s-group and SH in this passage, as well as the fact that there is some differentiation between the translation and the relevant GDeut parallel, παρερχομαι could cautiously be preferred. Num 27.23‫ב‬: The verse shows some distance from the parallel proportionate to that in v 23‫א‬. ► φοβηθηση ° and ° ‫ ܕ‬:: φοβηθησητ ° (MS 130): This is the most important reading in the passage when considering Samaritan and parallel evidence. The translation differs from GDeut in both the singular verb (:: φοβηθησεσθε) and

|| 527 NGTD, 62. 528 On the use of the participle for the future middle, see Perkins 1980: 221–23. 529 See AppI for what are obvious mistakes.

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 381

the suffixed pronoun (:: απʼ αυτων), though the latter disagreement has more MS support.530 However, when viewed within the broader Samaritan and other parallel evidence, little support is found: SP Num MSS: ‫תיראם‬, vocalized: tīrā’imma;531 cp. ‫( תיראום‬von Gall MSS υ del δ1c); SP Deut: ‫תיראם‬, vocalized: tīrā’umma;532 ‫( תיראום‬von Gall MSS BGμθ* [‫ ו‬eras] del A) ST Num MSS: ‫( תדעלונון‬J); ‫( תדחלון‬A); ‫( תדחלנון‬E); ‫( תדעלנון‬C); ‫( תדחלון‬B); ‫תדחל‬ ‫( מנהון‬N); ‫( תדחל מנון‬V)533 MT Deut: ‫( ִתּ ָיראוּם‬MT); ‫( תיֿ ֿראם‬4Q31, ln. 11)534; ‫( תי[ ֿר ֯או֯ ֯ם‬4Q40, ln. 7); ‫ ִתּ ָיר ֻאם‬Sassoon 507 (see BHQap) PDeut: ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܬܕ ܢ‬ Tg Deut: ‫( תדחלון מנהון‬TgO); ‫( תדחלון מנהון‬TgN); ‫( תידחלון מנהון‬TgPJ) In short, the evidence supports either a second plural verb without a suffix (i.e., STAB) or a second singular or plural but with a suffix. The second singular without a suffix, as the μόνον-passage reads, is unattested. It is possible that the translator’(s) SP read without the suffix, though no comparative MS evidence survives to support this suggestion. Perhaps some graphic error in Samaritan script is possible ‫ תיראם כי יהוה‬/ ‫תיראם כי יהוה‬, with the kaf of ‫כי‬ / ‫ כי‬having being absorbed by the previous word. Alternatively, a misreading by the hexaplaric critic(s) is not impossible and may have been facilitated by a GDeut exemplar which lacked the pronoun.535 However, if the Caesarean SP used word dividers (→ §7.1.1), one wonders how this could have occurred at the collation level. Perhaps the reading really does reflect an ancient error on the Samaritan side.

|| 530 See AppI: φοβηθηση B* = Mmss Sam | απʼ αυτων] επ αυτων 72*oII 616C; αυτους d t = M; αυτον 321′s; > B 54′-75′-767n 344*(c pr m)s 71′-527y 630z 407mx Latcod 100 Arm Bo = Ra. 531 Ben-Ḥayyim 1977: 508 and 127 (second singular, with third plural suffix). Compare, however, ST traditions. 532 Ben-Ḥayyim 1977: 523 and 127 (second plural, with third plural suffix). 533 The variations in ST MSS are clearly orthographically inspired: ‫( תדעלונון‬J) → ‫( תדחלון‬A and B) and ‫( תדעלנון‬E and C, with guttural switching). MSS N and V may represent later attempt to dispel this potential confusion by using the separated ‫מנ־‬. Note that in Samaritan script nun and waw are not that similar: ‫ נ‬and ‫ו‬, respectively. 534 McCarthy (BHQap) lists 4Q31 as 2 pl. but the transcription in DJD is without a waw (DJD 14.37–8). 535 Cf. the B, Latcod 100, et al tradition in above n. 530.

382 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

► θς̅ σου and ‫ ܐ ܐ ܕ‬: The singular pronoun is another variation without support from Samaritan sources here or any others in the G parallel.536 Again there is the temptation to propose either a variant Samaritan exemplar or a graphic error on the part of the translator(s): ‫ →( אלהיכם‬SH in Num 13.1‫)ב‬. While this latter suggestion is accompanied by much doubt, confusion in Greek transmission is not probable. ► αυτος πολεμησει αυτους and ‫ܒ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ ܗܘ‬: The parallel here determined word choice as other places in G use εκπολεμεω (= SH ‫ )ܐ ܒ‬for the nifal of ‫( לחם‬e.g., Josh 23.3, 10). On the other hand, αυτους / ‫ܒ ܘܢ‬ is unattested in both the parallel as well as SP or ST, suggesting a possible variant. However, this is likely a false hit. As the following variant (μεθʼ υμων :: ) demonstrates, the translator(s) was influenced by his work from Num 13.33‫ו–א‬ (and the G parallel upon which it was based). There, at v 33‫ד‬, the same phrase obtains (‫ܒ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫)ܗܘ‬, where αυτους (≠ SP) is accounted for only by the parallel in GDeut 1.30.537 ► μεθʼ υμων :: : The choice of preposition (≠ SP), while contradicting the precise parallel at GDeut 3.22538 conforms to the previously attested μόνονphraseology ‫ܒ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ ܗܘ‬at Num 13.33‫ד‬, there in agreement with its parallel (GDeut 1.30). Thus, the μόνον-translator(s) was influenced by his own previous work. However, the pronoun is more complicated. The principle of lectio difficilior probabilior suggests SH’s is more original; for while it has no MS support (Samaritan or otherwise), it would be more difficult to explain vice versa, υμων ↛ σου at least graphically.539 The s-group’s could be reckoned as a secondary septuagintism, something which cannot be claimed for SH. Thus, one is forced to suggest either a lost SP variant or perhaps a misreading on the part of the translator(s), perhaps due to kaf-mem graphic merging: ‫ לכם‬/ ‫→ לכם‬ ‫ לכ‬/ ‫לך‬.540 Compare at Num 13.33‫ ד‬above (→ §3.3.1). Attributions: At this last s-group attribution, the differences against SH resurface. ► The s-group “attribution” (→ PLATE V.4): In truth, the s-group’s final marginal note lost whatever attribution feature it originally contained, most likely through haplography, facilitated via marginal scriptio continua: || 536 See GDeut AppI, all without the singular. 537 See Wevers, NGTD, 18; also McCarthy, BHQap. 538 GDeut AppI: περι] υπερ oI-72oII C′’ b d 53-664c f n 321s t 121y z 319mx 407mx 646mx. See Wevers’ comments on the rare usage of περι for this construction in GDeut 3.22 (NGTD, 62). / μεθ ημων (≠ Deut 1.30), thus it could not have influenced the 539 Num 13.33‫ ד‬reads pronoun in question. Or is SH’s Greek a previous contexualization, “you (sg.)” as in Joshua? 540 Again, assuming the MS contained section intervals, this would appear less likely.

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 383

και ταυτα κειται εν τω (or: τη w/SH?)541 των Σαμαρειτων α και μεμνηται μωυσης εν τω δευτερονομιω → εν τω (or: τη?) ∩ εν τω → και ταυτα κειται εν τω δευτερονομιω. Where the scribal error is revealed is in the use of κειται; this verb is not used in the attributions in relation to the speech of Moses in Deut (i.e. “he remembers” / “mentions”). Rather it is used for claiming that SP Num reads as ̈ ̈ → 21.11‫ א‬and 12‫ג–א‬, such in Num (e.g., ‫ → ܐܬܬ‬Num 10.10‫ג–א‬, ‫ܗܘܝ‬ → SHV in Deut 10.6–6‫–א‬7–7‫–א‬6 → §4.3.2, and the cross-references at Deut ̈‫ܬ‬ 1.42 and 44]). While it could be pointed out that SH’s attribution uses (φερομεν-), if the s-scribes altered the original notes (→ Num 13.1‫ד–א‬, attributions), φερομεν- / κειμεν- could have been easily swapped. Both verbs, being functionally synonymous, were used in the Num attributions. The Syrians, on the other hand, would have been less likely to commit such a mistake. If this explanation is acceptable, then the annotation in Wevers’ AppII is misleading.542 The scholion should not be understood as claiming that the text is from (i.e., “ex”) Deut. Rather the s-group attribution simply suffered corruption.543 ► SH’s attribution: Unlike the corrupted s-group note, that in SH is quite regular. Unfortunately, however, the corresponding cross-reference from Deut was lost (→ Table 3.3.1.1 above). Num 31.20‫ד–א‬: “…everything which can be put through fire…” SH (V fol. 144a lower mg encircled sub

544

ind ☩; > L, lac.)

‫ܕܐܬ‬ ‫ܬ ܓܒ ܐ ܕ ܐ ܗ‬ ‫ ܐ‬.‫ܐ‬ ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܐ ܬܐ‬ ‫ ܘܐ‬20‫א‬ .‫ܕܗܒܐ ܘ ܐ ܐ‬ 20‫ ב‬.‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ̇ܗܘ ܕ‬ ‫ ̇ܗ ܙܕ ܐ ܕ‬.‫ܒܐ‬ ‫ ܬ ܒ ܘ ܝ‬.‫ܐ ̇ܗܘ ܕ ܒ ܒ ܪܐ‬ 20‫ ג‬.‫ܘ ܐ ܘ ܙ ܐ ܘܐ ܐ ܘܐܒ ܐ‬ .‫ܪܐ‬ ‫ܗ ܕܐ ܒܢܒ‬ ‫ ܘ‬.‫ ܐ ܐ ܒ ̈ ܐ ܕܕܘ ܐ ܕ ܐ‬.‫ܒ ܪܐ ܘ ܕ ܐ‬ .‫ܐ ܕ ܒ ܐ ܘܬܬܕ ܢ‬ ‫ܢܒ‬ ‫ܢ ̈ܐܐܕ‬ ‫ ܘܬ‬20‫ ד‬.‫ܒ ܢ ܒ ̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ܀‬ ‫ܘܒ ܪ ܬ ܢ‬ || 541 It is not possible to be certain which terminology was used to describe the Samaritan text, especially in light of the proposed φερομεν- / κειμεν- switching. 542 As in Pummer 1998: 314, n. 3. 543 McClurg omits the s-group’s note in his examination of SH’s attribution (2011: 262). 544 McClurg uses the more regularized ÷ (2011: 349) perhaps due to typographical limitations. Note, here V’s is somewhat close to L’s .

384 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

‫ܢ‬

‫ܢ ]ܘܬ‬

̇ ‫ ܘܬ‬SHmg sub ÷545

‫ ܀‬.‫ܐ‬

‫ܕܒ‬

‫ܒ‬

‫ ܘܗ‬Attrib.

85′-344 (marginal546 s nom); f-129 (in-text s nom) 20‫ ※( א‬344) και ειπεν Μωυσης (μως. 344) προς Ελεαζαρ τον ιερεα Ειπον προς τους ανδρας της δυναμεως τους ερχομενους εκ του πολεμου Τουτο το δικαιωμα του νομου ο συνεταξεν κ̅ς̅ 20‫ ב‬πλην του χρυσιου και του αργυριου και του χαλκου και σιδηρου και κασσιτερου και μολιβου (-βδου 130c; -δου*), 20‫ ג‬παν πραγμα ο διελευσεται εν πυρι, διαξετε (-ται 344) εν πυρι και καθαρισθησεται, αλλʼ η τω υδατι του αγνισμου αγνισθησεται. και παντα οσα αν μη διαπορευηται547 δια πυρος διελευσεται διʼ υδατος. 20‫ ד‬και πλυνειτε τα ιματια υμων τη ημερα τη εβδομη, και καθαρισθησεσθε (-σεται 85), και μετα ταυτα εισελευσεσθε (-σεται 85) εις την παρεμβολην 85′-344 20‫ א‬και ειπε(ν) μωυσης προς ελεαζαρ τον ιερεα ειπον προς τους ανδρας της δυναμεως τους ερχομενους εκ του πολεμου f−129 (+ τουτο το δικαιωμα του νομου ο συνεταξε κ̅ς̅ τω μωυση [pr v 21] 56) SP Num 31.20‫( ד–א‬Num 31.21–24) ⟨4Q27 “31:21a”⟩ (DJD 12.251–53)548 ≠ MT ‫{ ויאמר משה אל אלעזר הכהן אמר אל אנשי הצבא הבאים למלחמה זאת‬31.21} 20‫א‬ ‫{ אך את הזהב ואת הכסף ואת הנחשת ואת‬31.22} 20‫חקת התורה אשר צוה יהוה ב‬ ‫{ כל דבר אשר יבוא באש תעבירו באש‬31.23} 20‫הברזל ואת הבדיל ואת העופרת ג‬ {31.24} 20‫וטהר אך במי נדה יתחטא וכל אשר לא יבוא באש תעבירו במים ד‬

‫וכבסתם בגדיכם ביום השביעי וטהרתם ואחר תבאו אל המחנה‬

‫ >⟨ ]תעבירו באש‬4Q27⟩549 ‫ במי נדה וטהור יהיה⟨ ]במים‬4Q27⟩550

20‫ א‬And Moses said to Eleazar the priest: “Say to the men of the army, those coming froma the battle: b‘This is the statute of the law, which the Lord commanded.c 20‫ ב‬dExcept/Besides (the) gold and (the) silver, and (the) bronze and (the)e iron and (the)e tin and (the)e lead. 20‫ ג‬Every object which can go through fire, fyou shall put [it] through firef and it will be cleansed. Yet in the water of cleansing it shall be cleansed. And gall things which cannot go through fire, htheyg will goh through the wateri. 20‫ ד‬And you shall cleanse your garments in the seventh day and you will be cleansed. And afterwards, you may enter the camp.bd a

|| 545 The diacritical dot is intended to specify the pael of ( ) ‘to purify’. 546 McClurg states the passage was integrated into MS 343 (2011: 349). No such evidence is supplied by Wevers. 547 Field recorded MS 130 as διαπορευεται (1.263, n. 18); Wevers, McClurg, nor Br.-M. record any such difference. 548 In accordance with Jastram’s examination of 4Q27, he reconstructs the scroll with Num 31.20‫( ד–א‬see pp. 215 and 253). 549 Thus Jastram (p. 253) in accordance with his reconstruction of v 23 proper ([‫ יבוא באש‬1°], see ln. 10 on p. 251). 550 Jastram (p. 253) reconstructs the end of the verse in accordance with 4Q27’s preserved text at v 23 (ln. 11 on p. 251): ‫]יבוא באש תעבירו במ[י֯ נדֿה] וטהור יהיה‬.

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 385

a

SP ST: going to/entering b–b > f MSS 53, 246, and 664 c 56: + to Moses d–d > 56 > s f ⟨>⟩ 4Q27 g–g s: (everything which …,) it will (cf. discussion) h–h SP ST: you(pl) shall make pass i 4Q27: ⟨+ of cleansing and it shall be clean⟩ e

Attribution (SH): And this [is] only in the [?] of the Samaritans. Num 31.20‫ד–א‬: The passage has a number of items warranting discussion including: a) the sigla in MS 344, b) the partial attestation by f-129, c) stark differentiation from the pre-Samaritan type (cp. Jastram’s reconstruction of 4Q27 at v 20‫)ג‬, and d) a singular lack of attribution in the s-group. ► Sub ※ (MS 344): See above (→ Num 13.1‫ ד–א‬and Num 14.45‫ )א‬for comments regarding the s-group’s witness to an asterisk. Wevers did not add “mend” in AppII as he had at Num 13.1‫ד–א‬. For comments on the likely original usage of sigla by the Caesarean critic(s), see below (→ §4.4.2). Partial Attestation in the f-group: One of the more noteworthy aspects of the present case is the partial attestation of v 20‫א‬, in-text and unattributed, in MSS f-129.551 ► The f-group and the μόνον-passages: This is the second of two μόνονpassages which the f-group preserved, the first being that at Exod 27.19‫( א‬see MS 707’s version; → §2.5.2). Unlike that in Exod, here there is direct, explicit evidence for the passage’s hexaplaric provenance. ► f-129’s integration: How did the f-group’s partial integration occur? Probably the passage was intentionally abridged, given that only the chain of the command is recounted, viz., (the Lord →)552 Moses → Eleazar → the soldiers, as opposed to repeating the entirety of the command itself. (Compare the abridging techniques in Syriac witnesses for the Plague Narrative in Exod → EXCURSUS B.) Thus, the f-group scribe(s) preserved only that part of the passage which was truly unique, the prophetic relay of the command. For further discussion of the motivation(s) of integrators see CH 5 (→ §5.4). Num 31.20‫א‬: As above, septuagintisms characteristic of the μόνονtranslation pepper the passage. ► ερχομενους εκ (του) and ‫ ܐܬ‬: The translator(s) very transparently adhered to GNum’s means of dealing with ‫הבאים למלחמה‬. As Wevers (following Dorival?) explained, GNum had difficulty understanding how Eleazar was speaking to those who went out into battle, for the priest was certainly back at

|| 551 McClurg does not discuss the integration found in MSS f-129 (2011: 348–50). Field similarly did not mention this though he had access to MSS 53 and 56 (1.263; but cp. H-P, ad loc). 552 MS 56’s is clearly the oldest witness to the f-group’s integration (→ §5.3.4).

386 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

camp; instead GNum thus harmonized with v 13–14 (‫)הבאים מצבא המלחמה‬.553 Whatever the methodology of GNum, the translator(s) followed the parallel in rendering the preposition, a methodology widely evinced elsewhere in the μόνον-corpus, for ‫ הבאים למלחמה‬itself is without variant in SP or ST.554 Num 31.20‫ב‬: Septuagintisms continue: ► πλην and : The rendering is not incorrect but unmistakably adopted from GNum; the same can be said for αλλʼ η and ‫ ܐ ܐ‬later in v 20‫ ג‬also for ‫אך‬.555 ► Order of the metallic items: The Samaritan order of the six metals is “the gold and the silver and the brass and the iron and the tin and the lead,” each articulated, with a preceding waw save the first.556 MT in the parallel, while articulating each, differs in coupling only the first and last pairs; GNum differs as well coupling all save the first and articulating only “the gold and the silver.”557 The s-group couples all save the first, while only articulating the first three of the six; SH couples all save “gold” and, unfortunately, cannot be used to establish articulation on any of the six elements.558 Given the comparative GNum evidence, the s-group’s articulation of χαλκου may very well suggest that the original translation articulated at least each of the first three items; for there is relatively little MS evidence which supports the presence of the article.559 It is probably more reasonable to assume the s-group scribe(s) gave up articulating the items than mistakenly adding του before χαλκου. Outside of agreeing completely with GNum, the translator(s) could have levelled forms providing the article before all six, but this cannot be proven. It is also of note that the translator(s) “corrected” the order of “the tin and the lead” against GNum’s original order.560 Also relevant, the μόνον-translation supports GNum’s spelling μολιβου for “lead.” MS 130 adjusts this in accordance with the slightly differing orthog-

|| 553 NGTN, 514. Dorival, however, was open to the possibility of the translator’s Vorlage actually reading ‫( ממלחמה‬BA 4.525). 554 ST: ‫( עלליה לקרבה‬JA; ‫ עליליה‬C; ‫ דעלו‬VNEB); cp. Tsedaka’s ET: “… who went to the war….” 555 There is thus no reason to suppose a Greek text other than what the s-group provides. On SH’s treatment of αλλα and αλλ’ η vis-à-vis ‫ ܐ ܐ‬or ‫ܐ ܐ ܐܢ‬, see Perkins 1980: 28–30. 556 ST reflects this with orthographic variants for iron, tin, and lead. 557 NGTN, 514–15. 558 Perkins 1980: 180, 194, and 199. 559 See AppI: χαλκου] pr του 58O-72-82oII 77C f−129 767n 407*z 59mx. 560 Wevers seems to have thought GNum transposed this last pair without providing a motive for doing so (NGTN, 515; note Dorival, BA 4.525). Perhaps the μόνον-translator(s) also used the hexaplaric text which also “corrected” these, though this is not necessary to assume.

Syriac and Greek Readings with Commentary | 387

raphy μολιβδου common to most MSS (see AppI). The spelling μολιβου is supported by the early uncials (i.e., A B F M V GO); the hexaplaric witness is split.561 Num 31.20‫ג‬: Septuagintism continues, particularly in the selection of verbs. ► πραγμα and ‫ܐ‬ : The translator(s) cribbed the parallel in rendering ‫ ;דבר‬see above comments at Num 13.1‫ ג‬and ‫ ד‬as well as that at Exod 9.5‫ ג‬and 5‫ד‬ (→ §2.3.1). ► διελευσεται and ‫ ; ܒ‬διαξετε and ‫ ܬ ܒ ܘ ܝ‬: The first conforms to GNum’s selection. The latter may have depended on the hexaplaric correction, though as Wevers noted, διαγω for ‫ עבר‬in hiphil is the most common equivalent in LXX.562 ► διαπορευηται and ‫ ܒ ܢ‬563; διελευσεται and ‫ ܒ ܢ‬: Grammatically, the μόνον-translator(s) adhered to GNum’s singular verb for the plural neuter παντα.564 Additionally, they stuck to the parallel’s emphasis on the act of washing: “[for the GNum] translator the subject was irrelevant.”565 Thus, SP’s ‫תעבירו‬ 2° was not rendered literally. Regarding the word selection for the second ‫יבוא‬ (διαπορευηται and ‫) ܒ ܢ‬: The equivalency is quite rare in G, occurring only here.566 Thus the word choice, as many examples previously have demonstrated, was strictly guided by that of the corresponding G parallel. As with the two verbs immediately above, SH’s lexical ambiguities can only be deciphered with the aid of the s-group. ► εν and -‫( ܒ‬twice, for “fire” and “fire”); δια and ‫( ܒ‬twice, “fire” and “water”): As earlier, the choice of prepositions made by the translator(s) clearly depended on the G parallel (→ §2.3.1 at Exod 7.29(8.4)‫ ;ג‬see especially → §4.3.2 at Deut 10.6–6‫–א‬7–7‫–א‬6). Note that the second εν / -‫ ܒ‬agrees with the hexaplaric correction; perhaps the translator(s) used the plus (sub ※) as guidance. All

|| 561 See LSJ, μολυβδος and μολιβος; the former has the earliest support listed. For comments, see Thackeray, Gram. §6.44. 562 NGTN, 515. 563 By analogy of the parallel as recorded in AppI (though not AppII), Wevers would reconstruct SH as reading διαπορευεται. However, according to Perkins’ research both the pres. mid. ind. and the pres. mid. subj. can be rendered with the participle (1980: 204 and 267–68). 564 NGTN, 515–16. Wevers marked this as in conformity to classical usage. SH here does not adhere to this Greek nicety, hence the plural. See Perkins’ explanation of SH Deut 16.19, where SH’s translation strategy differs, viz., the SH’s subject was altered to a singular to maintain the Greek verbal number (1980: 182–82). 565 NGTN, 515. 566 H-R, 308. They list GGen 24.62 as another instance but this is a minor variant, probably based on the SIXTINE (619y z-407 Sixt); see also NGTN, 515.

388 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

reflect SP’s ‫ב־‬. Again rote septuagintism prevailed as only the dative was used for ‫במי‬.567 ► αν (s-group only): Wevers correctly reconstructed SH without αν in ApII 568 p . Assuming this, then the s-group could be reckoned as secondary, conforming to the parallel.569 Num 31.20‫ד‬: The influence of the parallel continues. ► πλυνειτε and ‫ܢ‬ ‫ ܬ‬: As Wevers noted, the Three here produced the active as opposed to the middle, attested to in the vast majority of GNum MSS. However, this need not be interpreted as the translator’(s) direct use of the recentiores, given there is a meaningful amount of early MS support for the former.570 SH is ambiguous; JNum produced ‫( ܘ‬2 pl. impv, fol. 326‫ )ܒ‬taken from PDeut. ► ιματια and ‫ ̈ ܐ ܐ‬: Here cribbed from GNum. Compare, Exod 27.19‫( א‬MSS 707 vs. 58, → §2.5.2) where the translator(s) used στολη (= 58) for ‫ בגדי־‬in conformity with the reconstructed parallel. Like ‫דבר‬, the translators mostly used whatever the parallel provided for terms in SP which could be differently construed based on context. Attributions (or lack thereof) : Only SH bears an attribution. ► SH : This is the final occurrence in SH Num of the contracted ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬. For discussion, see above at Num 21.20‫( ב–א‬attribution, → §3.3.1). ► Lack of attribution in the s-group: Despite the absence of such attribution, scholars early on recognized the Samaritan origins of the reading.571 One is tempted to view the prominent use of the asterisk in the margin of MS 344 as a kind of shorthand attribution, though this is probably overreaching the evidence. After all, if the scribe(s) of 344 intended it as such, why were not all μόνον-passages marked sub ※ in its margins? Regardless, the omission of the attribution here is more likely emblematic of the poor state of the preservation of Samaritan paraphernalia as transmitted by the s-group—it is incomplete and the result of inadequate, perhaps even careless, scribal efforts. Of course, such may not have been the fault of the s-scribe(s) specifically (→ §3.4, although cp. 343’s mistakes and inattention), but rather the nature of their sources having suffered the ravages of time.

|| 567 AppI: τω υδατι] pr εν 319y; τω υδωρ 509x; του υδατος 29oII. 568 See Perkins 1980: 15. 569 Cf. AppI: αν Bc M′ V O−G-82oII d f−129 t x−527 407z Arm] εαν B* G = Sixt Ra; > rell. 570 AppI: πλυνεισθε] -νειτε (-νιτε V G; -ται 127 18z; πλην. 68z) F V O-72oII b−19 f−129 127n 730s z−126 407 59mx. AppII: οʹ θʹ αʹ καὶ πλυνειτε αʹ (pro σʹ) και πλυναμενοι 344s. 571 Montfaucon 1713: 171; PG 15.784–86; Field 1.263, n. 18. See also H-P, ad loc.

The μόνον-Type Passages and the S-Group | 389

3.4 The μόνον-Type Passages and the S-Group Now that the μόνον-data transmitted in the s-group MSS in Num have been examined in detail, it is appropriate to review the broader nature of these witnesses in order to better contextualize their place within the Textgeschichte of the hexaplaric Samaritan collation. Special focus must be afforded to MS 344 due to both its relative age and textual placement vis-à-vis all other μόνον-bearing sMSS. MS 344: A Brief Profile: MS 344s (Athos, Παντοκρατορος, 24; Br.-M.: “v”)572 is a mostly573 complete Octateuch from the 10th cent. CE. Amongst s-group MSS in GPent, 344 stands out as the premier exemplar with respect to the preservation of the Origenic sigla574 as well as transmitting the largest amount of marginal non-LXX readings.575 Wevers only briefly mused on the origins of the s-group’s marginal, nonLXX readings,576 suggesting that dissatisfaction with G MSS in general as well as exegetical concerns both provided for a scribal desire to supply a marginal apparatus, the kind of which 344 preserves. He compared this to CODEX M in particular, as an example of such an apparatus containing “a motley array of materials all of which is intended to help the reader.”577 Though Wevers perceived that the s-group lemma was “rarely influenced by the [non-LXX] marginal readings,”578 comparison of shared variants showed a marked association between the s-group’s mixed running text and the O, C, and d groups.579 In Num, Wevers included the marginal readings from MSS 85′-321′-344 in his various lists in an

|| 572 Rahlfs 1914: 22. For recent studied comments on 344’s witness to the hexaplaric tradition, see Munnich’s more general remarks (2014: 182–84) as well as de Troyer’s 2020 article. 573 Complete for Exod and Num; for the missing portions of the remainder, see Wevers’ respective Einleitungen. 574 E.g., Wevers: “[MSS 127 and 344] are at times sole witnesses to the asterisk” (THGG, 67). 575 As follows: in Exod: 349 readings (Exod, 47); in Lev: 488 (Lev, 30); in Num: 489 (Num, 35); in Deut: 488 (Deut, 40). Wevers did not provide a specific count in Gen (Gen, 61; THGG, 67). 576 THGG, 67–68. 577 THGG, 68. Note that there is disagreement as to whether or not the scribe of the main text added those in the margins; compare de Troyer, who attributes these readings, for the most part, to a second hand (2020: 99, disagreeing with Munnich’s earlier opinion [see her n. 3]). As observed above (see n. 382), the style of script used for these marginal readings is perhaps not the best way of determining whose hand was responsible. 578 THGG, 68. Wevers: “The chief value of the s group lies in the marginal materials” (p. 72). 579 THGG, 75–81.

390 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

effort to “discover the spread of hex recensional materials within the text tradition.”580 With the recognized quality of 344’s witness, the MS’s testimony to Samaritan readings, of both the μόνον- and σαμʹ-types, must be considered. Observe the attestation in MS 344 to the latter type: Table 3.4.1: το σαμʹ-type Readings in MS 344

agreeing MS(S)

Notes

Gen 4.8

127s (15th cent. CE)

Most certainly a false hit → EXCURSUS D

Num 23.1

Fb (s nom)581

Num 32.13

130(s nom)-321-346(s nom)

Also attributed to αʹ σʹ θʹ s

Attributed to αʹ in 321

The list is paltry indeed, even when compared to the incomplete and sub-par (though chief amongst the s-group) witness of 344 to the μόνον-passages in Num. However, what these readings do indicate is that the s-group, as a whole, had access to a large amount of material from diverse sources, including more than one type of Samaritan reading.582 And indeed, the s-group’s exposure to σαμʹ-readings was certainly greater than modern collations depict, as the following data suggest:583

|| 580 THGN, 58. For an example of the value Wevers granted to 344 in particular, note his treatment of the variant at Num 25.4 (p. 135). 581 See Finacti 2016: 314. 582 De Troyer’s conclusion that the scribe who supplied the marginal readings in 344 had a separate source for hexaplaric notes (2020) can here be confirmed and indeed expanded upon. It seems most probable, especially given the relative infrequency of μόνον-passages in the wider MS tradition, that the scribe(s) of 344 had multiple sources, specifically multiple MSS for the hexaplaric tradition. 583 Just as previous scholarship (cf. Pummer 1998: 287–88; also Wevers, Lev, 30–31) has argued that CODEX M anonymously transmitted σαμʹ-readings in Lev, some such readings in Num may also be found in s-group MSS without attribution. Indeed, as much has been demonstrated by Joosten’s recent researches into CODEX M, following Fraenkel’s lead (→ §1.2.3.9). Could MS 106d’s supra lineal reading at Num 25.4 be added to these perhaps? See Wevers’ AppI: απεκτινε 106sup lin: cf Sam; victima Latcodd 91 92 94–96.

The μόνον-Type Passages and the S-Group | 391

Table 3.4.2: Unattributed Samaritan Readings in the s-group of Num

G lemma

s-group margin

Notes

Num 23.4: θεος

ἄγγελος θεοῦ 130-321′ = 4Q27 SP ST ≠ Jewish Tgs

Wevers: “= Sam” (AppII)584 344 attributes to οι λ΄ which is incorrect.

23.5: θεος

ἄγγελος θῦ 130585 ≈ ⟨4Q27⟩ SP (‫ )מ׳ יהוה‬ST

≠ Jewish Tgs; Wevers: “cf Sam” (AppII)

23.22: δοξα

ὑψηλώτατα [-λοτ. 130] 130-321′ 130-321′: “most sublime/noble (heights)”587 = ‫ כאפרעות‬ST (SP: kåtuwwēfot)586 Tal: “like the elevation (to the height)”588

26.10: εν σημειω

εἰς φυγήν 321′ 128 = ‫ לנוס‬SP589 ST (= ‫ לערוק‬J)

≈ STA ‫“ להמיס‬melting away” (see DSA, ‫)מוס‬ ≠ ‫ לנס‬MT Tgs

32.9: απεστησαν

ὠκνήρευσαν 130-321′ ? ≈ ‫ ושפלו ית לב‬STJ

cp. s-MSS’ οκνησης at Num 13.1‫§ →( ב‬3.3.3)

The data in Table 3.4.2 are highly suggestive, and the message for future research into the anonymous marginal readings in Christian LXX MSS should be clear—the potential Samaritan origins of readings should be taken seriously.590 Perhaps such searches in Lev and Deut in s-group MSS would also bear fruit.

|| 584 Field connected these with the marginalia in MS 130 at Num 22.20 (1.254, n. 3). This is not in Wevers’ AppII (although in AppI it is marked “cf Sam”) and bears further investigation. McClurg did not comment (2011: 122). 585 Despite θεου, the reading is clearly related to the Samaritan tradition. For the motives behind the reading with an angel, see Kim 1994: 227. 586 Ben-Ḥayyim 1977: 504; cp. Tsedaka’s ET: “He is for him with the powers of the bull.” 587 From ὑψηλός. Compare Fb’s “individual rendering” πέτασμα meaning “(anything) spread out”; thus Fincati (2016: 316). See her discussion where she suggests that perhaps it was taken from a lexicon. Cp. Lampe, s.v., where this is glossed as the veil of the Temple or the flight of a bird. However, cp. BrillDAG and LSJ, s.v., where the example from Aristotle indicating tentacles aligns roughly with the concept of horns. Compare also with the Jewish Targums using ‫תוקפא‬ which means both ‘strength/vigor’ and ‘hill/(stronghold?)’; see the respective entries in CALex and Jastrow. The context would seem to favor the former gloss in terms of the Targumim. On the problematic ‫תועפות‬, see the HALOT entry. Note Wevers: “Modern translators have simply guessed at its meaning. … I refuse to take part in this guessing game” (NGTN, 396). 588 See DSA, ‫( פרח‬at the n. ‫אפרחו‬, 2). 589 While von Gall’s edition prints the defective form (= MT) relegating the plene ‫ לנוס‬to his apparatus, where it is the reading of the majority of MSS, it is obviously the best reading as T-F’s edition, ST, and the Samaritan reading tradition shows (vocalized alnos from ‫ ;נוס‬see BenḤayyim 1977: 176 and 506). This is another example of von Gall’s flawed textual methodology. 590 See Marsh (2021: 497) for which these cases here stand as support. See also my above discussion (→ §1.2.3.10, Methodological Reflections).

392 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

Historical Context of the μόνον-Bearing s-MSS: Under what circumstances might this sort of interconnection with the Samaritan textual tradition and the s-group have occurred? Again, taking a cue from Wevers’ hypothesis regarding MS 318 (→ §2.5.2 at Exod 32.10‫)א‬, one might consider the probable locus where such collation activity may have happened: Mount Athos. Indeed when considering the μόνον-bearing s-group MSS—in addition to the likes of MS 767 (→ §5.3.1), also an Athos MS—it ought to strike investigators as remarkable that so many such witnesses should be found around the same locale. Observe the following table: Table 3.4.3: S-Group and Athos-centered, μόνον-Bearing MSS

MS

Date

Provenance

Number of Readings

344s

10th cent. CE

Athos

6 (Num only)

10th cent. CE

Rome

6 (Num) 3 (Num)

85

s

343

s

ca. 1013 CE

Athos

130s

12th–13th cent. CE

Vienna

6 (Num)

321s

14th cent. CE

Athos

2 (Num)

346s

14th cent. CE

Athos

2 (Num)

767

13th–14th cent. CE

Athos

5 (2 in Exod and Deut, 1 in Num)

318

10th–11th cent. CE

Athos

1 (Exod)

The data, to which should be added those in Table 5.1, are quite revealing with respect to attested μόνον-passages, both marginal and integrated, found in later G MSS. And while MSS such as 15 (→ §5.3.3) and 58 (→ §5.3.2) betray no association with Athos, one cannot deny that Athos-based scribes had access to a good amount of hexaplaric materials,591 as well as Samaritan readings (especially in Num), and endeavored to transmit these once they had arrived at their scribal center.592 Given the tight unity of the s-group, the following hypothetical stem-

|| 591 For further evidence of the excellent access Athos-based scribes enjoyed with respect to very early materials, including those associated with the Caesarean library, see Barrett’s discussion of NT MS 1739 (1994/1.7). 592 K. Lake suggested in his catalogue (1903: 171–72) that perhaps 344 had been brought there from Rome. In combination with MS 85’s Italian(?) provenance, it could then be proposed that the addition of μόνον-data to the s-group was done in or around Rome and later disseminated from Athos. Whether or not one might follow this direction of data, note in particular 767, Athos was a central locus in the perpetuation of these texts in later MSS.

The μόνον-Type Passages and the S-Group | 393

ma can be proposed, based on the μόνον-, as opposed to σαμ΄, data, keeping their relative dates in mind:

Fig. 3.4: Proposed S-Group MS Stemma (N.B.: Not drawn to reflect time intervals)

The monastic entities on the “Holy Mountain” were not established until the time of Athanasius the Athonite (ca. 920–1003 CE).593 This provides some historical context through which the s-group MSS might be viewed, providing at least the s-group’s terminus a quo. Nevertheless, this type of scribal activity occurred elsewhere as the other witnesses demonstrate (→ §5). Final Evaluation of the S-Group Witness to μόνον-Type Passages: In the end, despite the fine quality of the s-group’s marginalia as a whole, their witness to the μόνον-data—when compared to SH—is decidedly secondary. The errors they transmit, especially with respect to the attributions, render their collective testimony unquestionably subordinate to SH’s. And when the possibility of the s-group’s access to other types of Samaritan readings is considered,

|| 593 On which, see ODCC, “Athos, Mount,” for a brief summary.

394 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

the 300 or more years separating the original SH from MS 344 is greatly magnified. Granted, the s-group’s creativity led to the creation (or dis-/re-location?) of the Num 13.1‫ ד–א‬scholion, but consideration of the complete witness from SH would have produced much the same. Simply stated—we do not know where the s-group’s passages came from or how many intermediaries there were between the Caesarean source and the Vorlage(n) of the scribes on Mount Athos; the SH’s witness, however, is properly provenanced, going back to the Eusebian exemplars.594 When viewed through the joint-testimony of the s-group Num 13.1‫ ד–א‬scholion and the SH Deut 1.6–8 cross-reference, even the s-group’s version of the Num 13 passage, despite its greater agreement with SP/ST, appears secondary in that it departs from the original μόνον-translation. The remainder of the group’s readings (and/or attributions) either evince corruption of some kind or bear the same level of quality attested by SH. Therefore, given the whole of the data, there is no reason to prefer the s-group’s witness whatsoever, beyond those cases where SH is lexically ambiguous or obviously erroneous. Previous studies have not properly emphasized the secondary nature of the s-group’s witness. One cannot help but intuit an historical prejudice for Greek (a “classical” language) as opposed to Syriac (a “barbarous” language) sources; moreover, they were certainly more accessible (or perhaps more approachable) to a greater number of people in light of traditional Western education (→ §1.2.2). Unfortunately, this historical prejudice still remains, despite the efforts of Syriac scholars over the last several decades.

3.5 Conclusions In congruence with the conclusions from the above-analyzed μόνον-passages in Exod (→ §2.6.1), the results of the data from Num are much the same: 1) These “translations” are principally cribbed from the GPent parallels: note, e.g., preposition selection, various grammatical constructions, calques, the renderings of potentially ambiguous Hebrew words, i.e., ‫( דבר‬also in Num 31.20‫)ג‬, ‫( *בגדי‬see 31.20‫)ד‬, etc. 2) In accordance with the aforementioned lack of Samaritan exegetical knowledge, the translator’(s) use of ΠΙΠΙ / is hardly compatible with any discernible Samaritan practice; it is an hexaplaric practice. The Qere šēmå is never evinced, neither is a Jewish alternative inserted.

|| 594 Misunderstanding these facts contributed to Kahle’s erroneous interpretation (→ §1.2.3.3).

Conclusions | 395

3) Other elements make it unlikely a native Hebrew speaker, Samaritan or Jew, would have produced, or even helped to produce, such a translation, e.g., the omission of small words, imprecise verbal inflections, the treatment of ‫ער‬, etc. 4) Somewhat different than in Exod, the Caesarean μόνον-collator(s) sought to tie the Deuteronomic Samaritan passages to their respective counterpart pericopes through the use of cross-references. Their attributions, together with these corresponding cross-references, reveal the process whereby the μόνον-“translation” itself was produced. 5) The translated Vorlage of SP manifests substantial textual disagreement with the extant pre-SP text-type, i.e., 4Q27, just as with 4Q22 in Exod. 6) Whereas, the translation was largely based on the textual shape found in extant SP codices, there are variants which may indicate either a corrupt or sloppily written copy, or perhaps one predating its exact medieval form (e.g., variations in 2 pl. vs. 2 sg.; ‫ ;ויעברו )בה( ויחפדו לנו את הארץ‬etc.). Unfortunately, the paucity of early evidence for SP, together with the translator’s septuagintizing, prevents determining which description best describes the Caesarean SP (→ §7.1).

3.5.1 The μόνον-Translator(s): A Profile Much like the SH Exod colophon, the SH Num subscription (as it has survived) was unspecific when describing the Samaritan collation. Despite this, as before, a) the Syrians were not responsible for the passages; b) the collation was in addition to the base hexaplaric edition; and c) the Samaritan collation was viewed as an important feature of the final product—one worthy of special mention in the colophon. Most importantly, the identity of who was ultimately, if not directly, responsible for the Samaritan passages was specified—Eusebius of Caesarea. The implications of his agency vis-à-vis the hexaplaric collation of SP will be explored more below, in particular the historical Christian scribal context in Palestine (→ §6). Still, certain scholia from both the s-group and SH Deut have survived which help explain the context and method of the collator(s) and translator(s). Thus, it may be held that the joint testimony of the SH Exod and Num colophons, Num 13.1‫ ד–א‬scholion, and the SH Deut cross-references (especially at 1.6–8) all combine to further define the process by which these readings were developed: 1) The terminus ante quem must be assigned to Eusebius (d. ca. 340 CE).

396 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

2) These tangible first-person testimonies from those who provided the passages and how they fashioned them indicate that the hexaplaric collator(s) and the μόνον-translator(s) both, if they were indeed different persons, operated within the orbit of the hexaplaric milieu. Whether this activity was limited to Eusebius himself or he served as “principal investigator” is not specified. Nevertheless, his personal involvement is made clear. It is further not indicated if previous data (from Origen?) was used, adapted, or otherwise developed. These questions are considered in detail below (→ §6.2). 3) As to their procedure, these scholia together explain that the SP texts were rendered from the G parallels by the Caesarean collator(s): ‫≈ ܐܘ‬ μετεβαλομεν (→ §3.3.3). This, in addition to the character of the abovestudied passages, makes clear that: a) no previous Greek Samaritan translation was used; b) no Samaritan (or one familiar with Samaritan exegesis) was consulted; c) the collator-translator(s) worked in isolation, adding to an already established hexaplaric text, one with which he was intimately familiar. He could rightly be described as a curator or continuator of the hexaplaric text. He used his skills to extend the purpose and utility of the hexaplaric text, providing a quantitatively more comprehensive representation of biblical traditions—one which (the colophons imply) the Hexapla Maior lacked (→ §§6.1; 6.2–3); and d) this supplemental information was added not only to Exod, but Num and Deut as well.

3.5.2 The Data in Num: Retention and Transmission In light of chapters 2 and 3, it is apparent that despite the relative wealth of data for Num, the μόνον-collation must be critically reconstructed from the whole witness of both Syriac and Greek sources. These are not limited to “normal” septuagintal witnesses (i.e., MSS), but also from Jacob of Edessa, whose recension bears as much importance for the history of the Peshitta as it does for the Greek Bible. His witness must also be included amongst those attesting the hexaplaric Samaritan collation. As the following chapter on the μόνον-data from Deut will ably show, Jacob is particularly important for reconstruction purposes. As was noted above (→ §§3.3.2–3.3.3), while the Samaritan readings in scattered Greek MSS lacked attributions and parallels in SH Exod (→ §2.5), forcing

Conclusions | 397

any historical reconstruction of their readings’ provenance to rely on MS character and analogy, the majority of cases in Num have direct support confirming their origins were with the Caesarean SP collation. In Num, only the readings at 32.1+ & 29+ in MS 15 are an exception to this, lacking parallels in SH sources. When considering the likely motives for the preservation of these readings, one cannot help but observe that, much like the situation in Exod (→ §2.6.3), the focus of these extant readings is largely Mosaic. The prophetic activity of Moses in communicating the Lord’s will to the Israelites is front and center. This focus, in effect really a theological concern, remained essential although other concerns relating to Israel’s role as God’s chosen nation came to the fore as well. As the next chapter shows, concern with these themes continued in Deut.

Excursus C: The Hexaplaric ΠΙΠΙ As posited above (→ §2.3.1 at Exod 11.4‫ א‬and §3.3.1 at Num 20.13‫)א‬, the Caesarean μόνον-translator(s) ubiquitously adopted the specifically hexaplaric practice of marking the Tetragrammaton with ΠΙΠΙ / in his “translation” as a means of representing ‫ יהוה‬when found in his Hebrew SP. It was further posited that this was also meant to differentiate in Greek between ‫ יהוה‬and ‫ אדני‬since both were stereotypically rendered in G with κυριος (e.g., Ps 109[110].1). The function of this special “graphic calque”595 is understood not only from the above-cited cases but also by inference from the wider, extant hexaplaric evidence. While not a complete history of ΠΙΠΙ / , the present EXCURSUS C outlines the practice as found in hexaplaric sources to better situate the μόνον-translator’(s) utilization. As the evidence for this practice suggests, the marginal feature, originally used very often, was eventually abandoned, something evidenced by the μόνον-bearing MSS themselves. Evidence from the MSS: Dispersal and Attribution Extant MS sources indicate that ΠΙΠΙ / was indeed prevalent, especially in the earlier stages of the hexaplaric MS tradition. A survey of editions for Greek and Syriac sources shows that scribes reproduced ΠΙΠΙ / nearly always in the margins of various biblical MSS covering the majority of the canon, including Gen, Exod, Num, ⟨Deut⟩,596 Josh, ⟨Judg, Ruth?,⟩597 1 Kgdms, ⟨2 Kgdms,⟩598 3

|| 595 On the moniker “graphic calque,” see “The Purposeful Development of ΠΙΠΙ / ” below. 596 ΠΙΠΙ / may be restored to the margins of SH Deut’s Greek exemplar(s) based on the reconstructed μόνον-data (→ §4). As we shall see explicitly below, Jacob of Edessa always “updated” →‫ܐ‬ because he believed the former resulted from corruption. Further, later Greek MSS preserving μόνον-data also attest this change as can be observed in all of the μόνονbearing Greek MSS surveyed in this study, in particular those in the s-group (→ §§2.5; 3.3.3; 3.4). 597 The form could be restored based on orphaned index markers in the sole extant SH MS (BL ADD. 17103, 8th cent.; see Wright, CSMBM 1.32–33). For whatever reason, while the margins of this witness lack variants (see Wright, p. 33), the running text still transmitted index markers. It seems then that its margins, or those of its Vorlage, had been washed. (De Lagarde dutifully registered these orphaned markers in his edition with a superscripted 0.) One such case is at the ‫ܐ‬ in Judg 21.3 (fol. 59b), which bears an indexing ÷ that has no corresponding reading in the margin. Another similar case occurs at Judg 4.2 (fol. 11b). While neither Field nor Br.-M. register any evidence for ΠΙΠΙ, it is likely that such was originally the reading in the margin of SH’s Vorlage. Ruth, which followed Judg in this MS (common in Christian MSS, see Gallagher and Meade 2017), also has margins having suffered a similar fate, although according to de Lagarde’s edition, no cases of ‫ܐ‬ have orphaned index markers.

Excursus C: The Hexaplaric ΠΙΠΙ | 399

Kgdms, 4 Kgdms, Isa, Jer, Ezek, Dan,599 Hos,600 Joel, Mal, ⟨Job?⟩,601 and Pss. Although lists of witnesses transmitting ΠΙΠΙ / in LXX introductions and handbooks are usually short,602 the reality is that the prevalence of the hexaplaric calque was much more so than apparatuses in modern editions betray. Two facts must be kept in mind: 1) The older SH MSS of bear many cases of ΠΙΠΙ; 2) SH was itself translated from Vorlagen comprising an array of individually cross-collated hexaplaric MSS (as per the colophons → §§2.2, 3.2, APPENDIX) making clear that these were taken from the Greek. For instance, SH Exod (MS L not V) has numerous cases, at times transmitting as many as five to six instances of in the margin of a given folio, each with its own indexing tilde603 (or other such marker) pairing it to an individual ‫ܐ‬ in the running text. Note the folL lowing selections from Exod in SH : 9.27ff (fol. 37a):

6x

in mg, each indexed to ‫ܐ‬

in-text

15.1ff (fol. 51a):

6x

in mg, each indexed to ‫ܐ‬

in-text604

15.16ff (fol. 52a):

5x

in mg, indexed to ‫ܐ‬

19.20ff (fol. 64a):

5x

29.11 (fol. 92b):

1x

in mg, 4x to ‫ܐ‬

in-text605

in-text; 1x to ‫ܐ‬

‫ ܐ‬606

with an accompanying ΠΙΠΙ in mg, ind to ‫ܐ‬

in-text607

|| 598 Tuukka Kauhanen, the Göttingen editor of 2 Kgdms has told me (personal communication, Feb 2021) that ΠΙΠΙ does not occur in any of the collated materials. Nevertheless, since ΠΙΠΙ is known in other sources for 1, 3, and 4 Kgdms, certainly, 2 Kgdms had it. SH is no longer extant for 2 Kgdms outside of a few lectionary fragments and Patristic quotations. 599 Assuming, with Ziegler/Munnich (Dan, 80), Montgomery’s proposed reconstruction at Dan 9.2 (1927: 361). On this case, remarkably found in-text, see n. 685 below. 600 See SH Hos 1.1–2 in BL ADD. 14668 (see Wright, CSMBM 1.47) but not SHC. While Ziegler were not noted. I collated the running text of BL ADD. 14668 (Duodecim, 21), these marginal have confirmed these in the MS itself (see fol. 4b); earlier Ceriani observed these in the notes to his edition of SHC (see p. 60, the variants marked under “B”). 601 Possibly; see Meade’s edition of hexaplaric fragments (2020: 339). 602 See, e.g., Metzger who listed CODEX Qmg, 86[mg], 88[txt], 243mg, 264[mg], and SH as those which attest it (1981: 35; parroting[?] Swete 1914: 39, n. 4). A notable omission of MSS transmitting ΠΙΠΙ available from Br.-M. include MSS 108 and 376 (on the latter, see n. 685 below). 603 Both Burris and McClurg in their studies on SH Num called these tildes a “lemnisk” (see 2009: 57–59 and 2011: 54, respectively). This, however, is a mischaracterization. The mark in SHL Num is simply an index marker attached to a corresponding marker at a given ‫ܐ‬ within the running text. While it obviously developed from a stylized lemniscus, calling this a “lemnisk” (or derivative) is confusing. Many such similar index markers fill SH MSS throughout. with its own distinct index marker. 604 On this folio, the scribe Lazarus supplied each in-text as each is part of the 605 In this case, three occurrences are indexed to one ‫ܐ‬ readings of the Three (see AppII) at v 18. 606 This occurrence is attributed to the Three (see AppII at v 23).

400 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

34.4ff (fol. 108a):

5x

in mg, each indexed to ‫ܐ‬

in-text608

Part of the issue is that, as Wevers explained in his Einleitung,609 these were not signaled in AppI of his editions. However, they were registered in AppII (either in Greek or in transliteration “pypy” for Syriac), when they are found in non-LXX readings, e.g., the Three, the μόνον-passages, et al.610 As a result, researchers without recourse to the MSS may develop the mistaken impression that these were not common—this is, however, entirely incorrect. In light of the general Göttingen policy, however, it ought to be underscored that there are also many such instances where ΠΙΠΙ / is attributed to one or more recentiores in the margins of various hexaplarically-derived MSS. Indeed, this is found for each of the recentiores whether individually or, at times, in various groupings: ο εβρʹ / .

: e.g., SHL at Gen 4.26611

Secunda : e.g., MS 86lII at Mal 2.13, MS 1140 (BnF grec. 164; 1070 CE)612 at Ps 71(72).18, αʹ : e.g., CODEX Qmg2 at Isa 52.5,613 σʹ : e.g., MS 86C at Isa 59.13, θʹ : e.g., MS 86C at Ezek 2.4, εʹ / .‫ ܗ‬: e.g., SHL at 4 Kgdms 21.4, ςʹ : e.g., MS 264 at Ps 26(27).11, οι γʹ / .‫ ܓ‬: e.g., Qmg2 at Isa 60.1, as well as any number of combinations of two of the Three, viz., αʹσʹ πιπι etc. (e.g., MS 264 at Ps 27(28).1).

|| 607 This is, I believe, the only occurrence of a Greek ΠΙΠΙ in the MS. 608 Here, Lazarus again supplied each with a unique ind marker. 609 See Exod, 38. 610 Differently Ceriani, in his 1863 editio princeps of SHL, supplied each and every one. 611 MS BL ADD. 14442 (7th cent.). See Wright, CSMBM, 1.28–29; editio princeps in Ceriani 1863. 612 See Rahlfs 1914: 204. Field (2.212, n. 27) recorded this reading as “Colb. στιχηρως” which he explained was Colb. 5995 (see his Monitum; 2.83). 613 CODEX Q, as the colophons before both Isa and Ezek make clear (→ APPENDIX), had been collated with hexaplaric sources by a second scribal hand, Ziegler’s “Qmg2.” It is this scribe who, Ziegler observed, supplied the MS’ marginal ΠΙΠΙ among many other hexaplaric data (Isa, 45–50). When the margin of Codex Q is quoted with an accompanying folio in this EXCURSUS, I have checked the MS (online: https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.2125).

Excursus C: The Hexaplaric ΠΙΠΙ | 401

More ambiguous references include ‫“ ܒ ܐ ܘܗ ܕ ܐ‬The Hebrew and the remaining (recentiores): ΠΙΠΙ” (e.g., SHL at Num 16.5, 22.22, 24) or πʹ (= παντες) πιπι “All (versions have) ΠΙΠΙ” (MS 86C at Ezek 12.23). Further, there are also cases where ΠΙΠΙ is found attributed to “Origen(’s commentary614)” ωρʹ πιπι (e.g., Qmg2 at Isa 21.8) and πιπι ουτως ωρʹ (Qmg2 at Isa 26.8). While the surviving evidence is somewhat scant, even a skeletal outline such as this suggest a number of conclusions: 1) The oldest witnesses (e.g., SHL Exod, reference to Origen’s commentaries) show that the practice was likely original to the hexaplaric apparatus. 2) ΠΙΠΙ / is found in all parts of the OT canon and thus not limited to one or more specific sections. 3) The form is ostensibly attributed to all versions known from the Hexapla Maior, save Septima which lacks extant evidence.615 in the When these considerations are juxtaposed with the use of ΠΙΠΙ / μόνον-passages, it becomes clear that the Caesarean critic, most likely Eusebius himself (→ §3.2), simply followed an already established hexaplaric technique whereby the Tetragrammaton was distinguished. The Origin of ΠΙΠΙ / It is often said that the hexaplaric ΠΙΠΙ / was based on, or devolved from, the Jewish practice of writing God’s Name in special Hebrew/Aramaic characters in Greek MSS.616 Origen did in fact mention this practice in a comment found in his Sel. in Pss. where he said that the “most accurate” Greek MSS represent the Name in ancient (τοῖς ἀρχαιοτάτοις) Hebrew characters.617 This information was probably based on personal experience.618 And indeed, fragments of both Aquila || 614 For this interpretation, see the Isa colophon for Codex Q (→ APPENDIX). For a discussion of this rather complex subscription, see Ceulemans 2008. 615 The data for Septima are exiguous indeed, and many doubt its existence (see Marsh 2021a and literature cited there). 616 See especially Metzger 1981: 33–35, Skehan 1980, M. Rösel 2007: 414–19, N. de Lange 2015: 73–80, P. Vasileiadis and N. Gordon 2021, and the literature these studies cite. 617 From Sel. in Ps 2.2 (PG 12.1104): Καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀκριβεστέροις δὲ τῶν ἀντιγράφων Ἑβραίοις χαρακτῆρσι κεῖται τὸ ὅνομα, Ἑβραϊκοῖς δὲ οὐ τοῖς νῦν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἀρχαιοτάτοις. Note also the similar statement from Jerome’s Prol. in Libro Regum: Et nomen Domini Tetragrammaton in quibusdam graecis volumnibus usque hodie antiquis expressum litteris invenimus. For further background, in addition to the following, see de Lange 2015: 73–80. 618 De Lange points out that it is unclear if Origen’s comment was based on specifically Jewish as opposed to Christian MSS. He does, however, state that irrespective of such uncertainty “there is surely a very strong presumption [of their being Jewish]” (2015: 74).

402 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

620 (MS oS-1 with the stylized ;619 MS oS-2 employing paleo-Hebrew ) 621 and Symmachus (MS oS-3 with the form ) have been discovered illustrating this very practice, which is also most importantly found in pre-Christian MSS, namely MS 848 in Deut, with (dated ca. 50 BCE)622 and, famously, the Greek Minor Prophets scroll 8ḤevXIIgr exhibiting (later 1st cent. BCE).623 Naturally tracing the origins of ΠΙΠΙ / as it is found in hexaplaric MSS may best be aided by consulting the extant copies of Origen’s Hexapla Maior, even if they are obviously fragmentary or otherwise abridged. Fortunately, a couple of witnesses may be found in which the Tetragrammaton ‫ יהוה‬/ ΠΙΠΙ is found. Chief of these is MS 1098 (Milan, Bibl. Ambr., O. 39 sup.; 10th cent.).624 This palimpsest, in its underwriting, preserves (a version of?) the columnar format of the Hexapla Maior for various Pss as follows:

[Hebrew col.] | Secunda | Aquila | Symmachus | LXX | Quinta [| Sexta / ς΄ in mg].625

In this witness, the Tetragrammaton is always represented by “Hebrew” in Aramaic square script.626 (Presumably this is meant to reflect ‫ יהוה‬which I shall

|| 619 Consisting of fragments from 3–4 Kgdms, dated 5th–6th cent. CE from Egypt. See F. Burkitt 1897; Rahlfs and Fraenkel 2004: 50–51; also Gallagher 2013. Whether Gallagher’s conclusions on the religious milieu of the Aquila fragments are valid or not, Origen’s remarks and preChristian remains (e.g., MS 848) point towards the obvious Jewish origins of the practice. 620 Found in the underwriting of a palimpsest from the Cairo Genizah, the upper writing of which dates to the 5th–6th cent. CE. See Rahlfs and Fraenkel 2004: 51–52, and also Gallagher 2013: 285–86. Fraenkel only registers the date of the Hebrew overwriting. Taylor, however, quoted Burkitt’s assessment in the edition as “contemporary but not identical” to those of oS-1. 621 Fragments of Pss from El-Fayyum (or Heracleopolites Nomos?), dated to the 3rd / 4th cent. CE. See Rahlfs and Fraenkel 2004: 428. Note that in his 1910 editio princeps, C. Wessely incorrectly claimed these belonged to Aquila. 622 See Rahlfs and Fraenkel 2004: 171–77. For facsimiles of the MS where the Hebrew Tetragrammaton is visible, see Z. Ally and L. Koenen 1980: plates 10, 24, et al; Metzger 1981: 60–61, with plate 3. 623 On the date, see DJD 8.25–26. 624 See the editio princeps by Mercati 1958. For a brief description, see Jellicoe 1968: 130–33. 625 For the curious absence of Theodotion, see Norton 1991. For the relationship between Quinta and Sexta (determined by Mercati as those in the mg), see Marsh 2021a and literature cited there. For an overview of the rightful rejection of Nautin’s thesis that MS 1098 proves there was no Hebrew column (i.e., col. 1 in Hebrew script) in the Hexapla Maior, see below (→ §6). 626 Image Vasileiadis and Gordon 2021: 107, fig. 3.

Excursus C: The Hexaplaric ΠΙΠΙ | 403

use here instead of ‫יהיה‬.) This goes for every occurrence627 in all columns in which the form is recorded, beginning with Secunda.628 Altogether, 43 occurrences are extant for all columns in which it is legible. Many of these have prefixed articles in Greek to indicate case, e.g., τωι ‫ יהוה‬at Ps 28(29).1 for the Greek columns or του ‫ יהוה‬at Ps 17(18).32 for σʹ οʹ εʹ (cp. Secunda and αʹ with ‫ יהוה‬ad loc), and twice the Hebrew in Secunda is prefixed with a Greek letter to reveal the same: λ‫ ליהוה = יהוה‬at Ps 29(30).5 and εθ ‫ את־יהוה = יהוה‬at Ps 30(31).24.629 Of these, not a single case shows a Qere. There are, however, in some of the Greek columns in 1098, added nomina sacra, presumably for the sake of specifying inflection. Thus, Aquila’s at Ps 29(30).13 reads κ̅ε̅ ‫ =( יהוה‬ο΄ col.). Also, Quinta at Ps 17(18).42 read ‫ יהוה‬κ̅ν̅ (= ο΄ col.), while at Ps 30(31).2 ‫ יהוה‬κ̅ε̅ is found.630 That Origen understood the textual function of ‫יהוה‬, and its accompanying Qere, is clear from the same passage in Sel. in Ps 2.2: ἔστι δέ τι τετραγράμματον ἀνεκφώνητον παρʼ αὐτοῖς, ὅπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ πετάλου τοῦ χρυσοῦ τοῦ ἀρχιέρεως ἀναγέγραπται, καὶ λέγεται μὲν τῇ «Ἀδωναϊ» προσηγορίᾳ, οὐχὶ τούτου γεγραμμένου ἐν τῷ τετραγραμμάτῳ. παρὰ δὲ Ἥλλησι τῇ «Κύριος» ἐκφωνεῖται. Now there is a certain Tetragrammaton unpronounced by them [sc. the Hebrews], the very one which was written upon the golden plate on [the miter of] the high priest. For this, the title ADONAI is uttered (by the Hebrews), though not written in the Tetragrammaton’s place, but amongst the Greeks (it) is expressed by “LORD.”631

Earlier in the same passage, Origen also mentioned that Αδωναι is yet another name for God which can stand by itself as opposed to being a replacement. Thus, it is of no surprise that MS 1098 also indicates the Hexapla Maior specified

|| 627 One exception is in the ο΄ col. at Ps 28(29).1 where τωι κ̅ω̅ι is recorded. However, this is at the second occasion of the Tetragrammaton in the verse. The first was duly recorded as τωι ‫יהוה‬. The second is thus not really “missing”; the scribe probably did not bother with it again. 628 Secunda and Aquila are missing for Ps 35(36).6; however the rest are recorded. 629 The latter form is reflected, although using ΠΙΠΙ instead of ‫יהוה‬, in MS 271 (Vat. Gr. 1747; 10–11th cent.), where a scribe produced ετπιπι from Secunda for Ps 111(112).1 (see F. Albrecht 2020; cp. also Rahlfs 1914: 265–66 [“aus der Hexapla?”]). There, on the flyleaf (fol. III), the scribe wrote three items (as exercises?): 1) Ps 1.1–2a, 2) the Hebrew alphabet, and 3) Ps 111.1a. Both the first and third were written in columns, namely Secunda and LXX (with variants, as Albrecht explains; see the plate on his p. 20). Albrecht observes that scribal mistakes in the Secunda column imply an older, uncial MS source, which itself was presumably columned. 630 The ο΄ col. is damaged. Mercati recorded “‫** יהוה‬.” Presumably, it could have read thus. 631 Sel. in Pss. (PG 12.1104). Cp. also his Sel. in Ezek. 8.1 (PG 13.796; ET in M. Hooker 2014: 517).

404 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

when the recentiores differ as to whether ‫ יהוה‬or ‫ אדני‬is represented in the underlying Hebrew. Thus, at Ps 88(89).50 the data is as follows:632

secunda = ‘b’

αʹ = ‘c’

σʹ = ‘d’

οʹ = ‘e’

αρισωνιμ ‫ יהוה‬οι πρωτοι ‫ יהוה‬τα πρωτα δεσποτα τα αρχ⟨αια⟩ ‫⟩י⟨ה⟩ו⟨ה‬

εʹ = ‘f’ [ςʹ mg] –

Here, according to the Hexapla Maior, the Three disagree as to whether “Lord” in v 50 is translating ‫ =( יהוה‬Secunda, α΄, ο΄) or ‫ =( אדני‬σ΄). MT Ps 88(89).50 agrees with Symmachus, as does 4Q87 (‫)א[ֿדוני‬. However, TgPss and 43 medieval MSS (plus the margin of one of Kennicott’s MSS) read ‫יהוה‬.633 Despite the late date of TgPss (4th–6th cent. CE),634 a reading with the Tetragrammaton must date earlier.635 While the data are more meager than for ‫ יהוה‬in 1098, the five cases for ‫( אדני‬Pss 29(30).9; 34(35).17, 22, 23; 88(89).51; cp. 88(89).50 above) mostly resulted in the same equivalencies amongst the recentiores: Aquila used κυριος as did Quinta and the LXX column (save τον θν̄ at Ps 29.9); Symmachus translated with δεσπότης,636 though he used κυριε for the vocatives at Ps 34(35).17 and 88(89).51. Secunda, however, only registered αδωναι. The Purposeful Development of ΠΙΠΙ / From the above, it is fairly plain that the Tetragrammaton, especially vs. ‫אדני‬, was represented in the Hexapla Maior with ‫יהוה‬, at least according to the 10th cent. MS 1098. However, in the μόνον-passages the form ΠΙΠΙ / regularly occurs. How and why did the Graecized form ΠΙΠΙ emerge if the MSS Origen collected and used in the construction of the Hexapla Maior bore Hebrew/Aramaic lettering?637 Admittedly, the evidence is not altogether straight-

|| 632 The designations ‘b’, ‘c’, etc., are Mercati’s. 633 Hence the BHSap note ‘a’. Kennicott (1776/2.386) listed two MSS combining both: ‫יהוה אדני‬. 634 See D. Stec’s opinion: “The date of composition of TgPss remains very uncertain. A very tentative suggestion would be fourth to sixth century C.E., but this is little more than guesswork. It is possible and even likely that it contains material belonging to more than one period” (2004: 2). 635 Compare Stec’s note on Ps 2.4, where TgPss differs from MT in the same way. He did not mark the discrepancy at Ps 88(89).50 (2004: 170). 636 See also, e.g., σʹ ο δεσποτης σου ‹κυριος› at Isa 51.22 (Eusebius). 637 De Lange remarks that it is a “reasonable inference” (2015: 74; supported also by Vasileiadis and Gordon 2021: 89) from MS 1098 that Origen utilized Jewish MSS for the Hexapla Maior which bore the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew script. It ought to be noted, however, that Origen

Excursus C: The Hexaplaric ΠΙΠΙ | 405

forward. Typically, scholars have assumed that hexaplaric MSS like 1098 retained the original Hebrew form, which, given the similarity of ‫ י‬yod and ‫ ו‬waw, was distorted by subsequent Greek scribes who “no longer understood what it meant.”638 Other scholars, however, on balance, have more carefully called ΠΙΠΙ a Greek imitative form representing ‫יהוה‬.639 Interestingly, the data indicates that both ΠΙΠΙ and ‫ יהוה‬coexisted side-by-side throughout hexaplaric MSS. For while the scribe of 1098 wrote the Hebrew square ‫יהוה‬, another earlier, columned Hexapla Maior, MS 2005 (T-S 12.182; 7th cent.), utilized ΠΙΠΙ throughout.640 That both the Hebrew and Graecized forms were considered equivalent by scribes is made clear from 1098 itself, where at Ps 27(28).8 the ο΄ column reads ‫ יהוה‬κ̅ς̅ πιπι, including all three forms. This sort of variation muddies the situation considerably, especially when the preponderance of ΠΙΠΙ was found in the Vorlagen of SH more widely. (For the Syriac development → , which occurred only on the Syriac level, see below.) In trying to situate the emergence of ΠΙΠΙ historically, the μόνον-passages serve as the key. Based on the above analysis of the SH Num colophon, Eusebius Pamphili (→ §3.2) is the sole individual credited with including the SP readings in the hexaplaric stream. As has been argued throughout this study, in the μόνον-translation ΠΙΠΙ / was the chosen designation for the Tetragrammaton. Two further observations may be underscored from these data: 1) ΠΙΠΙ does not in any way resemble the Samaritan ‫ →( יהוה‬EXCURSUS A); 2) ΠΙΠΙ was adopted by the translator(s) so routinely, that it was supplied automatically for occurrences of the Tetragrammaton in SP which did not have parallel to crib.

|| mentioned τοις αρχαιοτατοις “old characters” were used for this phenomenon, not the square script of his day. MS 1098 bears a form resembling the latter. 638 Thus Fernández Marcos 2000: 117 (specifically in reference to MSS oS-1 and oS-2). Earlier, see C. Ball on Jacob of Edessa’s criticisms (but cp. below) where he explained that “[in] ΠΙΠΙ the Hebrew ‫ ה‬is obviously confused with the Greek Π” (DCB 3.333). In reference to Jerome’s complaints (but cp. the following), Skehan called ΠΙΠΙ a “deformation” (1980: 32). Wevers also held it was an error (2001: 21). Gallagher seems to follow Skehan’s assessment (2013: 304). 639 Jellicoe 1968: 271; Vööbus 1983: 30. Note Metzger’s description: “… the Greek letters πιπι are used to represent roughly the shape of the square Hebrew letters of the Tetragrammaton” (1981: 35). Rösel merely calls ΠΙΠΙ “strange” though “a combination of Greek characters that echoes the Hebrew” (2007: 414). 640 Fragments of Ps 21(22); see the entry in Rahlfs and Fraenkel 2004: 49–50. See the editio princeps in C. Taylor 1900. The MS is online: https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-TS-0001200182/ (the image must be rotated upside-down). According to Taylor’s transcription, ΠΙΠΙ appears in the columns for Aquila, Symmachus and the LXX. Secunda’s column probably read the same for those lines. For a recent overview of these fragments, see Kantor’s 2019 blogpost for the Cambridge University Library’s exhibition.

406 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

̇ For instance, in the μόνον-reading at Exod 11.4‫א‬ ‫ܒܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܗܐ‬ ‫ ܒ ܐ‬/ ιδου ΠΙΠΙ αποκτενει τον υιον σου τον πρωτοτοκον (→ §2.3.1), the ΠΙΠΙ / representing the Tetragrammaton must have resulted from an independently conscious decision by the translator(s) since the G parallel from Exod 4.23, or any other witness for that matter, does not transmit ‫ יהוה‬but rather the Lord’s direct speech. Thus, the Caesarean translator(s) chose this specific form and superimposed it on SP as a matter of course. This was thus an intentional641 act, one with an already established meaning the expected readership could comprehend. Otherwise, the decision is unintelligible. But is it possible that Eusebius originally produced ‫ יהוה‬which scribes later changed? Probably not. Simply put, is found much too often in the oldest sources for these readings. Add to this the fact that both of the SH Exod and Num colophons testify to previous cross-collating of their hexaplaric Vorlagen. These observations combined strongly support the supposition that ΠΙΠΙ, in Greek, was what Eusebius produced. Otherwise, we would have to assume that each of the first scribes involved in the MS transmission process somehow made the exact same “error” by mistaking ‫ יהוה‬for ΠΙΠΙ. The prevalence of the form, even in Greek MSS, also suggests that hexaplaric MSS originally bore ΠΙΠΙ in their margins. Had ΠΙΠΙ resulted from a mistaken reading of square ‫יהוה‬, one would have to assume either that a single, presumably Caesarean, scribe was responsible for infecting the entire MS history, or that all scribes, at various times in any number of far-flung places, made the exact same mistake independently. Much more consistent with the data, is Ceriani’s hypothesis that this was an intentional graphic representation of the Hebrew square script—not Samaritan (which Eusebius used) or paleo-Hebrew script (which Origen mentioned)— meant to mimic the Tetragrammaton with the closest letter forms Greek has to offer.642 Part of the confusion with this issue stems from the oft-quoted remark on ΠΙΠΙ by Jerome. In one of his letters to Marcella (Ep. 25), he enumerated the names of God, making mention of ΠΙΠΙ: Nonum tetragrammum, quod ἀνεκφώνητον, id est ineffabile putaverunt et his litteris scribitur, iod, he, vav, he. Quod quidam non intelligentes propter elementorum

|| 641 Ceriani was, to the best of my knowledge, the first to suggest that ΠΙΠΙ was a purposeful development meant to disambiguate κυριος as ‫ יהוה‬vis-à-vis ‫( אדני‬thus Ceriani 1863: 112, as Metzger noted [1981: 35, esp. n. 69]). I follow his lead. 642 Ceriani (1863: 112, see above n. 637) was unsure whether Origen or Eusebius had enacted this change. He also was of the opinion that neither Origen nor Eusebius would have produced ΠΙΠΙ through error given their (supposed) proficiency with Hebrew.

Excursus C: The Hexaplaric ΠΙΠΙ | 407

similitudinem, cum in Graecis libris reppererint, ΠΙΠΙ [vars.: ΠΠΙ in 2 MSS; nini643 in 1 MS; 1 MS om.] legere consueverunt.644 [The] Ninth [name of God is], the Tetragrammaton, which they regard as ἀνεκφώνητον, that is, ineffable, and it is written with these letters: yod, he, waw, he; which certain unlearned ones are accustomed to reading as Pipi when they find it in Greek books, on account of the similarity of the letters.645

This statement has traditionally been (and still for the most part continues to be) interpreted as indicating that 1) the Greek MSS used by Christians bore the Tetragrammaton in (presumably) square Hebrew script; and 2) their readers ignorantly read the form “as PIPI” as if it too were Greek.646 This understanding, however, is unduly influenced by another, similar comment by Jerome—made nearly a decade later—from his Prol. in Libro Regum in which he noted that “… in certain Greek manuscripts up to today the Tetragrammaton [is] expressed in ancient letters.”647 However, this statement is not strictly related to Jerome’s remark to Marcella. He only describes the Name and remarks on a specific reading practice in which the Name is invoked by Christians reading “ΠΙΠΙ.” He did not say that Christians read Hebrew648 “as ΠΙΠΙ”; he said that Christians wrongly “read ΠΙΠΙ” when they encounter (the form representing) the Tetragrammaton in their MSS.649 It is improbable that Marcella, in Rome, would have dealt

|| 643 It is amusing that one of the Latin scribes cleverly reproduced “nini” mimicking the Greek ΠΙΠΙ which had in turn mimicked the Hebrew letters. Another such later scribal mimicking of the form in another language is the Syriac ‫ ܙܡ ܙܡ‬found in Ishoʿdad’s Comm. at Exod 3.14 (see CSCO 176.9 and 179.13, with n. 7; see MS Jerusalem Syriac 10, fol. 95b (https://www.loc.gov/ item/00271072016-jo/). While van den Eynde held this was in imitation of the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew this seems implausible. More likely is the imitation of a Greek script which would have been in the margins of SH exemplars, perhaps in cursive uncial from the 7th cent. or later minuscule scripts of the 9th cent. onwards (see Metzger 1981: 23, at the line for Π). 644 CSEL 54.219. 645 ET by Gallagher 2013: 303. 646 Vasileiadis 2014: 62, with n. 45; Gallagher 2013; Skehan 1980: 32; Metzger 1981: 35, with n. 73. See much earlier, the entry in GLRB, s.v.: “ΠΙΠΙ, the Hebrew ‫ יהוה‬mistaken for a Greek word. Hieron. I, 429 (131).” 647 ET by Gallagher 2013: 302 (emphasis mine). See the Latin in the above n. 617. 648 Jerome supplied the Hebrew letters underlying the form himself as a means of explaining the Ineffable Name, not as a means of describing the contents of the MSS in question. 649 Better is Rösel’s understanding, in which he emphasizes that the Greek lettering ΠΙΠΙ was actually in the Greek MSS in question and thus read by readers improperly (2007: 415, n. 6). Admittedly, I am departing here from Rösel’s point when he quotes Jerome.

408 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

with Greek MSS with the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew lettering.650 Additionally, it is unclear how “ancient” Hebrew lettering would result in Christians vocalizing ΠΙΠΙ.651 Modern scholars then have unduly connected Jerome’s two comments both with each other and with recently discovered witnesses such as MS 848. Much more probable is that Marcella would have had occasion to see a Greek hexaplaric MS, like those disseminated by Origen-Pamphilus-Eusebius (i.e., in Graecis libris), with ΠΙΠΙ in the margin for the sake of disambiguating κυριος as ‫ יהוה‬vis-à-vis ‫אדני‬. Jerome did not actually say the Hebrew square Tetragrammaton was in these “Greek books” to which he was referring, nor did he criticize the Graecized representation extant in so many hexaplaric witnesses. Instead, he criticized the reading of ΠΙΠΙ by those who did not understand—the marginal ΠΙΠΙ was never meant to be read aloud.652 It seems then, that when the Caesarean editors, be it Eusebius, Pamphilus, or probably even Origen,653 constructed the hexaplaric texts for dissemination (→ §§1.1.1; 6.1), they converted654 the square Hebrew script ‫יהוה‬, recorded in the Hexapla Maior—if indeed square was the original script—into ΠΙΠΙ. Doing so would ensure that these marginal disambiguators could be readily copied by future scribes.655 That the margin was the most likely placement (in the MSS of the critically edited hexaplaric ἔκδοσις) may be inferred from three facts: 1) According to the vast majority of occurrences in extant MSS, ΠΙΠΙ / is almost always marginal (esp., e.g., the older exemplars of SH).

|| 650 However, Jerome, who had recently returned from Palestine at the time of his writing the letter, would have had occasion to see such MSS. 651 Gallagher points the incongruity out (citing Skehan 1980: 32) and thus states that Christians then appear to have been using Greek MSS with ‫ יהוה‬in square characters (2013: 303). This difference, however, seems to reinforce that Jerome’s two statements concern different scenarios, and the context of one should not be read into the other. 652 Compare Severus of Antioch’s erroneously having done so below. 653 In favor of the candidacy of Eusebius, it could perhaps be offered that, as Vasileiadis and Gordon recently pointed out (2021: 87, n. 11), he was sure to distinguish between when κυριος is derived from ‫ יהוה‬or ‫ אדני‬in his Comm. on Pss. This indeed occurs several times, as a TLG search shows (see PG 23.701, 717, 744, 1128). On Eusebius’ use of the Hebrew in his Comm. on Pss., see M. Hollerich 2013b and the comments made below (→ §6.2.1). However, if the interpretation of Origen’s note at Isa 21.8 below is correct it is probable he did so first. 654 Again, here I follow Ceriani’s understanding. 655 While the Tetragrammaton is only three Hebrew letters (with the ‫ ה‬twice; two letters in the case of ‫)יהיה‬, converting it into Greek lettering ensured that later Greek scribes could be counted on to reproduce it. After all, trained Greek scribes could only be expected to reproduce Greek; recognition of other languages’ letters could not be presumed. Retaining the Hebrew form risked the loss or corruption of the annotation.

Excursus C: The Hexaplaric ΠΙΠΙ | 409

For those where is ΠΙΠΙ found in-text,656 the clear minority in any case, there are reasons to suspect that post-Eusebian scribal activity is responsible, i.e. moving what was marginal into the main text. 3) ΠΙΠΙ is simply not a Greek word, and thus, it would be very odd for the hexaplaric editors to expect readers would either read aloud or understand it as part of the running text (cp. Jerome’s above comment).

2)

However, if it was set in the margin, and perhaps explained by way of some sort of preface (presumably along with an explanation of the hexaplaric sigla),657 then a normal Greek readership could have grasped that the odd marginalia are supposed to be understood but not read. In fact, the construction of a nonsense word would encourage Greek readers not to read it, despite Jerome’s complaint to the contrary. Thus, the disambiguator ΠΙΠΙ, as a graphic calque,658 was original to the marginalia of the hexaplaric tradition’s “basic Caesarean layer” (→ §1.1.1). As such, naturally its use was adopted ubiquitously for the μόνονtranslation, despite its obvious incongruity with Samaritan script. Textual cases like that above in MS 1098 at Ps 88(89).50 are not singular. Indeed Hebrew MSS survive which indicate that ‫ יהוה‬/ ‫ אדני‬switching occurred with some frequency. And one wonders if such variants, especially if they were reflected in the recentiores, prompted Origen and his hexaplaric successors to denote ‫ יהוה‬/ ΠΙΠΙ in each column to begin with. (Or was the original Jewish practice meant to disambiguate the LXX’s use of κυριος, and Origen simply adopted it?659) And indeed, the wider hexaplaric remains evince similar evidence when the Qumran materials and later medieval MSS are considered.

|| 656 I know of only one document where is found in-text; see below. 657 Compare the various scholia on divine names mentioned below. 658 My choice of “graphic calque” for the ΠΙΠΙ / phenomenon differs from the classification given by Vasileiadis and Gordon (2021) in their very useful survey (with excellent photos of MSS) of representations of the Tetragrammaton in Greek (and somewhat in Syriac), even up to the modern era. They classify the Greek hexaplaric ΠΙΠΙ as a case of “non-translation,” mistakenly developed from the Jewish practice of using Hebrew / Aramaic characters in Greek sources (2021: 96; earlier Vasileiadis 2014: 61–62). While I agree with Vasileiadis and Gordon that the ΠΙΠΙ / is a surrogate (i.e., “non-translation”) in principle, I disagree that it should be categorized as a mistake. Technically, it is a retroversion of κυριος vis-à-vis Tetragrammaton. Hence my terminology “graphic calque.” 659 Such a thought does not strictly bear on the point at hand, although it might be suggested that if such were true that Origen had adopted the practice from the Jews more directly. On the debate as to how the LXX translators originally dealt with the Tetragrammaton, see Tov, TCHB3, 132, and the literature cited there. Since Origen utilized Jewish texts of the recentiores,

410 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

For example, in catena MS 1173 (Vat. gr. 752; ca. 1075 CE) at Ps 78.65 there is a note that Aquila and Symmachus read πιπι; the MT however has ‫אדני‬. Schenker, who published the fragments, pointed out that Kennicott recorded 12 MSS reading ‫יהוה‬.660 Since the Hebrew column (and Secunda) from the Hexapla Maior are not documented for this instance, it is not really possible to determine how Origen’s Hebrew read. Yet, as other such cases illustrate, MTL’s readings should not always be presumed to mirror Origen’s Hebrew in all details. Thus at Isa 9.17(16), Qmg2 supplied Κ. with an attendant ΠΙΠΙ indexed to ΘΣ in-text. Here, SHCmg only has ‫ܐ‬ in-text; however, SHCur supplies a marginal 661 ΗΕΗΕ . , something Ziegler did not record. Nevertheless, given the unified witness of SH and Qmg, there is no reason to assume a mistake on the part of Qmg.662 Therefore, the origins of the ΠΙΠΙ must be sought beyond MTL (and 1QIsaa) as both read ‫ אד)ו(ני‬as opposed to ‫יהוה‬.663 At this location, Kennicott recorded 18 medieval MSS which read ‫ יהוה‬in place of ‫אדני‬.664 Presuming a circumstance where Hebrew scribes interchanged between ‫ יהוה‬and ‫( אדני‬either aurally or mentally), it is most probable that Origen’s exemplar(s) truly read ‫יהוה‬ in v 17(16). Indeed, earlier in the chapter at v 8(7) this same situation occurs in the data: Qmg2 (fol. 196)665 reads ΠΙΠΙ indexed to ΚΣ.666 This is opposed to MTL which again has ‫אדני‬. Yet, in this case, 1QIsaa transmits ‫יהוה‬, and Kennicott’s collations mark 33 MSS (!) as reading with 1QIsaa. One further case at Isa 21.8 is worth underscoring. There Qmg2 (fol. 222 RH 667 mg) reads Ο ΚΣ. ΠΙΠΙ ΩΡʹ indexed to GIsa reading (την σκοπιαν) κυριου (/ και ειπεν …). Origen clearly wanted to indicate that the Hebrew read ο κυριος, trans-

|| and the latter themselves appear to have used ‫ יהוה‬in this fashion, the exact practice of the original LXX translators does not alter the argument. 660 See Schenker 1975: 78 (entry) and 196 (comment). 661 . = ‫“ ܒ ܐ‬the Hebrew”; for the alteration of to , see below. 662 H-R seem to have believed so since they list this case for ‫אדני‬. 663 Ziegler’s AppI is somewhat misleading vis-à-vis Qmg in this respect. His including Qmg in his entry “κυριος O′’- … = M” suggests that the scribe did not qualify his marginal Κ. with ΠΙΠΙ. However, this is in fact the case and thus the evaluation “= M” is inappropriate (unless he was including Kennicott’s collations under “M”). He did not mention this case in his Einleitung. 664 1776/2.12. 665 There are two marginal ΠΙΠΙ, one in the LH mg and the other in the RH mg, which are indexed to two ΚΣ in the running text in two successive lines. Thus, either the LH or RH margin applies here. 666 Again SHC lacks; SHCur is mutilated. 667 SHC does not have any marginal reading here, while SHV Isa is not extant. SHCur, however, according to Ceriani’s collation has an ind marker without a marginal reading, assuming the . ΗΕΗΕ above a v 6 is not meant to do “double duty.”

Excursus C: The Hexaplaric ΠΙΠΙ | 411

lating ‫ יהוה‬as a nominative (presumably beginning a new stich). However, this does not agree with MTL’s ‫ =( אדני‬1QIsaa).668 Again, Kennicott’s collations indicate that six medieval MSS (plus another in its margin) read ‫ יהוה‬as Origen. Presumably, this then is a much older reading. Obviously, cases such as these, which evince non-agreement with MTL, should be registered in critical apparatuses as they are textual data. In light of the foregoing, it made perfect sense for the μόνον-translator, whether Eusebius himself or a coworker, to use ΠΙΠΙ for the Tetragrammaton in Samaritan readings added to the margins of his hexaplaric edition. Simply put, it was the hexaplaric thing to do. : Later Scribal Devolvement in Syriac As already noted, degenerated in the MS tradition. Even in older SH MSS scribes eventually moved away from towards ‫ܐ‬ , often though not alL V ways via . The μόνον-passages in SH and SH largely represent the beginning and end points of this process, whereas the SH MSS for Isa (quoted above) collectively represent all three. This degeneration was the result of the opinion that , and the underlying ΠΙΠΙ, resulted from error. This view emerged with Jacob of Edessa (ca. 640–708 CE), the first known exponent of this assessment, if not its point of origin. Eventually, as the SH MSS themselves indicate, his perspective won the day. Thus Barhebraeus (1226–86 CE), writing much later, summarized the situation in his Scholia on Pss:669

‫ܗ‬. ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܐܬ‬ ‫ܝ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬. ‫ܘ‬ ‫̈ ܐܕ‬ . ‫ܢ ܕܨ‬ ‫̈ ܐܘ ܒܘ‬ .‫ܐ‬ ̇ ‫ ܘܐܬܪ‬. ̈ ‫ܐ ܘ ܐ‬ ܸ ‫ܕ ܐ ܸܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘ‬

‫ܐܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬ . ‫ܐ ܢ ܐ ̣̇ ܒ‬ ̇ ‫ܘܫ‬ ‫ܒ ܐ ܕܐ ܐ ܕܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܐ‬ ̇‫ܘ‬ ̇ ̇ ‫ܗܝ ܐܕܘ‬ ‫ ܐ ܐ‬.‫ܒ ̈ ܬܐ‬ ̣ ‫ ܐ ܕܐ ܘܗܝ ܒ ܗܝ ܘ ܐ ܒ‬. ‫̈ ܒ‬ ̈ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ‬.‫ܐܬܘܢ‬ ‫ܕ ̈ ܐ ܐ ̈ ܗ ܬ̈ܪܬ‬ ‫ܕܥ ܐ ܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܘܗ ܐ ܐ‬

|| 668 Compare, also Ziegler’s AppI ad loc: κυριος O’-Qmg [mend] L′’`-36-456 403′ 538 Tht. Hi. = M. I disagree (my “mend”) with Ziegler’s designation in the collation. He seemed to take Qmg2’s Ο ΚΣ. and ΠΙΠΙ as separate readings (but cp. the MS). However, based on MS 1098 they clearly belong together. See MS 1098 at Pss 27(28).6, 7, 8; 28(29).3; 29(30).11; 30(31).22, 24; 34(35).27, where some form of “‫ יהוה‬κ̅ς̅” is found. Origen then provided two, joint textual data: 1) that his “Hebrew” was ‫ ≠( יהוה‬M/MTL); and 2) that this was understood as nom. (as opposed to του ‫יהוה‬ at Ps 17(18).32 which would agree with GIsa’s grammatical case). Whether or not he knew of other sources reading ‫( אדני‬as MTL) would depend on the data he had in the Hexapla Maior. 669 Syriac from Med. Laur. Or. 230, fol. 76; http://mss.bmlonline.it/Catalogo.aspx?Shelfmark =Or.230; ET from J. Siegel 1928: 14–15, with corrections in brackets and italics added.

412 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

‫ ܘܗܐ ܕ ܒ ܐ‬. ̇ ‫ܕ‬ .‫ܐ‬

‫̣ܗܝ ̣ ܕ ܕ ̈ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ ̣ ܕ ܓ ܕ ܒ ܐ ̣ܗܝ‬. ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕܐ ܒ ̈ ܐ ̈ܪ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ ܘ‬.‫ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܐܕ ܐ‬ . ̣ ‫ܐ ̣ ܪ‬

[Ps 8.1] “O Lord, our Lord, how praiseworthy is Thy name;” Gr[eek; i.e., SH]: O Lord, Lord of us, how wonderful is the name of thine; i.e., the Hebrews call the praiseworthy name of God, which is [Yehyeh,]670 ‘the Separate Name’, and they do not dare to utter it with their lips, but, instead of it, they read and proclaim ‘Adonai’ to those that listen; the Seventy translators, however, retained the written Hebrew symbol. Later, the Greeks fell into error, and thought that the two (combinations? of) letters were Greek, and read them from left to right; thus the name Pi-Pi was formed. Thus [Yehyeh], which means ‘Everlasting Existence’, was changed to Pi-Pi, which is devoid of any meaning. The Hebrew Yod is indeed the same as the Greek Iota, and the Hebrew He bears a resemblance to Greek Pi; this is why, in the Syriac [manuscripts]671 of the Greek Septuagint, wherever the name ‘Lord’ occurs, Pi-Pi is written above672 it.

Barhebraeus’ comment relates well to the wider MS situation of SH.673 And he would have had access to much older MSS which no longer survive.674 While Paul of Tella obviously made a conscious decision to include ΠΙΠΙ as in SH, the calque would later fall into disfavor. Scribes eventually omitted it, as we have seen above. This, insofar as the extant data is concerned, may well have been the fault of Jacob of Edessa. For in his revision of an earlier 6th cent. Syriac translation of the Cathedral Homilies of Severus of Antioch (d. 538 CE), Jacob wrote between Hom. 123 and 124 an overly long scholion, a diatribe

|| as “Yah-Yah,” perhaps under the influence of later Syriac 670 While Siegel vocalized lexicographers (see Ḥasan Bar Bahlul’s ܰ ܰ quoted in PS 1.1563–64), Jacob understood it as Yeh-Yeh, with an ‘e’ vowel, as his much earlier explanation makes clear (see below). Barhebraeus, who from time to time supplied vocalizations for Syriac words in his Scholia, did not do so here according to Med. Laur. Or. 230, written 1277 CE during his own lifetime. 671 Siegel’s ET has “translations” here but this is misleading. While there was more than one Syriac translation of the Greek OT, only SH has . / ΠΙΠΙ was written above ‫ܐ‬ ; it is always in the margin. 672 I know of no case where 673 Compare SHC, however, which does not transmit at Ps 8.1. Ceriani did not supply any to Ps 8 in the edition, only quoting Barhebraeus’ comment here (p. 11). variants with also made its way into the Syriac lexicographical tradition. Thus, Ḥasan Bar Bahlul 674 (mid-10th cent., Church of the East) included an entry for it in his dictionary (see PS 2.3121, s.v.):

‫ܐ ̇ ܐ‬

‫ܐܕ ܒ‬ ̣

̇

‫ ܐ‬:

“PIPI: According to the version of the Seventy (this word) designates the Lord.” Bar Bahlul certainly had access to SH by his period, although he is also known to have used other West Syriac sources in compiling his lexicon (see Van Rompay, “Bar Bahlul, Ḥasan,” GEDSH). For the advent of SH in East Syriac circles due to the sponsorship of Catholicos Timothy I (d. 823 CE), see ter Haar Romeny 2001.

Excursus C: The Hexaplaric ΠΙΠΙ | 413

really, against this pernicious .675 Jacob was irritated that was everẏ ̈ ̈ ̈ where (‫ܓ ܐܐ‬ ‫ܘ ܬ ܐ ܒ ̈ ܐ ܓ ܐܐ ܒ ܘ ܐ‬ ‫ )ܘܗܐ‬all ̈ throughout SH ( ‫ܐ ܕܐ‬ ‫̈ ܐ ܕܕ ܐܬ ܐ‬ ‫̇ܗܘ ܕܒ ܘܢ ܒ ܒܐ‬

‫̈ܪ ܐ܇‬ ...

‫ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬

‫ܬ‬ ‫ܐܘ‬

‫ܐ ܐܬܬ‬ ‫ܐ ̇ܗܘ ܕ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫܇ ̇ܗ ܢ ܕ‬

‫ܬܐ ̇ܗܘ ܕ ܒ‬

̣

). Further, “many” in his own day:

̈

lacking in wits (‫ܝ ܪ ܐ‬ ‫ … ) ܓ ܐܐ‬cherish it and maintain it, and it is not easily … driven out and expunged … [T]hey senselessly claim, ‘It was passed down and committed to writing by men who were good, pious, and scholarly … and it is not right to reject what has been handed on to us by them’.676

He goes on to explain that this claim is utterly false and that, by means of “Satan’s guile” (‫ܐ‬ ‫ܬܐ ܕ‬ ), the original practice and intention of the Seventy had been perverted: For [the Seventy] said, ‘Our learned and devout scribes of old revered this awesome name of God … and passed down to us … that we should write it … but not pronounce it … Rather, when we write it in its own characters, we should say the name ‘Adonai’ ( ‫—)ܐܕܘ‬ )—instead of it. So, … we should [not] translate it … but inwhich is translated ‘Lord’ (‫ܐ‬ stead we shall leave it … untranslated. In addition to this, we judge that … it will be left in its own glory and in the Hebrew script … . We will not write it in the characters of the script of the Greeks or of another nation’.677

This process was, over time, corrupted as Jacob claimed: However, when a long time had passed and some … were keen to read all that was written ‫ܕ‬ down, when they saw the revered Name that was written in the lines of Greek text ( ‫)ܒ ܘܢ ܒ ̈ܪܓ ܐ ̈ ܐ‬, they supposed that these characters of the Name [i.e. the Hebrew Name] were also Greek … As a result, since they are considered to be Greek and supposed by people to be pi and iota … and look like pi, iota, pi, iota, or as it would be expressed in Syriac script, peh, yod, peh, yod, people imagine … that ‘Pipi’ is the honoured Name.678

Jacob continued his harangue claiming that the Name God revealed to Moses in Exod 3.14 was really Yehyeh:

|| 675 See the Syriac with M. Brière’s FT in PO 138.190–207. An annotated ET on this same scholion is soon to be published by Salvesen. I thank her for kindly sending me a preliminary version of her work, which is cited “Salvesen, forthcoming.” The supplied Syriac is from Brière’s edition. 676 Salvesen, forthcoming. 677 Salvesen, forthcoming. 678 Salvesen, forthcoming.

414 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

This honoured Name, then is the one that was provided by God, … And God said to Moses, (I shall use the actual words of scripture uttered through the Spirit) ‘I am He that is ( ‫ܐ ܐ‬ ‫)ܐ ̇ ܝ ̇ܗܘ ܕܐ ܘܗܝ‬.’ And He said, ‘You shall say this to the sons of Israel: “He that is ( ‫̇ܗܘ‬ ‫ )ܕܐ ܘܗܝ‬has sent me to you”.’ … But for the Hebrews, the actual expression is, ‘I am ‫ܪ‬ . ‫’)ܐ ܐ ܐ ̇ ܝ‬.679 It can be transYehyeh: Yehyeh sent me to you (‫ܬ ܢ‬ lated in our own language … as ʾîtyā (‘being’ ‫)ܐ ܐ‬. ... In the same way we find the Greek holy teachers deem it right to apply this particular name properly to God, over all the other names. [¶] The letters of the Name, as they are known by name, are yod, heh, written twice … [and] read phonically, they form this revered Name of God in Hebrew, pronounced Yehyeh.680

At the end of his rant against the insidious , Jacob supplied a table laying out the various scripts, showing the erroneous devolution of the Name: [F]or the sake of further elucidation, I am also writing a verse by David … In this verse [Ps 109(110).1] the one who spoke is addressed by the honoured Name Yehyeh, and the one to whom it is addressed is written by the name Adonai … . However, both names are pronounced ‘Adonai’ (‘Lord’) by the Hebrews. This is explained by the diagram below.681

|| does not occur in Exod 3.14. The first occurrence of in JExod is in the 679 In JPent, margin at 6.(2–)3 (fol. 118‫ ) ܒ‬as follows (divergences from PExod are blocked): ̇ ‫ܐ‬ ‫[ ܐܒ ܗܡ‬mg: ‫]ܕܐܬ‬ ‫ܕܐܬܓ‬ ‫ ܐܐ ܐܐ‬. ‫ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ̣ ‫ܐ ܘܐ‬ .‫ܘܢ‬ ‫[܆ ܐ ̇ܐܘܕ‬mg: ]‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ ܐ ܕ‬.‫ܝ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ܇ ܒ ܐ ܕܐ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ 680 Salvesen, forthcoming. 681 Salvesen, forthcoming. The table here is copied from Wright’s CSMBM 2.545 (from MS BL ADD. 12159, fol. 303b).

Excursus C: The Hexaplaric ΠΙΠΙ | 415

Jacob’s juxtaposition of the “False Name” (‫ ) ܐ ̇ܗܘ ܕܓ ܐ‬and “True Name” (‫ܐ‬ ‫ ) ܐ ̇ܗܘ‬is, insofar as the textual situation is concerned, accurate,682 save the initial waw in ‫ והוה‬written in the Hebrew row and the second yod in his above explanation. Both the marginal ΗΕΗΕ and found in SH MSS noted above are obviously related to Jacob’s exposition. Either the former resulted from the latter or a common tradition is behind both. In favor of Jacob’s direct influence, it should be remembered that Severus of Antioch was exceedingly popular, and indeed foundational, in Syriac Orthodox circles. Jacob’s revision of his Cathedral Homilies, while not the first attempt to translate them into Syriac, was the last. It could then have expected a wide readership. Furthermore, the changes in SH MSS occurred after this point in time. It is therefore no stretch to propose that the alteration → was due to Jacob, something the MSS themselves and Barhebraeus’ Scholia (the latter of which is a mere digest of Jacob’s discourse) suggest.683 However, the placement of ΠΙΠΙ / in MSS does not square with Jacob’s scholion. Namely, while there are MSS extant, such as MS 848, bearing the Hebrew letters ‫ יהוה‬in-text, his claim that this led to the subsequent error in SH’s Greek exemplars specifically is simply unfounded.684 The vast majority of biblical MSS which would have been available to him in fact show the opposite circumstance: ΠΙΠΙ / , if it is written at all, is in the margin. And for those cases where ΠΙΠΙ is found in-text, the MSS are either late685 or columned representations of the Hexapla Maior. Jacob seems to have been connecting two different textual situations, similar to Jerome’s comments (as suggested above), completely ignoring the intentional work of the Caesarean critics. The Jewish scribal practice of writing ‫ יהוה‬in-text, as represented in MSS akin to 848, and the hexaplaric practice of setting ΠΙΠΙ / in the margin are related, but the latter is certainly an intentional development of the former. Jacob ignored (intentionally?) or misunderstood (he did not know?) the hexaplaric practice and coopted

|| 682 See Salvesen 2001: 465–67; also Brock 2010: 5–7, with notes. is (directly) related to or representa683 It is therefore incorrect to state that the Syriac tive of Greek ΠΙΠΙ (pace Vasileiadis and Gordon 2021: 111, fig. 14). 684 Here I differ from A. Butts and S. Gross (2020:18–19) who connect Jacob’s discussion with the situation in 8ḤevXIIgr (see above). 685 These include 13 cases in 1 Kgdms in MS 376O (Escorial, Real Bibl., Y-II–5, 15th cent.; see Rahlfs 1914: 55–56), a reconstructed occurrence in MS 88O-SH at Dan 9.2, MS 88 (Vat., Chig. R. VII 45; 10th cent.; Rahlfs 1914: 278–80) at Jer 2.22, and MS 62o (Oxford, New Coll., 44; 11th cent; Rahlfs 1914: 177) at both Ezek 18.23 (following Ziegler’s emend.) and 22.19. Of these, only the reconstructed mistake at Dan 9.2 can predate Jacob’s period via SH. However there, he only knew the corrupted reading from SH (see Marsh 2019: 78–79, with literature).

416 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers

the state of SH MSS for the sake of his argument which is in any case made by inference. The points of data he gave, with made-up conversations amongst the LXX translators, could have easily been extrapolated from Origen’s statement.686 Jacob’s remarks may perhaps be better understood in light of the immediate context of his scholion. Jacob’s “translation” of Severus of Antioch’s Cathedral Homilies, dated 701 CE, was in fact a revision of an earlier 6th cent. translation of the same, often attributed to Paul of Kallinikos (fl. first half 6th cent.).687 Fortunately, the 6th cent. Syriac translation of Severus’ Hom. 123 (On the Orthodox Faith, and Against the Manicheans) is extant in two MSS, Vat. Syr. 143 (dated 563 CE) and Vat. Syr. 256 (6th cent.).688 Therein, the earlier translator committed (or perpetuated?) the very “error” which Jacob so vigorously condemned, namely appears in-text, with accompanying marginal ΠΙΠΙ, a total of four times throughout Severus’ discourse. The first such case reads (fols. 151a‫–ܒ‬b‫)ܐ‬:689

‫ܕ ܇ ܒ̇ܘ‬ ‫ܘܢ ܗ ̇ ܢ‬

‫ ܘܕ‬:‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܗ‬.

‫̈ܓ ܐܐ ܘ‬ ‫̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܐ܆‬ ‫ܘܢ ܕܗ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ ܐ܆ ܒܐ‬ ‫ܕܐܦ‬ ‫ ܐ‬. ‫[ ܒ ̇ ܘ ܕܐܕ‬mg: ΠΙΠΙ] ‫ܘܕ‬ .‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܓ ̈ܐܬܐ ܒ ܐ ܢ ܕ ܐ‬ ‫̈ܐ ܐ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܒ‬ ... ‫ܐ ܐ܆ ܘ‬ ̇ ‫ ܒ‬. ‫ܕܐ ܗ‬ ‫܆ ܒ ̈ܘ‬ ‫ܕ‬

… while in the Hebrew language there are many famous names, and these are reserved for God and not (used) for any other being. By means of these he is designated: now these are Elohim, Pipi [margin: ΠΙΠΙ], and Adonai. Which themselves were in many places left untranslated by those who translated (the Scriptures).

As an example of this, Severus continued quoting Ps 109(110).1 (fol. 151b‫)ܐ‬: [mg: ΠΙΠΙ]

«.

‫܆ »ܐ‬

‫̣ܗܘ ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ ̈ ܬܐ܆ ܬܒ‬

‫ܐܬ‬ ‫ܐ‬

‫ܐܦ ܗܪ ܐ ܒ‬ ‫ ܗ ܕ‬: ‫ܐܕܘ‬

|| ) amongst the Jews seems to 686 Jacob’s reference to the Name being called “separated” (‫ܐ‬ be based on more contemporary practice (see Butts and Gross 2020: 19). This datum, however, issue as such. need not be related to the ΠΙΠΙ / 687 See S.P. Brock’s “Severus of Antioch” and Van Rompay’s “Pawlos of Kallinikos” in GEDSH. The former mentions Paul’s possible authorship neutrally while the latter views this as improbable. See also Van Rompay 2008. 688 For further MSS and comments on Jacob’s revision of this earlier translation, see Van Rompay 2008 and literature cited there. For the extant MSS, see his table and postscript (2008: 190 and 203). Van Rompay summarizes: “Jacob’s work is a revision, by no means a new and independent translation” (p. 193, following Brière’s assessment). 689 Online: https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.sir.143.

Excursus C: The Hexaplaric ΠΙΠΙ | 417

And here the prophet employed these (names) when singing: “Pipi [margin: ΠΙΠΙ] says to Adonai; that is: The Lord says to the Lord of hosts, sit yourself at my right (hand).”690

This quotation and the fact that this ΠΙΠΙ / is used only of God are both repeated shortly thereafter.691 These data are important for both the Syriac and Greek histories of ΠΙΠΙ / . For the Syriac side of things, the 6th cent. translator’s work represents the very first instances of in the language; further, these cases are the only examples of used in-text (that I know of) in a biblical text (here via quotation). At this early stage was not as familiar since the scribe of the other known witness for this same homily wrote ‫— ܐ‬without marginal glosses—apparently confused as to what this word meant.692 Since the correct MS dates to 563 CE, it represents a precedent well before Paul of Tella undertook the SH translation approximately 50 years later. Paul thus adhered to a known equivalence by transliterating ΠΙΠΙ. As for the Greek side of the history of ΠΙΠΙ, the early date of the witness in Vat. Syr. 143 implies that Greek copies of Severus’ Cathedral Homilies, most likely produced during Severus’ lifetime (d. 538 CE), read ΠΙΠΙ in-text when quoting Scripture. These citations imply that Greek-speaking Christians (and even from the pulpit!) actually uttered “Pipi” as God’s Name. However, these occasions should not be used in support of Jacob’s narrative of the corruption of ancient LXX MSS. Severus was a known user of the hexaplar-

|| 690 The quotation marks are in the MS; “that is: … of hosts” is perhaps not part of the original quotation. 691 As follows (fol. 152a‫)ܒ‬: mg: ]

‫ܓ‬

‫ »ܐ‬.‫ܒ ܐ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫܇ ܐ‬

̈‫ܕ‬ ‫ܘ ܐ ܗܘ ܐ܆ ܐܦ ̈ ܐ ܐ‬ ̈ «.‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ܐܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬ . ‫[ ܐܕܘ‬ΠΙΠΙ

And as for this sense, (are) also the aforementioned words, according to the Hebrew speech: “For Pipi [margin: ΠΙΠΙ] said to Adonai. The Lord (said) to the Lord of Hosts.” Further (fol. 152b‫)ܐ‬:

‫ܐ‬

̇ [mg: ΠΙΠΙ] ‫ܘܗܝ ܕܐܘ ܆ ܐ‬ . ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐܒ ܕ‬

̇ ‫܆‬ ‫ܘܗܝ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܢ܇ ܘܕ ܐ‬

‫ ܐ ܐ ܕ‬:‫ܒ ܬ ܐ ܕ ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬... ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ܕ ̈ ܐܐ‬

‫ܐܐ‬

… according to the expression of the Hebrews, just as we have mentioned earlier, in like manner both Pipi [margin: ΠΙΠΙ] and Adonai, are names not used for other (beings), but are spoken with reference to God alone. 692 See Vat. Syr. 256, fol. 135b (2x) and fol. 136b (1x, lacuna follows cutting off the last instance); see online: https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.sir.256. It would seem that the scribe here did not have marginal Greek guiding him and he simply misread (thinking it was perhaps related to πάπας?). In any case, the other witness is a better written MS.

418 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Numbers ic text as the scholion at SH 4 Kgdms 8.15 shows (BnF Syr. 27, fol. 33a; μαχβαρ in mg):

‫ܬܐ ܒ ܐ ܘ ܬ‬ ‫܀‬ ‫ܐܐ‬

‫ܐ ܒ‬ ‫ܣܬ‬

‫ܒܐ‬ ‫ܐܕ ܘ‬

‫ ܐ ܒ ܐ‬.‫ܕ ܐ ܐܘܪܐ‬ ‫ܢ܀ ܐ‬ ‫ܘ ܬ ܬܐܘ‬ ‫ܒ‬

From Saint Severus: I found μαχβαρ in the Hexapla [Maior?], in το εβρ΄ and the Seventy and Theodotion. Now Aquila and Symmachus rendered ‘rug’.693

This note, in which Secunda, LXX, and Theodotion retain the transliteration of a very rare Hebrew word whereas Aquila and Symmachus translated, could only have come to Severus via hexaplaric sources.694 Thus, Severus’ references to ΠΙΠΙ and αδωναι, surely come from hexaplaric influence, perhaps in conjunction with the comments derived from Origen noted above or other such scholia or onomastica found in MS sources.695 In other words, Severus, like Jerome’s “ignorant readers,” was reading the margins of his hexaplaric MSS back into the running text. Jacob, in his own revision of Severus’ Hom. 123 used ΠΙΠΙ (in Greek as opposed to Syriac) for the first two and then switched to ‫( והוה‬sic) for the remainder; all four cases are glossed in the margin with .696 Given Severus’ usage of ΠΙΠΙ, and Jacob’s general attitude to the “false name,” his scholion was perhaps aimed at exonerating Severus of wrongdoing—previous Greek scribal error was the culprit not the venerable patriarch. Whatever the case, Jacob’s intended correction became widespread, and the Syriac scribal tradition over time mitigated transmission of , either through conversion to or to ‫ܐ‬ , or the former then the latter, or by being omitted altogether. Jacob himself effected this change not only by supplying to his own version where it corresponded to the Divine Name—albeit very infrequently—but also in one of the μόνον-passages he integrated into his own version.

|| 693 I have accepted de Lagarde’s restorations for which see ad loc. See also Field 1.667, with nn. 30–31, and Br.-M. ad loc. The same note appears, without the Greek and somewhat corrupted, in the CatSev (Vat. Syr. 103, fol. 129a; see above n. 46). 694 See also his note at SH 4 Kgdms 24.5 (fol. 82b) concerning the names of Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin in both “The Hebrew” and “all other versions”; see Field an Br.-M. ad loc for the name confusions in Greek MSS. 695 On these and parts of the scholia accompanying Greek Bibles, see Devreesse 1954: 110–11 (with references). 696 See PO 138.138 and 142 with notes. The latter two such cases have scholia on the various Names, in one of which (PO 138.142, n. 3) Jacob made reference to his longer scholion on the matter (... :‫ܗ ܕ ܐ ܗ ܐ ܕ ܬ ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ ܒ ܗܘܐ‬:‫ܢ ܪܒܐ‬ ‫)ܗܐ‬.

Excursus C: The Hexaplaric ΠΙΠΙ | 419

Thus at JExod 7.18‫( ב‬fol. 122‫ )ܒ‬where his running text reads ‫ܐ‬ (2°), in the margin he supplied (→ Table 5.2.1). Yet, his source, SH itself, unambiguously read . In this case, Jacob was most likely the very first person to have taken a from SH and revised it to (marginally) and ‫ܐ‬ (in-text) in accordance with his above explanation. However, this marginal note was exceptional: far more frequent was his “conversion” of every single from a Samaritan passage to ‫ܐ‬ . For Jacob, was simply unacceptable. Unfortunately, Jacob’s opinion that was “in reality a satanic and spurious name” (‫ܘܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܡ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ...)697 clearly influenced a great many ̣ ‫ܐ‬ scribes. The vast majority of these marginal disambiguators were, in the end, omitted altogether. As a result, the ambiguity of κυριος / ‫ܐ‬ which the Caesarean critic(s) intended to remove was reintroduced into the hexaplaric MS tradition. It is therefore fortunate that the extant μόνον-bearing SH MSS avoided the purging of perpetrated by later Syriac scribes.

|| 697 Here I have differed slightly from the ET in Salvesen, forthcoming.

4 The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy: Passages with Attribution and Collation Notations Though the witnesses for both Exod and Num transmitted the μόνον-collation incompletely, it is in fact in the Textgeschichte of Deut where one must engage in the most reconstruction work. As such, Deuteronomy’s original μόνονcollation can only be cobbled together from various sources, some of which are often at least one step removed from even SH.

4.1 Introduction to Previous Scholarship Previous scholarship on the Samaritan materials in the hexaplaric remains of Deut suffered much, primarily due to the poor state of the extant SH MSS. Moreover, additional problems stemmed from either careless or incomplete editorial presentations of the μόνον-remains present in whichever sources were available. Chief among these neglected sources is one of the most important SHderived witnesses for the μόνον-passages already introduced above—JDeut.

4.1.1 Andreas Masius’ Lost Syrohexaplaric Manuscript As mentioned at the opening of this study (→ §1.1), the Renaissance Syriac scholar Andreas Masius possessed a now lost SH MS, SHM, which contained the better part of Deut.1 Though the MS was defective in Deut, beginning with 15.7 and suffering lacuna in 26.9–28.29,2 his exemplar still attested two μόνονreadings, Deut 34.1b–1‫–א‬2 (→ §4.3.2) and 5.21‫§ →( ח–א‬2.3.3 at Exod 20.17[13]‫ו–א‬ as well as §§4.1.1 and 4.3.2), both of which were later published in his contributions to Critici sacri. What befell this codex, which many scholars still hold was the companion volume to the MS Ceriani famously published in facsimile (SHC),3 is not known.4 Though SHM’s would have been at best an incomplete witness to

|| 1 “… Deuteronomij bonam partem” (1574: 6). 2 See Rahlfs’ description (1892: 32h). 3 E.g., Carbajosa 2016: 272 (with literature). 4 See Baars’ discussion with respect to the fate of Masius’ private papers after his death (1968: 3, n. 4). Regarding SHM, he lamented: “It is either lost or slumbers in an unknown library” (p. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110760798-004

422 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

the hexaplarically-based Samaritan passages, as the present chapter’s reconstruction shows, when compared to the data preserved by the much later witness SHV (→ §4.1.4 and Table 4.3), having SHM in whatever state it was when Masius possessed it would have been a great benefit, especially in the case of the colophon. Furthermore, as will be seen below, both of Masius’ excerpts have problems stemming from imprecision in the publication of the data, and he, at times, introduced ambiguities himself when registering the readings.

4.1.2 Frederick Field Field’s source for SH Deut in general was principally SHM.5 He reproduced Masius’ transcriptions and, at times, quoted Masius’ comments directly (e.g., Deut 34.1b–1‫–א‬2).6 As a result, the deficiencies and lacunae of SHM were bequeathed to Field’s analysis. He also (apparently) relied on H-P for the Arabic evidence without direct consultation of the MSS. Thus, he did not mention or otherwise reference Deut 2.7‫§ →( ג–א‬4.3.2) which is in fact extant in MS Laud. Or. 243,7 one of two MSS of al-Ḥārith’s translation H-P cited in their edition. Thus, since H-P did not register that reading, neither did Field. Further, while the latter had earlier referenced al-Ḥārith’s Prefatory Epistle (→ §3.1.1), which described these passages as being in the margins or “at the end of the book,”8 he connected this comment with the case in Deut 5.21‫ ח–א‬only in his Prolegomena (→ §4.2).9 As for Greek MS sources, Field included MS 15 for Deut 34.1b–1‫–א‬2; the reading was taken from H-P, though used independently as previously mentioned (→ §2.1.2). Perhaps the most remarkable difficulty (above-mentioned → § 1.2.2) with Field’s use of Greek sources remains his omission of the “τὸ Σαμαρετικὸν” reading Γαριζειν in Deut 27.4 then available to him from the Catena Nicephori (→

|| 3). Unfortunately, van Roey’s research seems not to have uncovered anything further in this regard (1978: 149–50). 5 He also used R. Schöter’s 1870 study of Barhebraeus’ Scholia covering Deut 32–34 (1.272). However, this selection of Barhebraeus’ work is irrelevant for the Samaritan texts. 6 1.327, n. 3. 7 Formerly Laud. A. 146, i.e., Field’s “Arab. 1,” which was and still is in the Bodleian Library. For further data, see §4.3.2 below ad loc. 8 2005: 154; 1.lxxxii–lxxxiii. 9 2005: 154; 1.lxxxiii; cp. ad loc 1.282, with n. 16. In his Prol., “Deut. 5.31” is a mistake for 5.21.

Introduction to Previous Scholarship | 423

§4.3.3).10 Since Field was under the impression that this class of reading was part of the hexaplaric tradition, it is difficult to account for how this oversight occurred, other than to attribute it to the raucous mass of readings with which he was already dealing. Another major potential source of SP readings in SH Deut which Field apparently did not know of, or simply failed to account for, was the aforementioned recension of Jacob of Edessa. While the MS containing JPent (→ §5.2) is still unpublished, three secondary studies Field presumably should have had access to might have led him to consult this source, even if only via Ceriani (or another collaborator), for possible readings. The first was the latter’s editio princeps of SH Exod (→ §2.1.1), where Ceriani not only claimed, correctly, that Jacob’s source for the μόνον-passages was SH (→ §5.2.1), but also selectively produced a few of the SP readings from JExod. Presumably, Ceriani could have provided Field with these passages, especially as a number of them in JDeut are sub ÷ or provided with scholia (→ Table 4.3; cp. Table 5.2.3.1) and are therefore not difficult to find. The second and third sources of information are articles from French scholars M. Ladvocat and A. de Sacy (→ §5.2.1), in which they too mentioned that Samaritan readings were found in JPent. Ladvocat’s 1765 contribution, representing the first description of JPent ever published, in addition to outlining the obligatory features and scope of the MS, claimed that Jacob “had recourse to the Samaritan Pentateuch, which he cited,” as well as many other textual treasures including Origen’s Hexapla (Maior?).11 While Ladvocat failed to provide any excerpts of these readings, instead preferring to cite samples of JGen along with one reading from JExod,12 de Sacy’s 1798–99 article certainly focused on such readings. In surveying various passages from JPent, de Sacy described or made reference to those found at JExod 7.29‫ד–א‬, JNum 10.10‫ג–א‬, 13.1‫ד–א‬, 13.33‫ו–א‬, and 20.13‫ט–א‬.13 Then for Deut, de Sacy also recorded Jacob’s adoption of Gerizim in JDeut 27.4 (→ §4.3.3), along with the Edessene’s scholion making reference to this reading’s presence in SP!14 Yet, perhaps most germane to this point, de Sacy concluded his study with the suggestion that JPent could be used to restore, to some extent, the lost hexaplaric witness of SHM:

|| 10 CatNic 1/3.1584. Barhebraeus also mentions SH’s version of the reading in his Scholia (see below); presumably this was not supplied by Wright, who provided Field with some Barhebraeus readings (see Field/Norton 2005: 21 [citing 1.v], 190). 11 1765: 550. See the fuller outline of his work below (→ §5.2.1). 12 Ladvocat 1765: 550–555. It is noteworthy that JGen lacks μόνον-readings (→ EXCURSUS D). 13 De Sacy 1798–99: 648–68; especially 662–66. For the particulars, see below → §5.2.1. 14 De Sacy 1798–99: 666 (→ §4.3.3).

424 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

J’ajoute que ce manuscrit supplée encore, dans un très-grand nombre d’endroits, aux hexaples d’Origène par rapport à la collation de l’exemplaire Samaritain, & peut réparer, en partie, la perte de l’inestimable manuscrit de Masius.” I add that this MS further may compensate for, in a great number of places, Origen’s Hexapla [Maior?] with regard to the collation of the Samaritan exemplar, and perhaps to restore, partially, the loss of the priceless MS of Masius.15

Ultimately, while it is conceivably understandable that Field had missed the articles of Ladvocat and de Sacy,16 given the close relationship between Field and Ceriani, formed though their common endeavors and attending correspondence, it is strange that he did not follow up on the possibilities JPent presented for his research. Given the state of the evidence at the time, perhaps more could have been done in this regard with respect to SH Deut.

4.1.3 The Editions of Paul A. de Lagarde/A. Rahlfs and Brooke-McLean Rahlfs updated and reissued de Lagarde’s 1880 edition of SH MSS. In the process, aside from printing the edition in proper Syriac script (but oddly artificially vocalized), Rahlfs added the SH evidence Masius cited in his contributions to Critici sacri and Syrorum peculium.17 As a result, Rahlfs added Masius’ transcription of Deut 5.21‫ ח–א‬from the former publication, correcting the mistakes based on comparison with SH Exod 20.17(13)‫ו–א‬.18 While Rahlfs’ collection of Masius’ disparate citations is useful, for the μόνον-collation his assemblage is unfortunately still imperfect as Rahlfs (mistakenly?) omitted Deut 34.1b–1‫–א‬2 which is found in CS (→ §4.3.2). The cause of this omission is unclear, especially since the reading was later referenced by Rahlfs (see above → §1.3.1.2, n. 491) in his publication of Gie. In any case, Field dutifully registered Masius’ testimony.

|| 15 De Sacy 1798–99: 668. 16 Compare Field’s mention of de Sacy’s review of Middeldorpf’s SH edition in his In Librum IV Regum Monitum (1.649, n. *, where he described de Sacy as “celeberrimus”). Norton does not list de Sacy amongst any of Field’s bibliographic resources (2005: 189–98). 17 1892: 19–21; Baars 1968: 3, n. 5. Note Baars’ corrections to some of these readings in this same note. 18 1892: 27. Apparently Rahlfs did not cite Ceriani’s earlier, similarly constructed corrections (→ §1.1, n. 10).

Introduction to Previous Scholarship | 425

Brooke-McLean’s edition of Deut (1911) featured some of these readings, though the unavailability of 76719 and Gie (→ §1.2.3.2) limited their collations. Because of these limitations, Deut 2.7‫ ג–א‬is not found in their apparatuses and at 27.4 only the OL was supplied.20 The reading πασιν at 27.26 (= GDeut) was also not supplied with any patristic scholia or comment (e.g., Jerome) in their apparatuses, although Paul’s citation of the verse in Gal 3.10 was registered. Those which were denoted in their edition included Deut 5.21‫ח–א‬, 10.6–6‫–א‬7–7‫–א‬6, and 34.1b–1‫–א‬2. The first was supplied after 34.12 (contra Field) in AppII specifically indexed “Post ισραηλ [the final word in GDeut].” As discussed in depth below, this largely misconstrues the data (→ §4.2) and likely influenced the recording found in Wevers (and others). The second was adequately recorded, excepting a few errors registered (with corrections) in Wevers’ edition’s end matter.21 For the third, both MS 15 (MS “a”) and SHM were registered, the latter only in LT. For the former, Br.-M. did not follow Field by labeling its reading as “τὸ Σαμαρειτικόν”; had they done so, presumably it would then have been set in the hexaplaric apparatus (as SHM). Instead 15’s was registered in AppI.

4.1.4 The Midyat Codex, Larry Perkins’ Doctoral Dissertation, and John W. Wevers’ Deuteronomium With the discovery of the SHV MS by Vööbus (→ §3.1.4), the text of SH Deut had finally been recovered, repairing somewhat the tragic loss of SHM.22 The text contains the whole of the book, save everything after 32.36 including the colophon. The MS and its text were thoroughly studied by one of Wevers’ students at the University of Toronto, L. Perkins, whose 1980 doctoral thesis examined the

|| 19 MS 767 was not collated before the Göttingen editions. It was, however, registered by Rahlfs in his catalogue (1914: 19). 20 For the latter, no reading from the catena commentary was included in the hexaplaric app. 21 Deut, 392. Brooke-McLean’s edition was, however, very useful for the present study in that the readings in groups d t (below reconstructed from Wevers’ edition) could be checked against Br.-M.’s diplomatic presentation, which is less complicated and, while they supplied fewer witnesses, still provided the readings of the older MSS. 22 The texts previously published by Baars in 1968 (= SHB) contained, among others, two passages from SH Deut (15.1–8 and 32.1–43). However, these selections, taken from lectionaries, lack the hexaplaric marginalia collators care for and thus would not be expected to contain the readings presently examined.

426 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

place of the SH in GDeut’s transmission history.23 Regrettably, however, SHV Deut had poorly preserved non-Septuagintal readings (cp. similarly the state of its μόνον-passages in Exod → EXCURSUS B). Perkins lamented: Unfortunately the process of transmission of the text has been rather unkind to this marginal material. When [SHV], SHM, and SHB are compared, it becomes evident that scribes were not as careful in copying this marginal material as they were with the actual text. Great discrepancies occur as to the number, and location of these non-Septuagintal materials.24

This study echoes Perkins’ grievance. Despite the paucity of non-Septuagintal readings in SHV, there are three major, Samaritan-related elements from SH Deut still found in SHV which should be restored to or otherwise connected with the original μόνον-collation, namely, the Samaritan cross-references found in SH Deut 1–3 (→ §3.3.1 at Table 3.3.1.1), the defective annotation concerning the Samaritan Itinerary at 10.6–6‫–א‬7–7‫–א‬6 (→ §4.3.2), and the χολ scholion found in 27.26 (→ §4.3.4). Yet, Wevers’ edition (1977, 20062), along with his accompanying Textual History (1978) and Notes (1995) do not reflect or meaningfully comment on the first two marginalia. Rather, the main Samaritan data of the μόνον-type he recorded were those found previously in SHM;25 and while he records the χολ scholion and the reading “Gerizim” at 27.4, he does so with reference to Procopius and the Catena (respectively, both sub “τὸ σαμ΄”)—not SH. As a result, the difficulties surrounding SHM were—again—conveyed to later research. While the objective of the Göttingen editions is not to embiggen unduly the apparatuses, bloating them with each and every nicety of SH MSS, as the below will demonstrate, these data clearly merit inclusion in the Göttingen editions.

|| 23 Perkins’ dissertation, unfortunately never published, was the first such analysis of a complete SH book since the study by S. Rørdam of SH Judges and Ruth in 1861 (1980: 7–8, with n. 31). Perkins concorded the entire SH text against Wevers’ collations allowing for a complete grammatical and translational equivalent analysis. His work is very important as the multitude of references to it in this study well illustrates. 24 Perkins 1980: 384. 25 The passage in MS 767 at Deut 2.7‫ ג–א‬was registered in AppI only as “cf Num 20:14 17 s.” Contrarily, at 10.6–6‫–א‬7–7‫–א‬6 the accord between 767 and “Sam” was registered.

The Colophon to the Syrohexapla of Deuteronomy: What is Known? | 427

4.2 The Colophon to the Syrohexapla of Deuteronomy: What is Known? It is a great loss that the colophon to SH Deut is no longer extant. For it is most likely that, as in the cases of SH Exod and Num (→ §§2.2; 3.2), the hexaplaric subscription bore some reference to the μόνον-collation. However, this need not be assumed simply by comparison but may be argued based on Masius’ comments with respect to Deut 5.21‫ ;ח–א‬for this reading was, in all probability, recorded within the (SH) Deut colophon itself. While such was not expressly stated by Masius, it may be surmised from his description of the reading: “… several verses written in the Syriac exemplar after the end of Deut [post finem Deuteronomii].”26 Though this may at first appear ambiguous, the situation becomes clearer when this description is compared to his report of another similarly lengthy variant reading transmitted “after” SH Josh: “Syrus annotavit … ea post finem interpretationis LXXII interpretum adscripta suisse ….”27 Though SHM of course disappeared, another copy of SH Josh survived, namely BL ADD. 12133 (8th cent. CE),28 which produced this same reading within the MS’ colophon.29 Thus, it would appear logical to interpret Masius’ description “post finem” as indicating that the Samaritan passage was similarly transmitted within the SH Deut colophon itself—which is found after the end of the book. It should also be noted that a freestanding, loose variant indexed to (or simply listed after) Deut 34.12, so far from its original context, would be very strange and has no real precedent or comparison in other SH MSS.30

|| 26 “… in Syro exemplari post finem Deuteronomii scripti habeantur aliquot versus …” (CS col. 286). 27 1574: 117; bold mine. 28 See Wright, CSMBM 1.31–32. 29 Here I follow Wright’s own description (CSMBM 1.32); cp. also de Lagarde 1892: 160–61, n. 33. Note that though Masius, in his edition of SH Josh, set the appended reading before the notice “FINIS LIBRI IOSUAE” (1574: 117), this should not imply that the reading was not in the colophon, which would follow after the “end of book” notice. Masius was not precise in his presentation of the data. 30 The situation after the end of SH Josh supports the present point because the reading itself was clearly supplied after the “End of LXX Josh” notice. Such is unexpected as the cited reading itself comprises Josh 24.33a–b, quoted according to the LXX (sub obelo), not written in the place where most G MSS have the it but after the end notice (see Br.-M. ad loc). While the Syrians describe their translation activity immediately following this citation, the implication is that someone previous to the SH translator(s) appended the reading after the book’s end but not ad loc. It would have made more sense to supply the reading where it belongs before the end of the book, either in-text or marginally. (Compare the long obelized section at the end of

428 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

As to the reading’s placement, Masius’ SH MS was not exceptional, as the Prefatory Epistle of al-Ḥārith’s translation of SH Pent (10th cent. CE) makes clear: The book of the [L]aw which is found in the hands of the Jews has also been collated with that which is held among the Samaritans. A certain redundancy and repetition is found in the Samaritan codices, beyond that [text] which the Jews receive. These things are noted either in the same page under the text, or at the end of the book … 31

Al-Ḥārith’s Epistle is an important, independent testimony, and it serves to buttress the present interpretation of Masius’ description. Ultimately, it would be strange for so many μόνον-data to have originally been transmitted in Deut—readings, collation notes, and cross-references—and not be mentioned in the colophon as was the case in Exod and Num. As to whatever else the hexaplaric subscription described one can only speculate. Presumably further details were supplied, though one must keep in mind the various problems exhibited by the colophons as a whole, in particular the tendency for subsequent (Greek) scribes to rewrite and contract them over time, as outlined above (→ §§2.2; 3.2).

|| SH Job supplied before the end of the book notice followed by the subscription.) Thus, the implication is that a previous Greek collator provided this reading, perhaps when the “hexapla” and “tetrapla” were collated (see the SH Josh colophon → APPENDIX). Certainly, the Syrians ‫ܐܬ‬ were not responsible for this collation. In fact, Paul of Tella probably only added to the colophon which could otherwise be retroverted with good sense. Such an -‫ܪ ܐ ܘ‬ ‫ܗ ܐ ܐܬ‬ ‫ܨ ܐܕ ܕ‬ explanation would clarify why the Syriac reads ‫ܪ ܐ ܘܐܬ ܒ‬ ... “Now this exemplar, from which this (book of Josh) was translated into Syriac, was also transcribed …” (cp. SH Ruth col.). The latter activity is what the Greek scribes were doing while the former was Paul’s contribution. Attributing both activities to the Syriac level reads awkwardly. 31 Cited here is Norton’s ET (2005: 154) of Pococke/White’s LT of the Arabic (1779: 24–25) which was quoted by Field in his introduction (1.lxxxii). The Latin reads: Collatus est etiam Liber Legis qui in manibus Judaeorum reperitur cum eo, qui apud Samaritanos habetur. Reperitur autem in codicibus Samaritanis redundantia quaedam et repetitio ultra illud quod recipient Judaei : quae vel in unaquaque pagina infra textum vel ad calcem libri notata, … Al-Ḥārith’s reference to the marginal readings being “under the text” need not literally describe their placement in SH, as the plates included in this study make plain, but rather this was his way of referring to the readings as being generally placed in the margin.

Greek and Syriac Readings with Commentary | 429

4.3 Greek and Syriac Readings with Commentary While it is regrettable that the MS tradition has so poorly preserved the μόνονmarginalia in Deut, the joint testimony of JDeut and MS 767 facilitates the reconstitution of the original collation. Only SP Deut 11.30+ cannot be restored based on material evidence. The reconstructed μόνον-data in Deut are as follows: Table 4.3: The μόνον-Type Readings in SH Deut and Associated Witnesses32

SP Deut

(extant) SH

JDeut

Greek MSS

Parallel / Notes

2.7‫ג–א‬

> SHV (SHM lac.)33

fol. 347‫ ܐ‬sub ÷

767n

Num 20.14, 17–18

5.21‫ח–א‬

SHM (col. → §4.2)

>

>

Deut 11.29; 27.2b–3a, 4a, 5–7; 11.30

10.6–6‫–א‬7–7‫–א‬6

SHVmg 34 (SHM lac.) fol. 363‫ܒ‬mg

767n t d

Num 33.31–38

11.30+ (?)

> ? (cf. JDeut)

fol. 366‫ܒ‬ in scholion

>

SP: ‫ מורא( מול שכם‬...)

27.4

> (SHM lac.)

fol. 398‫ܒ‬ w/ scholion

Gie Latcod 100; cf. C′’

C′’comm : τὸ σαμʼ … εν τω Γαριζειν (= Procopius)

χολ scholion

SHVmg (> SHM lac.)

>

=

“…all the words…” = G

34.(1b–)1‫–א‬2

SHM (> SHV lac.)

> (lac.)

15oI

Gen 15.18c; Deut 11.24b

mg

Unlike earlier synoptic tables, the witnesses’ attributions are described below ad loc. Furthermore, while the μόνον-cross references occur in Deut, these were treated at length above (→ §§3.1–3.3). In the following sections, the evidence is subdivided as follows: §4.3.2: readings derived from parallel passages, §4.3.3: what are here called “Gerizim-centric”35 readings, and §4.3.4: what is here dubbed the “χολ scholion”.

|| 32 All data in-text unless otherwise noted. 33 As above, this reading is transmitted in al-Ḥārith’s Arabic translation of SH; see below. 34 SHV transmits only a part of the original attribution; see below. 35 For an overview of presently evolving scholarly discussion regarding the supposedly “sectarian” quality of these Gerizim-centric readings, see the discussion elsewhere (→ §§1.1.2.3; 7.1.2). The use of the expression “Gerizim-centric” is meant to be purely descriptive and neutral with respect to this ongoing discussion.

430 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

Before surveying and analyzing the evidence, however, it is first useful to outline the important contribution of JDeut for the present reconstruction, underlining both the advantages of this witness as well as its limitations.

4.3.1 A Note on Using JDeut for Reconstructing the μόνον-collation in SH Deut As the above-tabulated data indicate (→ Tables 2.3, 3.3, and 4.3) JPent transmitted many μόνον-passages taken from SH. However, there are two main limitations as to how JPent may be used in reconstituting the original collation, namely: 1) one must take into account Jacob’s editorial methodology, i.e., how he constructed his recension; and 2) based on a wider analysis of JPent’s witness to the Samaritan passages, arguments should not be drawn from silence. As to the first element, JRec is essentially an amalgamation in which Jacob combined his native Peshitta (P) with Greek, Septuagintal traditions, SH included.36 These he combined, more or less arbitrarily, in order to fashion his Syriac text. When his recorded μόνον-passages are textually examined, it becomes clear that he took these from the margins of his SH MS(S) and integrated (most of) them into the running text. However, he did not reintroduce these readings untouched, but, in conformity with his usual procedure, he combined the SH’s Samaritan passages with the corresponding parallels in P.37 This technique will become clear upon examining the first full reading JDeut 2.7‫ ג–א‬below (→ §4.3.2). Further, wider analysis of JRec indicates three particular features vis-àvis the SH witness to the μόνον-collation: a) Jacob regularly used Greek (i.e., Septuagintal) forms for proper names, both personal and geographic, as opposed to the Peshitta forms SH had a tendency to retain (in general);38 b) Jacob never adopted the hexaplaric / ΠΙΠΙ (→ EXCURSUS C); and, c) while of lesser importance, Jacob very rarely retained or otherwise used certain syrohexaplarisms, e.g., the transliterated ‫ܒܐ ܣ‬ ‫§ →( ܐ‬3.3.1 at Num 20.13‫ ב‬and §3.3.2 at Num 10.10‫ )ב‬or the separated possessive - ‫ ܕ‬ubiquitously used by SH. || 36 See Marsh 2019a and 2019b as well as the studies by Saley and Salvesen outlined below (→ §5.2.1). 37 Ceriani first concluded as much, while I realized the same independently some time ago after studying JNum for a master’s thesis in 2009–10. As indicated above, Ceriani made no effort to comment exhaustively on JPent’s Samaritan passages in Exod. See below, for a further review of Ceriani’s important work in this area (→ §5.2.1). 38 This issue is particularly problematic for Deut 10.6–6‫–א‬7–7‫–א‬6.

Greek and Syriac Readings with Commentary | 431

Because of these divergences from SH, Jacob’s witness is less direct than one might want. As it is not a verbatim representation of his source, it cannot be expected to reflect the precise wording of SH for up to roughly half of any given verse. Therefore, on the philological level, JDeut’s witness to the Samaritan passages in (syro-)hexaplaric Deut is essentially indirect because it has been, as it were, filtered through the P parallel. This means that, unfortunately, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to use his witness alone to work all the way back to individual Hebrew readings from the Caesarean SP. And while four of these passages (i.e., Deut 2.7‫ג–א‬, 10.6–6‫–א‬7–7‫–א‬6, 27.4, and 34.[1b]–1‫–א‬2) have some form of Greek attestation, as the above has shown, these witnesses also present their own challenges and issues. Nevertheless, JDeut can and should be used to reconstruct the extent of the original hexaplaric Samaritan collation. The second matter attending JPent’s witness to the μόνον-readings is that his witness cannot be used to determine a given reading’s absence from the original collation. Thus, if JDeut does not transmit an individual Samaritan reading it cannot then be argued that the SH, or the original Caesarean collation itself, did not include it. For example, despite integrating the so-called “Samaritan Tenth Commandment” at JExod 20.17‫§ →( ו–א‬2.3.3), JDeut does not include the same at 5.21‫ח–א‬, argued above to have been transmitted in the SH Deut colophon. This conspicuous absence does not indicate that Jacob’s SH exemplar(s) lacked the reading. Rather, Jacob may not have not bothered to reproduce textually repetitive μόνον-readings when his version already reflected them. Compare, Jacob’s abbreviated readings found the middle of the Plague Narrative (→ EXCURSUS B).39 Further along these lines, it is also of note that given his editorial methodology, JDeut would not have attested the χολ scholion. This is because “all (the words)” as found in SP Deut 27.26, but missing in both MT and P, also occurs in GDeut. Thus, when JDeut 27.26 reads ‫ܒ ܐ ̇ܗܘ‬ ‫̇ܗܘ‬ ̈ ... ‫ܐ ܗ ܐ‬ ‫ܐܕ‬ ‫ܐܒ‬ ‫( ܐ ܐ ܕ ܐ‬fol. 390‫)ܒ‬, he emended his text based on G, which bore sufficient authority for him in and of itself.40 An appeal to the textual authority of SP—akin to that provided for his adoption of “Gerizim” in JDeut 27.4 (→ §4.3.3)—was simply not necessary at 27.26. With these elements in mind the following data and accompanying analyses are somewhat different than those for Exod and Num. Every witness is taken on its own terms, and no attempt is made to reconstruct SH from Jacob’s

|| 39 One might also summon the heavily abbreviated reading at JExod 10.(2)2‫ ד–א‬in support of this logic (→ §5.2.3). 40 As noted above, this is probably why the μόνον-readings in Exod 8.1 and 5 were omitted.

432 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

amalgam. Each of the tables provides the readings as extant in JDeut and/or other sources. The ETs are based on JDeut (where extant) with variants from the other sources provided. SH Deut 5.21(17)‫ ח–א‬is not laid out below since the passage has already been provided above analyzing its textual (→ §2.3.3 at Exod 20.17‫ )ו–א‬and codicological elements (→ §4.2). Also, an ET of SH Deut 5.21(17)‫–א‬ ‫ ח‬specifically was provided at the very beginning of this study (→ §1.1).

4.3.2 Readings Derived from Parallel Passages This section contains three readings, each of which involves a parallel Pentateuchal passage. Deut 2.7‫ג–א‬: “And I sent emissaries to the king of Edom…” JDeut (BnF Syr 26, fol. 347‫ ܒ‬sub ÷ in-text s nom); > SHV (see below) ̇ ‫ ܘ ܐ‬. ‫ܒ ܒܐܪ‬ 7‫܆ ב‬ ‫ ̇ܘ ̣ ܪܬ ܐ ̈ܓ ܐ ܬ ̇ ܐ ܕܐܕܘܡ ܘܐ ܬ‬7‫א‬

̈ ‫ܐܒ‬ ‫ܐ ܐܙܠ܆‬ ‫ ܒܐܘܪ ܐ‬.‫ܓ ̈ ܒܐ‬ ‫ܐ ̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ܆ ܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܒ‬ ̈ ‫ ܘܐ ̣ ܆ ܐ ܬ ܒ‬7‫ ג‬. ‫ܐܕ ܒ ܬ‬ ‫ܐ܇‬ ‫ܐ ܐܘ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ ܀‬. ‫ܩ ܐܘܪ‬ ‫ܐ܆ ܒ ܒܐ‬ ‫ ܘܐ‬.

767n (in-text s nom) 7‫ א‬και απεστειλαμεν αγγελλους προς βασιλεα εδωμ λεγων 7‫ב‬ παρελευσωμεθα δια της γη σου ουκ εκληνωμ δι αγρων ουδε αμπελωνων ° ου ποιωμεθα υδωρ εκ λακου οδω βασιλικη πορευσωμεθα ουκ επιστρεψωμ δεξια και εβωνυμα (sic) εως αν παρελθωμ τα ορια σου 7‫ ג‬και ειπεν ου διελευσει (= -ση) δι εμου ει δε μη εν πολεμω εξελευσωμαι εις συναντησιν σοι SP Deut 2.7‫( ג–א‬Num 20.14a, 17–18)41 4Q364 (DJD 13.230–31)42 ≠ MT43 ‫{ אעברה בארצך לא‬20.17} 7‫{ ואשלחה מלאכים אל מלך אדום לאמר ב‬20.14a} 7‫א‬

‫אטה בשדה ובכרם ולא נשתה מי בור דרך המלך נלך לא נסור ימין ושמאל עד אשר‬ ‫{ ויאמר לא תעבר בי פן בחרב אצא לקראתך‬20.18} 7‫נעבר גבולך ג‬

|| ‫ג‬-‫א‬ 41 T-F (p. 759) registers the parallel: 18–17 ,14 ‫] [ – במדבר ה‬7 ‫דברים ב‬. This is a typographical error for: 18–17 ,14 ‫– במדבר כ‬. 42 4Q364 is rather fragmentary but agrees with SP for the extant bits in question. 43 4Q35, frag. 6 cuts off after the second word in v 6. It cannot be determined whether or not it contains this passage (DJD 14.65–66). 4Q42 has only a few words from 2.8 (frag. 1; 14.130).

Greek and Syriac Readings with Commentary | 433

7‫[ א‬Moses:] “And Ia sent emissaries to the king of Edom band I said to himb: 7‫ב‬ ‘Let usc cross through your land. Andd wee will not turn aside into fieldsf or intog vinyardsf. Andg we will not drink hwater from wellshi. In the King’s Road we will go. Andd we will not turn asideg to the right or the left, until we cross your boardersf.’ 7‫ ג‬And he said: ‘You shall not cross uponj mek. Lest, lin battlel wem come out to meet you.’ ” a 767: we b SP ST 767: saying c SP ST: me d > SP ST 767 e SP ST: I f SP ST: sg g > 767 (reading “turn” for “turn aside”; see discussion) h SP ST: well water i 767: a well j SP ST 767: against/through (see discussion) k = SP STVECB; STJ: us l SP ST: with the sword m SP ST 767: I

Deut 2.7‫ג–א‬: The data for the passage prompt a number of points for discussion. Presentation in the witnesses: Both JDeut and 767 transmit the passage in-text and without attribution. JDeut alone demarcates the passage with the lemniscus along the right of the column; this same scheme of sigla is used in JPent for μόνον-passages, though rather inconsistently (→ Table 5.2.3.1). As most of the Samaritan readings are designated sub ÷, presumably this was Jacob’s original system. Perhaps he adapted the traditionally hexaplaric siglum as a means to designate readings which were neither P nor G (his principal textual sources), though this is speculation not necessarily supported by the sum total of the evidence.44 It should be observed, however, that there does not appear to be any cautionary quality to this usage, unlike in Jerome’s case (→ §4.4.2). Unfortunately, no explanation of Jacob’s use of sigla has survived (→ §5.2.3). Absence from SHV: The passage should be in the margin of fol. 154a in SHV. The margins are not crowded, and there is further space in both the upper and lower registers. It is remarkable that the ancient Caesarean μόνον-cross references (→ §§3.3.1–3.3.3) survived in the MS while at the same time this reading somehow fell out of the tradition. One can only speculate as to how this may have occurred; no evidence is visible in Vööbus’ facsimile edition which suggests the margins were wiped. Deut 2.7‫א‬: In the first verse, both JDeut and 767 take turns disagreeing with SP. However, these disagreements have likely explanations.

|| ̈ ‫ )ܐ ܐ ܒ‬is marked sub ÷. A simple 44 See fol. 286‫ ܒ–ܐ‬where JNum 14.23b ( ̇ ‫ܘ‬ – ‫ܘܢ‬ comparison of G, SP, P(/MT) shows that there is nothing Samaritan about the obelized portion, which is in any case, mismarked if any differentiation between G(/SH) and P was meant. A further strange occurrence is at fol. 305‫ ܐ‬where JNum 21.27–31 (17 lines of the bi-columnar text) has been marked with angled lemnisci thusly: . This marks the song of Sihon’s defeating Moab. The Song of the Sea, however, in JExod 15 (see fols. 141–42) has no such annotation.

434 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

► κ. απεστειλαμεν :: ‫ =( ܘ ܪܬ‬SP ST): All known evidence from SP Deut and the parallel in Num 20.14 read that “Moses sent” (= PNum GNum) the messengers. It is thus more logical that the μόνον-reading reflect Moses’ agency (i.e., “I sent”) as opposed to the people’s (i.e., “we sent”). Perhaps 767’s plural here is an (unintentional?) adaptation of the passage’s having been integrated into Deut 2 proper, since in Moses’ recounting of the event in Deut 2.1 and 8, G reads with first plural verbs. Further, such would result in all of 767’s verbs describing the Israelite’s actions being first plural (except Sihon’s response “you”[sg.]). ► αγγελλους (= SP) :: ‫ =( ܐ ̈ܓ ܐ‬PNum): Semantically, JDeut’s “emissaries” is a fine translation for ‫ ;מלאכים‬this is what PNum itself selected. However, ̈ Jacob surely had ‫ܐ ܐ‬ in his SH exemplar(s) given that 767 shows the Caesarean translator(s) adopted the GNum45 parallel. Jacob’s is thus only an example of his blending method. ̇ ► λεγων (= SP GNum) :: ‫ =( ܘܐ ܬ‬PNum var.?) : Again, 767 preserved the precise wording of SP; SH here should have read ̇ ‫ ܐ‬. While Jacob did retain SH’s Graecized ̇ ‫ܐ‬ from time to time (e.g., JExod 6.9‫א‬, attrib. 1°; JExod 7.18‫)א‬, he more frequently replaced it with a perfect form + prep. based on the P parallel (see JExod 6.9‫א‬, attrib. 2° → §5.2.3; 18.25‫ ;א‬20.21‫ ;א‬JNum 10.10‫ ;א‬13.33‫ ;ב‬20.13‫ו‬, 2x; cp. 21.12‫ א‬where JNum omits the ptc. without support from PDeut). Given this trend, one expects that “and he said to him” was taken from the parallel in PNum 20.14. However, PNum agrees with MT (= SP Num!) lacking anything representing SP (Deut)’s ‫ =( לאמר‬GNum, ‫ למימר‬TgPJ, ≈ V qui dicerent). Still, JNum 20.14 itself reads (fol. 301‫)ܐ‬:

‫ܗ ܐ‬.

̣ ‫ܐ ܕܐܕܘܡ ܘܐ‬

̇ ‫ܬ‬

(mg: ‫) ܐܕܫ‬

‫ܪ‬

‫ܐ ܐ ̈ܓ ܐ‬

‫ܘ ܪ‬ . ...

It is unlikely that the ostensibly added words in JNum 20.14 were an explicative plus, and no MS from GNum supports the rendering. It is thus more probable that Jacob had a PNum MS which bore the phrasing just as in the description of the emissaries to Sihon at Num 21.21, where P translated MT’s ‫ לאמר‬as ‫ܘܐ‬ .46

|| 45 See AppI: αγγελλους > 54-75′n 628z. 58mg has the anonymous μηνυτας “informants.” Perhaps this could be an unattributed Symmachan reading, though McClurg is doubtful (2011: 52; see AppII at Job 12:8a). 46 This line of thought follows the BHSap note ‘c’ at Num 20.14. If so Jacob’s ‫ ܘܐ‬in both JDeut 2.7‫ א‬and JNum 20.14 could represent the original PNum reading or at least an old variant.

Greek and Syriac Readings with Commentary | 435

Deut 2.7‫ב‬: The verse exhibits the stereotypical septuagintism exhibited by the μόνον-translation. Note that MS 767’s transcription evinces variations in spelling.47 ► παρελευσωμεθα and ‫ אעברה ≠( ܒ‬SP): The first plural is septuagintistic in contrast to SP’s singular. SP’s is without variant and graphic confusion is unlikely, although not impossible (‫ אעברה‬/ ‫)נעברה‬. In fact, the SP Num parallel reads with the plural as all other known evidence.48 ► ‫ ܘ ܐ‬1 °: Of the parallel evidence, only scant, scattered witnesses have a conjunction here.49 In all likelihood this is a scribal slip insofar as JDeut is concerned. ► εκληνωμ ⟨rd. εκκλινουμεν; see n. 47⟩ and ‫ܐ‬ : Both 767 and JDeut demonstrate the translator(s) was using SP directly as all parallel evidence (including SP Num) reads ‫ עבר‬/ διερχομαι50 not ‫ נטה‬which both witnesses here reflect. When the Samaritan apparatuses of both this passage and that at Num 21.22+ (→ §3.3.2) are taken into account, along with all known parallel evidence, it is possible to propose a variant Hebrew reading with the plural against the singular ‫אטה‬. Granted JDeut’s testimony to the plural could be dismissed based on the PNum parallel ( ‫) ܒ‬, however the situation at Num 21.22+ is different. There, while the PDeut parallel again could account for JNum’s grammatical plural, it cannot do the same for the plural verbs in SH as those read against the GDeut parallels. Given that the SP MS tradition evinces variant readings for grammatical number, both in this μόνον-passage and that at Num 21.22+, it is probable one could be suggested for the present verb.

|| 47 As Wevers pointed out in his edition (Num, 424) the scribe of 767 failed to adhere to regular orthographic standards. As for the verbs, ου/κ should expect the ind. not the subj.; thus the verbs in this verse (save the last) should be read as -ομεθα/-ο(υ)μεν not -ωμεθα / -ωμεν. (As an aside, Syriac would not clarify this point; see Perkins 1980: 269.) Hence the mixed-looking form παρελευσωμεθα is fut. (as in the parallel) spelled with an aor. mid. subj. ending similar to παρελθωμεν (aor. act. subj.) due to ο / ω variation which itself occurs several times. ποιωμεθα suffers metathesis (rd. πιόμεθα) unless there is a mistake in AppI. Particularly strange is εκληνωμ which presumably should not be εκλινωμεν as if κλίνωμεν (aor. act. subj. from κλινω, wrongly with a preformative) but the fut. act. ind. from εκκλινω, as in the parallel ἐκκλινοῦμεν, but with a single kappa(?). See Deut, 387, for MS 767 using η for ι. πορευσωμεθα might be a true aor. mid. subj.; see AppI at the parallel: -σωμεθα G* 44-125′d 54-75-767n 30-343s 84t 71x 55mx 59 799. However, εξελευσωμαι in v 7‫ ג‬must be fut. ind. (Compare MS 376 as recorded in AppI.) Note that MS 15 also preserved four fut. ind. forms when recounting the Israelite message to the Amorites, despite suffering other secondary alterations (→ §3.3.2 at Num 21.22‫)ב–א‬. 48 4Q27 is not extant here. 49 AppI: οὐ] pr και 126; ουδε 458 Aeth Arab Arm. Not even JNum ad loc reads this way. ֿ ‫לו[א‬ ֯ . 50 The extant text from 4Q27 reads ‫נעבור] בשדה‬

436 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

̈ ‫ ≠( ܒ‬sg. SP): It is highly ► δι αγρων ουδε αμπελωνων and ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܒ‬ improbable that the plurals in JDeut and 767 somehow represent real Samaritan variants. These were clearly adopted from the GNum parallel. Of the parallel evidence, only GNum and TgN (‫ )לא נעבר בחקלין ובכרמין‬read with the plural. It should be pointed out that the weight of the parallel evidence supports 767’s ουδε.51 JDeut’s omission of the second successive negative (ουδε) is likely a scribal slip or Jacob’s own simplification (cp. ‫ ܐܘ‬later in the verse). The parallel in JNum has both negative forms (viz., ‫ ܘ ܐ‬... ‫ ; ܐ‬see fol. 301‫)ܐ‬. ► ° ου :: ‫ ܘ ܐ‬2°: GNum reads ουδε which 767 appears to omit. It may very well be possible that the original μόνον-translation produced και ου, which was abbreviated in the margin ⳤου at some point. Syriac ‫ܘ ܐ‬, at least in SH practice, cannot be used to distinguish between ουδε and και ου.52 ̈ ̈ ► λακου :: ‫ ܓ ܒܐ‬: Jacob’s plural is from the PNum parallel (‫ ]ܕܓ ܒܐ‬s sey 6b1!), which he maintains in JNum with the requisite blend with GNum ( ‫̈ ܐ‬ = P’s ‫ ̈ ܐ ܕܓ ̈ܒܐ‬+ GNum εκ ... σου). Very little parallel evidence ‫ܓ ̈ܒ‬ otherwise supports the plural.53 ► ουκ επιστρεψωμ ⟨rd. επιστρεψομεν; see n. 47⟩ (= SP) :: ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܐ‬: Though it may be tempting to view JDeut here as potentially witnessing the correct verb (as this would align with GNum54), both 767’s preservation of the correct verb (= SP ‫ )נסור‬as well as his prefixed -‫ ܘ‬points in a different direction. JDeut’s ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ ܐ‬comes from PNum in accordance with his editorial methodology. This exact same procedure is shown in JNum 21.22+ (→ §3.3.2) where he also verbally disagrees with the (correct) reading in SH ‫ܐ ܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܟ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ; and there, Jacob cribbed the corresponding PDeut verbiage ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ from PDeut 2.27. Thus, JDeut cannot be connected to ST’s ‫נסטי‬, which, as the above has established, contradicts the μόνον-translator’(s) known method (→ §2.6.1). As for 767, again a surviving Greek witness can be used to establish the word selection of the original translator. Thus SH should have used either ‫ܐ‬ or ‫ ܗ‬to translate επιστρεφω; with Num 10.10‫( ב‬767 and SH) favoring the

|| 51 For minor variants, see AppI ad loc. 52 Perkins 1980: 42. 53 AppI: λακκου] των (> Cyr) λακκων 82oII Cyr Aeth Arab Arm SH. SH’s influence is not impossible here in light of JNum’s integration of μόνον-passages from SH Num. Again, of the Targumim only TgN has ‫מי גובין‬. 54 AppI: ουκ ἐκκλινουμεν] pr και B* Aeth (sed hab Sixt); ουδ εκκλ. 458n; ουκ εκκλινουμεθα ‫ܐ‬. 319mx; ουκ εκκλινομεν (-νωμεν 71) 71x 392y; > 610d. SH reads here ... ‫ܐ‬

Greek and Syriac Readings with Commentary | 437

former and Num 21.22+ (SH only) the latter (→ §3.3.2).55 As the parallel in SP Num reads ‫ נסטי( נסור‬ST), against MT56 and all other witnesses reflecting ‫נטה‬, one must concede again that the original translator(s) made a concerted effort to at least reflect SP consonantally, even if perfect grammatical inflection was infrequent. Additionally, given the similar textual situation at Num 21.22+, the translator may have paused to proceed more carefully vis-à-vis the G parallel as he had there. Finally, there is no support for the minority tradition reading ‫אסור‬ in at least one SP MS (see von Gall’s App). ► και :: (‫ܐ‬ ) ‫ ܐܘ‬: Jacob’s “or” is conceivably stylistic. The coincidence between him and the similar minority variant at the parallel has too little textual support to consider as original.57 As for 767, like with επιστρεψομεν, the και is original translation. Unlike at Num 21.22+, the και here both agrees with SP and disagrees with the parallel. ̈ ‫ ܬ‬: The plural is a typical septuagintism. JDeut must ► τα ορια and ( ) reflect SH since PNum has the singular (= JNum ad loc). Deut 2.7‫ג‬: The verse demonstrates septuagintism and JDeut peculiarities. ► : Philologically, JDeut agrees with 767’s reading (= GNum). As noted by Perkins,58 SH used for δια + gen. when special movement was involved. ►‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܐ‬: Jacob’s -‫ ܘ‬is a mistake. SH should have read ( ‫ ܐܢ ܕ‬⁄) ‫ܐ‬ 59 ‫ ܐ‬as extant evidence indicates. No influence from PDeut can be detected in Jacob here. The parallel, represented by 767, is an idiosyncratic rendering of ‫פן‬.60 ► πολεμω and ‫ ܒ ܒܐ‬: GNum alone61 reads “in battle”; all other evidence says “the sword.”62 It ought to be pointed out that while obviously septuagintistic, this is the only occurrence of ‫ חרב‬in the μόνον-corpora. When ‫ מלחמה‬occurs, it is correctly translated (→ §3.3.3 at Num 31.20‫ד–א‬, et al).

|| ‫ ;ܐܬ‬16.50 ‫ ;ܘܗ‬as well as SH Deut 1.7 ‫ܐܬ‬, 24 ‫ܘ‬ 55 See SH Num 10.35 ‫ ;ܐ ܐ‬14.25 ‫ܐܬ‬, 40 ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ ; ܗ‬2.1 ‫ܘ ܐܬ‬, 3 ‫ܐܬ‬, and 8 ‫ܘ ܐܬ‬. 56 This is dutifully recorded in the BHSap. 57 AppI: οὐδέ] ουτε Cyr (sed hab I 572 896); η oI−15 Phil II 87ap Eus VIII 1.307ap Arm; και 630z Phil. 58 1980: 74–75. 59 See, e.g., SH at Gen 18.21, 20.7, 24.49, 30.1, 42.16 (2x), Exod 8.2, 32.32, and 40.31. 60 Wevers: “The protasis is a free rendering of ‫‘ פן‬lest’” (NGTN, 331). 61 Jerome’s armatus is a fudge between MT and GNum. JNum 20.18 adopted the latter here. 62 GPent’s translation of Hebrew ‫ )ו(בחרב‬is quite varied, alternating between μαχαιρα (Gen 48.22; Exod 22.23; Num 14.43), φονος (Exod 5.3; Deut 28.22), εν πολεμω (Num 14.3; 20.18), and εν ρομφαια (Num 31.8). Generally, see Le Boulluec and Sandevoir (BA 2.107) for comments on the diverse translation equivalents for ‫ חרב‬alone exhibited in GExod.

438 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

► εξελευσωμαι (= SP ST) :: ‫ܩ‬ (≠ PDeut): The case is difficult. On the one hand, 767’s rendering agrees with the parallel in G and most other extant witnesses. On the other hand, it is meaningful that the quality and antiquity of the witnesses for the minority reading in GNum makes it difficult to know the precise parallel the μόνον-translator possessed at the time.63 Graphic confusion in Samaritan script is unlikely (‫ אצא‬/ ‫ אצא‬vs. ‫ נצא‬/ ‫)נצא‬. The question may be then: Which of JDeut and 767 is more likely to level verbal number for Edom’s response? Though JNum 20.18 reads ‫ ܩ‬, there is little grammatical or textual correspondence between JNum 20.17–18 and JDeut 2.7‫( ג–א‬other than content). And it is improbable that Jacob would have checked his rendition of the former when editing the latter. In terms of verbal number the two witnesses are as follows: JDeut: sg. – sg. – pl. – pl. – pl. – pl. – pl. – pl. – sg. – sg. – pl. 767 : pl. – sg. – pl. – pl. – pl. – pl. – pl. – pl. – sg. – sg. – sg. Frankly, anyone, scribe or translator(s), could have mentally switched from the singular to plural, and vice versa, at any time. It seems less likely that Jacob would have changed the king of Edom’s response to introduce variation in verbal number without support from PNum. Therefore, it can cautiously be suggested that his goes back to the original Caesarean translation. (The plural in the hexaplaric tradition lends support this direction.) However, whether “we will come out” reflects the parallel in question or a real SP variant is not possible to establish without confirming the G parallel the translator(s) was using. Attribution: Unfortunately, Jacob provided no attribution for this passage, unlike the first Samaritan readings he supplied in JExod and JNum.64 Nevertheless, as mentioned above (§4.1.2), al-Ḥārith’s translation included the passage with an attribution noting the passage is “only in SP” and “also in Num.”65 This adheres to the pattern of those attribution notes in the μόνον-passages in Num which have parallels in Deut (→ §§3.3.1–3); they also resemble the Caesarean Samaritan cross-references in SHV (→ §3.3.1). It is thus safe to say that the SH’s attribution read as such. Presumably, the other readings in this section with parallels (save perhaps Deut 5.21(17)‫ )?ח–א‬bore similar such notes. The attribu|| 63 AppI II: ἐξελεύσομαι] -σομεθα (-σωμ. 376) O−58 528cI 129f Sa4 SH. Note that Latcod 100 also reads veniemus. Further οʹ εξελευσομεθα αʹ σʹ θʹ εξελθω 344s. 64 For Jacob’s cross-reference information from SH’s attribution in Num see → Table 5.2.3.2. 65 See MS Laud. Or. 243, fol. 327b RH mg with attribution (online: https://digital.bodleian.ox. ac.uk/objects/f85abd11-034b-4f2e-92ce-d5a9ffd13e42/). I would like to thank Thomas Munt (Univeristy of York), previously a British Academy Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Oxford, for providing for me this information during the doctoral stage of my research.

Greek and Syriac Readings with Commentary | 439

tion for Deut 34.(1b)–1‫–א‬2 would have been most interesting in this regard as its parallel was, presumably, predominantly from Gen 15. Deut 10.6–6‫–א‬7–7‫–א‬6: The “Samaritan” Wilderness Itinerary JDeut (fol. 363‫ ܒ‬encircled, within the col.); > SHV (fol. 164b, partial attrib. only)

̈ :‫ܓ ܐ ܗ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܐܘܬ ܕܒ ̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܘܒ ܐ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܗ‬ ‫ܐܐܐ‬ ‫ ܐ ܐ ܒ ̇ ܘ ܕ‬.‫̇ ܘ ܕ̈ܪܓ ܐ ܕ ̈ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ‬7 ‫ܐ ܘܬ ܘ ܘ ⟩ܒ⟨ܒ ̈ ܐ ܕ ܐ‬ 6‫ܐ א‬ ‫̈ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܐ‬6a ‫ܘ ܘ ܒ ܐ ܐܒܐܬܐ ܐܪ ܐ‬ ‫ܘ ܘ ܒܓܐܕܓܐܕ ܘ ܬ ܐ‬ ‫ܬ ܐ‬ ‫ܘ ܘ ܒ ܒ ܘ ܐ ܘ⟩ ܬ ⟨ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ ܬ ܐ‬7‫ א‬.‫ܕ̈ܪ⟩ܓ ܐ⟨ ܕ ̈ ܐ‬ ̇ ‫ ܗܕܐ ܐ‬. ‫⟨ ܘ ܘ ܒ ܒ ܐ ܕܨ‬ ‫ ܘ ܬ ⟩ܐ‬. ‫ܘ ܘ ܒ ܐܨ ܢ ܓܐܒ‬ .‫ ܐܗܪܘܢ‬6b ⟨ ‫ܬ‬ ⟩‫ ܘ‬.‫ܪܐ‬ ‫ܘ ܘ ܒ ܘܪ‬ ‫ ܘ⟩ ⟨ ܬ ܐ‬.‫ܐܕܫ‬ ‫ ܘ ܢ ܐ‬. ‫ܘܐܬ ܒ ܬ‬ ‫ܗܝ⟨ ܀‬ ⟩‫ܪܒ ܗ‬ .‫ܗ ܕܗܪ ܐ‬ .‫ܐ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ‫̈ܒ ܒ ̇ ܘ ܕ‬ ̈ ̈ 66 ‫( ⟩ܒ⟨ܒ ܐ‬6‫( ܒ ܐ ])א‬sic) ‫ܐ‬

‫ܘ‬: ‫܀‬

767n d t (in-text, s nom)67 6a και οι υιοι Ισραηλ απηραν 6‫ א‬εκ μασωρωθ και παρενεβαλον εις βανειακαν 7 εκειθεν απηραν και παρενεβαλον εις Γαδγαδ, εκει απηραν και παρενεβαλον εις ιεταβαθα, γην χειμαρρων υδατων 7‫ א‬εκειθεν απηραν και παρενεβαλον εις εβρωνα εκειθεν απηραν και παρενεβαλον εις γασιον γαβερ εκειθεν απηραν και παρενεβαλον εις την ερημον σιν αυτη εστιν καδης εκειθεν απηραν και παρενεβαλον εις ωρ το ορος και απεθανεν εκει 6b Ααρων και εταφη εκει, και ιερατευσεν Ελεαζαρ ο υιος αυτου αντʼ αυτου. † (7 > d) 7‫ א‬κακειθεν απηραν και παρενεβαλον εις εβρωνα ειτα (εκειθεν απηραν και παρενεβαλον 106) εν γασιων γαβερ κακειθεν (εκειθεν απηραν και 106) παρενεβαλον (εις—παρενεβαλον 2° > 610) εν τη ερημω σιν αυτη καδης ειτα (κακειθεν απηραν [απει-*] και παρενεβαλον 106) εν τω ορει ωρ (σιωρ 610) και (> 106) εκει απεθανεν d † μασωρωθ (6‫ ])א‬μακηδωθ (-κι- 799t) d t βανειακαν (6‫ ])א‬βηρωθ εν υιοις ιακιμ μισαδαι (μησωδαι 799) d t εκειθεν (7)] κακειθεν t και παρενεβαλον 1° (7)] > t εκει απηραν και παρενεβαλον (7)] και απο Γαδγαδ t ιεταβαθα (7)] εταβαθα t γην (7)] γη t χειμαρρων (7)] χειμαρρου t † {d group vars ↑} εκειθεν 1° (7‫ ])א‬κακ. 134t 602t εις 2° (7‫ ])א‬εν t-602 γασιον (7‫ ])א‬γασιων t εις την ερημον (7‫ ])א‬εν τη ερημω t εστιν (7‫ > ])א‬t εις ωρ το ορος (7‫ ])א‬εν τω ορει ωρ t και 5°—fin (7‫ ])א‬εκει (εκειθεν 134t) απεθανεν t † Ελεαζαρ (6)] εζεαραρ 44d ο (6)] > 799t

SP Deut 10.6–6‫–א‬7–7‫–א‬6 (Num 33.31–38) 4Q364 (frag. 27; DJD 13.240) ≠

|| 66 A simple scribal error; presumably ‫“ ܒ ̈ܒܐ‬in the forests (of)” was not meant. 67 The transcription here is that of 767; variants are taken from groups d t. Note group d and its variants are listed separately for v 7‫א‬.

440 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

4Q30 (14.20)68 MT ‫{ משם נסעו‬33.32–34} 7 ‫{ ממסרות ויחנו בבני יעקן‬33.31} 6‫ ובני ישראל נסעו א‬6a ‫{ משם נסעו‬33.34–38} 7‫ויחנו הגדגדה משם נסעו ויחנו ביטבתה ארץ נחלי מים א‬

‫ויחנו בעברנה משם נסעו ויחנו בעציון גבר משם נסעו ויחנו במדבר צן היא קדש משם‬ ‫ אהרן ויקבר שם ויכהן אלעזר בנו תחתיו‬6b ‫נסעו ויחנו בהר ההר וימת שם‬ ‫ מבארות ]ממסרות‬4Q364 ‫( ויחנו‬6‫ > ])א‬4Q364

JDeut Attribution (first half): [The text] from this phrase “And the sons of Israel departed from Byrʾwt of the sons of Yaʾʿqym” [v 6a] until this (part) “of the running waters” [v 7b] is not in the [exemplar/Hebrew/codex?] of the Samaritans, rather instead [the passage] is as follows: 6a And the sons of Israel departed 6‫ א‬from Mʾsrwta band they encampedb ⟨in⟩ the csons of Yʾʿqym.c 7 dAnde from there they departed fand encampedf in Gʾdgʾd, ande fromg hthere they departed and encampedh in Yʾṭʾbʾtʾi, jtheg landj of the t⟨orrents⟩k of waters.d † 7‫{ א‬for d in v 7‫ }↓ א‬eAndl from there, they departed and encamped in Ḥbrwnʾ, eandf ⟨from there⟩ they departed and encamped in Iʿʾṣywn-Gʾbrm. eAndf from there ⟨they departed⟩ and encamped in the desert of Ṣin, that isf Qʾdš. eAndf ⟨from⟩ there, they departed and encamped in nHwr Mountainn. † Andf ⟨thereo died⟩p 6b Aaron. And he was buried there. And Eleazar his son served as priest ⟨in his place⟩. a

767: Masoroth; d t: Makedoth; 4Q364: Beeroth b > 4Q364 c 767: Baneiakan; d t: Beroth in the sons of Iakim Misadai d(–d) > d e > SP ST 767 f(–f) > t g > 767 h–h t: Gadgad i 767: Ietabatha; t: Etabatha j–j t: in (the) land k t: sg l > t-134 602 m 767 d t: γασιον (-ων d t) γαβερ n d t: Mt. Hor o 134: from there p SP ST JDan 767 :: tr. d t † 7‫ א‬in the d-group: And from there they departed and encamped aain Ebrona, ⸀then (⸀from there they departed and encamped 106) in Gasion-Gaber, ⸂and from there⸃ (⸂from there they departed and⸃ 106) they encampedaa (aa–aa > 610 ∩) in the desert of Sin which [is] Qadesh, ⸁then (⸁and from there they departed and encamped 106) in Mt. Horbb (bb 610: Sior). And (> 106) there he died. †

JDeut Attribution (second half): This is written in the [exemplar/Hebrew/codex?] of the Samaritans instead of these (i.e. vv 6–7) here. Deut 10.6–6‫–א‬7–7‫–א‬6: For reasons which are not obvious, this passage is one of the best attested in later witnesses to the μόνον-collation.69 In addition to the MSS which have the actual reading, there is an incomplete annotation in SHV

|| 68 As McCarthy rightly pointed out (BHQap), 4Q30 follows MT. 69 McCarthy suggested that the passage itself was likely set in (pre-SP?) Deut in the first place “because it contained information about Aaron and Eleazar, the first Levites consecrated to priesthood” (BHQap). This may very well also account for its presence in 767 and the wider Byzantine MS tradition. Compare Procopius’ comments below.

Greek and Syriac Readings with Commentary | 441

(that is obviously defective) as well as a passage in Procopius’ Comm. on Deut which, while lacking mention of SP, is suspiciously close to the reading. Given Procopius’ transmission of hexaplaric-based Samaritan information elsewhere, it is worth considering along with the present evidence. Presentation and Attribution (JDeut and SHV): The passage in JDeut is set within the column just after JDeut 10.7 and boxed off from the regular running text. In fact, the borders of the regular column are violated and the boxed portion extends out into the margin a little on the right-hand side and approximately a third of the usual column width on the left-hand side. While it is tempting to assume that the scribe moved this reading from the margin of his exemplar (Jacob’s autograph?) into the running text of the column, there does not seem to have been any reason for doing so. The nature of the attribution, which so precisely indicates for which portion of vv 6–7 the reading applies, means that it could have been set anywhere in the (otherwise empty) outer or lower margins of the page. The setting within the column is likely Jacob’s original placement.70 Attribution (JDeut): Two elements of JDeut’s attribution merit comment, namely the precise extent of the Samaritan reading and the way in which the Samaritan source is described. As it stands, it seems the Caesarean collator(s) demarcated the passage for the whole of vv 6–7. Strictly speaking SP and GDeut do not differ—quantitatively or qualitatively—for “And the sons of Israel departed” (v 6a). Rather it appears that the collator(s) deviated from their normally word-for-word precision and chose a simpler method. This was probably prompted by the fact that vv 6–7 do not merely differ quantitatively but also qualitatively (i.e., “instead of”), including word order. That SH’s attribution indicated as much is confirmed by the attribution for Deut 34.1b–1‫–א‬2 (see below) recorded by Masius. There the textual situation is similar in that the reading is both quantitatively and qualitatively different. The other matter is what Jacob meant by ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ̇ ܘ ܕ‬: Was it meant to imply ‫“ ܨ ܐ‬exemplar (ἀντίγραφον),” ‫“ ܒ ܐ‬Hebrew (ἐβραῖον),” or ‫ܒܐ‬ “codex (βιβλίον)”? Of the four attribution notices he provided in JNum (→ Table 5.2.3.2), each of which describes the source as ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ̇ ܘ ܕ‬, Jacob only specified the first at JNum 10.10‫ ג–א‬as ‫ܐ‬ ‫ …“ ܒ ܐ ̇ܗܘ ܕ‬in the ἀντίγραφον of the Samaritans.” This matches the information from the same attribution in SH Num. The other three, however, are unspecified, and the corresponding attributions in SH label each, respectively, as ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܒ ܐ ܕ‬, ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ̇ ܘ ܕ‬, and ‫ܒ ̇ ܝ‬

|| 70 For implications of Jacob’s placement vis-à-vis his view of SP, → §5.2.2 for discussion.

442 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

‫ܐ‬

‫ܕ‬. Because of this, it is hazardous to draw too firm of conclusions here.71 Further, Masius noted that the reading at Deut 34.(1b–)1‫–א‬2 was found “in Hebraico exemplari quod apud Samaritanos” presumably reflecting ‫ ܨ ܐ‬or ‫( ܒ ܐ‬or even both). The notion of “exemplar” seems implied here, although one cannot be certain, especially in light of what does survive from SHV (cp. ‫ܒ ̇ ܝ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܕ‬below). Note that in comparison with that recorded by Masius for Deut 34.(1b–)1‫–א‬2, it seems that Jacob placed the reading between two halves of what was presumably a single attribution, perhaps owing to his including the reading in-text. Attribution (SHV): With SHV’s fragmentary witness to the μόνον-collation having by now been ably demonstrated (→ EXCURSUS B), it is unsurprising that SHV’s attribution should be incomplete. The partial note in SHV (fol. 164b) reads as follows:

‫ܐ܀‬

‫ܒ̇ܝܕ‬

̈ ‫ܕܐ‬

̇ ‫ ܐ‬.‫ܒ ܒ ܐ‬

̈ ‫ܐܒ‬

‫ܗܘܘ‬

‫÷ܗ‬

And this [lit. these (words)] had obeli set upon it in the Hebrew, since it was [lit. they were] not extant in the [ἔκδοσις] of the Samaritans.

This annotation is indexed in SHV to vv 6–7 just before ‫ܒ ܐܘܬ‬ and after ּ‫( ܕ ̈ ܐ‬both indexed with ÷). The partial annotation relates to the same in JDeut only in that it provides what was condensed (by Jacob) as ‫ܒ ̇ ܘ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬. Jacob omitted the first half of the annotation, which by analogy to that at Deut 34.(1b–)1‫–א‬2 was in the margin of SH Deut. (For the implications of the mention of obeli, see discussion below → §§4.4.1–4.4.2.) In any case, SHV’s is obviously incomplete. Usually in hexaplaric MSS, it is the reading which suffers loss of attribution; however here the opposite occurred. Lastly, it should be pointed out that while the parallel of the Samaritan passage is from Num, this is not mentioned in either JDeut or SHV. Presumably, however, based on al-Ḥārith’s attribution for Deut 2.7‫( ג–א‬see ad loc, attribution), there should have been some such notice. It is best to assume that Jacob’s attribution, in accordance with his practice (→ §5.2.3), is incomplete even if it provides more information about the passage than SHV. JDeut’s reading: Though Jacob’s editorial method makes it difficult if not impossible to reconstruct the original SH passage, particularly as it concerns proper names (→ §4.3.1), a number of elements from his text merit comment.

|| 71 It is worth observing that Jacob describes the Samaritan text at JDeut 27.4 (→ §4.3.3) as ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܐ ̇ܗܘ ܕ‬.

Greek and Syriac Readings with Commentary | 443

JDeut 10.6: The first matter to attend to in Jacob’s rendition is the word order for ‫ܐ‬ ‫̈ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܐ‬which adheres to the “normal” Hebrew narrative syntax: Verb-Subject(-Object). However, SP reads ‫( ובני ישראל נסעו‬S-V) along with 767 d t and all extant parallel evidence at Deut 10.6. While it is tempting to blame Jacob, or a successive scribe, for the alteration, it should be pointed out that JDeut 10.6 (i.e., the non-μόνον reading) also reads ... ̣ ‫ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܘܒ ̈ ܐ‬. It would perhaps stretch the limits of credulity for a scribe to absent mindedly alter the order, especially since the same order is found in the opening line of the attribution. More likely Jacob reproduced SH as he received it. One might imagine that the order was switched at some point after the original translation was made. Then, through the scribal process—at either the Greek or Syriac levels—when the marginalia was written subsequent to the running text, a scribal absent-mindedly switched the order. JDeut 10.6‫א‬: JDeut’s ‫“ ⟩ܒ⟨ܒ ̈ ܐ ܕ ܐ‬sons of Yʾʿqym” is of interest not because if differs from SP, but because it differs from the GNum parallel, here represented by 767’s βανειακαν; surely 767’s is the original Caesarean translation.72 Jacob’s witness is a matter of his method. For throughout the whole of JRec, he regularly adopted Graecized proper names.73 What is more, these names need not be found in his Greek sources ad loc, but rather at the first or second occurrence of such in the Bible itself.74 Because of this practice, JDeut’s textual testimony for the Samaritan Itinerary’s list of geographic locations is greatly inhibited; 767’s is in this regard more reliable. JDeut 10.7: Again leveling with the PNum parallel and Graecized proper names feature. ► ‫ ܘ‬1°–2°: The prefixed conjunctive -‫ ܘ‬is a feature of blending either from PNum’s ... ( ‫ ܘ)ܐ‬or the ‫ܬ‬ ‫ ܘ‬in PDeut 10.7 itself.75 Influence from both is not mutually exclusive. ► ‫ =( ܓܐܕܓܐܕ‬767): The name is clearly Graecized. Compare JNum 33.32–33 (fol. 332‫ )ܒ‬where ‫ܪܐ ܕܓ ܓ‬ obtains, twice, against PNum’s odd ‫ ܓ ܓ‬.76 Though PDeut 10.7 corrects this to ‫ܓ ܓ‬, JDeut 10.7 reads ‫ ܓܐܕܓܐܕ‬reflecting

|| 72 The reading in groups d t is not related to JDeut. On the former’s method of integration of the Samaritan Itinerary, see below. 73 See, e.g., Salvesen’s helpful “Excursus II” (1999: xxvi–xli) in the edition of JSam. 74 E.g., this same place name first occurs in Num 33.31, where Jacob spelled it (= PNum; fol. 332‫)ܒ‬. Jacob then spelled the name ‫ ܐ‬in JDeut 10.6 proper (≠ PDeut) obviously under the influence of GDeut’s ιακιμ / ιακειμ. Jacob represented both ι and ει by yudh (see A. :: SH Num 33.31 . Hjelt 1892: 32–35). SH Deut 10.6 reads 75 Note that GDeut is not an option for the latter (AppI: εκειθεν] pr και 72oII Aeth). 76 Perhaps a misreading of their Hebrew ‫חר־‬/‫ הר־‬as ‫?חד־‬

444 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

the Greek vowels Γαδγαδ present in 767 here and the relevant G parallels. Note that the μόνον-translator(s) did not seek to represent the ‫חר‬/‫ הר‬as in Num since SP lacks it here.77 ► ‫ =( ܐ ܐܒܐܬܐ‬767): Jacob’s equates 767’s ιεταβαθα, which in turn also matches the hexaplaric spelling in GNum represented by CODEX G and 376.78 Note that the t group’s εταβαθα (which 767 produces in Num at the parallel) cannot represent Jacob’s initial yudh.79 PNum produced ‫ ܒ‬onto which SH added a final ‫ܐ‬- under Greek influence. JDeut 10.7‫א‬: The verse transmits elements which further demonstrate that Jacob found the passage in his copy of SH Deut. ► ‫ ܘ‬1°–4°: For the prefixed -‫ܘ‬, see above comments. ► ‫ ܒ ܘ ܐ‬: That Jacob reflects whatever SH had here can be discerned from his own parallel in Num. At JNum 33.34–35 (fol. 332‫)ܒ‬, he revised PNum’s corrupt ‫ܘ ܐ‬ to ‫( ܒ ܘ ܐ‬2x = SH Num) based on GNum.80 The name otherwise does not occur in the Pent outside of SP Deut. So why is the name spelled differently in JNum ‫ ܒ ܘ ܐ‬and JDeut ‫ ? ܒ ܘ ܐ‬Something had to have prompted Jacob to alter the initial guttural ‫ܚ → ܥ‬, and, importantly, this should not have been prompted by any Greek MS as Jacob’s source for the Samaritan passages was SH.81 Most likely, the variation in SH’s spelling, namely between that in SH Num and that attested by JDeut here, must have been the result of different translators for SH Num and SH Deut.82 The variation was thus at the SH level.

|| 77 Cp. BHSap note ‘a’ ad loc. See Wevers (NGTN, 560), who favored MT’s ‫ חֹר‬Ḥor. Kim states SP Num agrees with GNum in reading ‫ חֹר‬Ḥor as ‫ ַהר‬har ‘mountain’ (1994: 251), but this is not what von Gall printed (cp. BHSap ad loc). Nevertheless, the text of T-F reads ‫הר‬, something confirmed by ST ‫( מטור‬var: ‫ הר‬in MS C, a Hebrew calque), in agreement with Kim’s analysis (see also HALOT, ad loc, citing Ben-Ḥayyim). The Samaritan reading tradition supports this, vocalizing bår and miyyår in vv 32 and 33, respectively (Ben-Ḥayyim 1977: 515; Tsedaka thus translates “Aar Aggidgeda”). According to Schorch’s forthcoming editions, all SP Hebrew evidence reads ‫‘ הר‬mountain’; von Gall’s edition is thus incorrect. 78 In v 34, CODEX M, 318y, 416mx, and 426O also match Jacob’s form. 79 ‫ ܐ ܐܒܐܬܐ‬is also in JNum (fol. 332‫)ܒ‬. 80 See AppI, where very few MSS are missing the -β-. 81 767 d t each produce εβρωνα here just like the majority tradition in GNum. In any case, JNum revised PNum’s form on what was no doubt the same Greek. Therefore, it is improbable that Jacob would have translated differently in two places. For the mess of variants, see Wevers’ AppI ad loc. Note that JNum (or JDeut here) do not reflect the popular variant σεβρωνα (at Num 33.35). 82 An abundance of evidnce was outlined in CHH 2–3 supporting this phenomenon. Note especially → §2.3.2 at Exod 18.25 (for και γραμματοεισαγωγεις) and §3.3.2 at Num 10.10‫( ב‬for αντιλιβανον) in comparison with the corresponding SH Deut renderings.

Greek and Syriac Readings with Commentary | 445

► ‫ ܐܨ ܢ ܓܐܒ‬: Further evidence for direct use of SH Deut for the passage is had in JDeut’s “Iʿʾṣywn-Gʾbr.” For while the name is clearly Graecized vis-à-vis P’s parallels ( ‫ܓܒ‬ in PNum 33.35–36 and PDeut 2.8), the Greek in 767 d t (γασι-ον/-ων γαβερ) most likely did not play a role here since Jacob does not have the initial -‫ܓ‬. In the parallels, JNum 33.35–36 (fol. 332‫ )ܒ‬and JDeut 2.8 (fol. 347‫)ܒ‬, Jacob corrected P based on Greek, producing ‫ܓܐܒ‬ . In doing so, he retained P’s consonants, switched P’s medial - -, and kept the form as a single word. However here, the place name is written as two words—Jacob, working in the very early 8th cent. CE (ca. 704 CE → §5.2.2) using uncial MSS with scriptio continua, could not have based this change on Greek MSS. It would seem then that Jacob took his corrected form from JDeut 2.8, further adding the plene ‫ ܐ‬based on his Greek MS(S) for Deut 2, and then divided it into two words to agree with how SH Deut rendered the name in the μόνον-passage. Wider support for this reconstruction may come from SH itself. While SHV, lacking the present passage, spelt the name ‫ܓܒ‬ in Deut 2.8, one need not suppose automatically that a unified form, spelled with - -, also obtained in the μόνον-passage.83 Compare the case in SH 3 Kgdms where at 9.26 (fol. 78a) a separated ‫ܓܒ‬ obtains (P’s is unified), whereas in 22.49 (fol. 121b) the name is unified (in a sub ※ portion; P’s is unified).84 In both cases, nothing codicological (i.e., coming to the end of a line, etc.) was a factor. Thus, it would seem that the SH translator(s) themselves (or later scribes?) were unsure about whether or not to divide γασιονγαβερ. Based on JDeut, the present passage, in comparison with SH Deut 2.8, suggests that this is still another case. 767’s attestation: 767’s integrated passage displays the stereotypical septuagintisms of the Caesarean SP translation. Note that 767 and groups d t differently integrated the passage: the former wholly replaced the running text of GDeut 10.6–7 with the passage, while the latter groups added the Samaritan passage to the existing GDeut reading. The reasons for 767’s replacement are difficult to discern. Certainly, whoever was responsible viewed the passage as valuable. However, without knowing the state of the scribe’s source (e.g., Was the passage still attributed?), one can only speculate as to the particulars. For discussion, see below (→ §§5.3.1 and 5.4). Deut 10.6‫א‬: 767 bears forms cribbed from the GNum parallel as evinced by both proper names and prepositions.

|| 83 While ‫ܓ‬ is written in SH(V) Num 33, it should be pointed out that -‫ ܒ‬and - are more likely to be confused in Serto (-‫ ܒ‬and - ) than Estrangelo script, suggesting a corruption on the later Syriac level. 84 De Lagarde’s edition faithfully depicts this variation.

446 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

► μασωρωθ : The parallel in Num is spelled slightly differently Μασουρουθ, with the majority variant -ρωθ. As for 767’s vowel shift (ου → ω) it is best to view the MS’s spelling suspiciously (→ Deut 2.7‫ ב‬at n. 47). Certainly in Greek such confusion is graphically possible, i.e., ω → ου, or vice versa. Note that the combined witness of JDeut, 767, and groups d t show that the Caesarean critic(s) were using a standard SP exemplar, reading ‫ ממסרות‬not ‫ מבארות‬as in 4Q364. This also applies to 4Q364’s lack of ‫ויחנו‬. Thus, as elsewhere (→ §§2 and 3), the Caesarean Vorlage was textually closer to medieval codices of SP than the preSamaritan layer. ► εις βανειακαν : The preposition εις is found in 767’s passage throughout for each “and they encamped in.” This is not due to scribal levelling on 767’s part (in comparison with groups d t) but rather due to the parallel passage and thus is original to the μόνον-translation. GNum 33, in recording the stages of the wilderness wandering of the Israelites, vacillates between παρενέβαλον εἰς (25x in Wevers’ critical text) and παρενέβαλον ἐν (12x) for seemingly no reason.85 However, for the locations in question, each relevant stage comes from a parallel where the GNum translator chose εις. (For εις την ερημον σιν, see below.) This is concomitant with the μόνον-translator’(s) decisions regarding prepositions discussed above (→ §2.3.1 at Exod 7.29(8.4)‫ ג‬and → §2.5.2 at Exod 32.10‫א‬ [specifically for 58-767], and elsewhere).86 βανειακαν : The place name “Banaiakan” (NETS)87 is further evidence that the μόνον-translator(s) subjected himself, with very few exceptions, entirely to the parallel when rendering his Samaritan Hebrew exemplar. Note that GDeut’s translation υιων Ιακιμ of the same Hebrew ‫ בני יעקן‬was not selected despite being literarily closer. Presumably, the recentiores also did not factor into the translation given the extant Symmachan reading: σʹ ἐν υἱοῖς Ἰακάν.88 Deut 10.7: Verse 7 is much the same in 767. ► εις 1°–2°: Both match those selected for the parallel in GNum 33.32–33 as well as GDeut 10.7. As mentioned above, the μόνον-translator(s) was careful to omit ορος. The translator(s) surely made use of the “parallel” in Deut 10.7 as

|| 85 See Wevers, NGTN, 552, 555. He did not offer an explanation of the variation in GNum, only comments on later MS changes. 86 SH used both -‫ ܠ‬and -‫ ܒ‬to reflect εις, but favored the latter when the sense focused not so much on motion but “locality in which” (thus Perkins 1980: 75). Greek εν was reflected by Syriac -‫( ܒ‬see Perkins 1980: 78–80). Thus technically JDeut’s witness cannot be used to reconstruct the underlying Greek, which he did not have access to in any event. 87 For the mess of itastic variants, see Wevers’ AppI. Observe again that while 767’s orthographic habits are suspect, this is close to the reconstructed GNum form Βαναιακάν. 88 AppII: M(s nom) 85′(s nom)-321′(s nom; υοκ for υἱοῖς)-344s. Note also the preposition.

Greek and Syriac Readings with Commentary | 447

well, since ‫ ארץ נחלי מים‬is not found in Num 33. The plural was correctly rendered despite the GDeut MS tradition’s overwhelming support for the singular. ► εκει (≠ SP): 767’s is a mistake, perhaps graphically inspired at some point, εκειθεναπηραν → εκειαπηραν, assuming the scribe was not simply being inattentive.89 ► ιεταβαθα : The precise spelling of the location is simply not possible to determine though 767’s representation should probably be given the benefit of the doubt. The number of mistakes and itastic errors registered in Wevers’ AppI (both in Num 33 and Deut 10) make it difficult to determine which form the Caesarean critic(s) had to hand. Again, JDeut is of no help. Deut 10.7‫א‬: The prepositions continue to feature septuagintistic features. ► εις 1°–2°: Both comply with the preposition selection of the parallels at GNum 33.34–35. For the second, the MS tradition shows the majority variant εν in a number of early and important witnesses.90 Nevertheless, that variation, shared here with d t-602, is still clearly secondary. ► Place names: The same comments at ιεταβαθα above apply here. One item worth mention is that ‫ עציון גבר‬in G varies its spelling in both Num and Deut; the MS tradition (according to Wevers’ reconstruction) shows that the former has Γεσιων Γαβερ while the latter has Γασιων Γαβερ (at 2.8). 767’s may be in error, reflecting the Deuteronomic form. (Groups d t most likely took this reading from 767’s source so they are no evidence against this supposition; see below.) Presumably, the spelling from GNum would have obtained in the original μόνονtranslation. ► εις την ερημον σιν : The choice of preposition does not adhere to the parallel in GNum 33.36, and groups d t possibly preserve the original Greek. 767’s better accommodates the phraseology of GNum for Pharan, not Sin: καὶ παρενέβαλον ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ Σίν. καὶ ἀπῆραν ἐκ τῆς ἐρήμου Σὶν καὶ παρενέβαλον εἰς τὴν ἔρημον Φαράν, αὕτη ἐστὶν Καδής. Yet, a number of variants come into play, namely that some witnesses switch the wording for each “into the wilderness”91; however most important is the hexaplaric annotation in CODEX G: καὶ 2°—Φαράν sub ÷.92 So the question then becomes, did the translator(s) work through the text and recognize that “Num MT = Deut SP ≠ GNum,” for the phrasing in question, and then follow the guidance of the hexaplaric annotations,

|| 89 767’s scribe is not known as being overly careful; MS 53f at GDeut 10.7 makes the same error. 90 AppI: Bc M′ V O−58-82 129f x (sed hab Sixt). 91 AppI: εις (ης 610) την ερημον (εριμ. 767) 422cII d n t 121 and εν τη ερημω 129f 319mx Arm, respectively. Both of these listings are unimpressive. 92 See AppI: > 426O Arab = M. My listing is adjusted from AppI (“και 3°—Φαράν”) for clarity.

448 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

excising text sub ÷? Or was the attraction of “that is Kadesh” so strong that the παρενέβαλον-phrase nearest to it was used with εἰς, and then “Pharan” was simply replaced with “Sin”?93 In the first scenario, groups d t have the correct rendition of “in the wilderness of” and 767 leveled the prepositions. In the second, 767’s is original and groups d t, who otherwise made a number of secondary changes in the passage during the course of integration, made yet another amongst others (e.g., om. εστιν). In the end, this case cannot be decided based on the available evidence alone. And with the Caesarean critic(s) actively having used the Hexapla Maior, something which is argued for at length below (→ §4.4.1), it is almost impossible to know which ought to be preferred. ► αυτη εστιν καδης : The reading is in order with the parallel, deviations from which are improbable based on the MS tradition. Note that the translator(s) adhered to explicatory copula where the G parallel supported it (→ §§2.3.1 at Exod 8.19(23)‫ ב‬and 2.5.1 at Exod 23.19‫)א‬. Nothing supports groups d t omission of εστιν which is secondary. ► εις ωρ το ορος : The preposition is from the parallel at GNum 33.37. The order “Hor, the mountain,” which groups d t switch secondarily, always occurs in GPent. The connection and distinctions between 767 and groups d t: As Wevers observed in his study of GDeut, there is an established connection between group n—to which 767 belongs in Deut—and groups d t.94 While he did not observe this example as representative of their connection, it seems clear that despite the age difference between 767 itself (13–14th cent. CE) and the older witnesses of d t (e.g., 134t is 11th cent. CE), that the passage stems from a shared tradition, even if MS 767 is not itself directly connected to the MSS in groups d t which preserve the reading. 767’s (at least partial) hexaplaric ancestry (→ §5.3.1), coupled with its presumed origins on Athos (→ §3.4), readily explain the witness’s many μόνον-passages. Clearly there were intermediaries, no longer extant, which would aid in the reconstruction. Yet, while there is some kind of relationship between 767 and groups d t for this passage, the scribal methods of integration between the two vary greatly. For the former witness utterly replaced the running text of GDeut 10.6–7, while the later MSS threaded the two passages together, reordering the verses as SP and replacing the name of the place where Aaron died, preferring “Mount Hor” and altering the context of “Misadai” (NETS).

|| 93 Or was the parallel in GNum 33.11 (παρενέβαλον εἰς τὴν ἔρημον Σίν) somehow at work here? Note the variant prep is found there as well: εν τη ερημω A M′ oI C′’ s y 18′-126-628-630′z Armte. 94 On the point of contact between groups n and d t in Deut, see Wevers, THGD, 25.

Greek and Syriac Readings with Commentary | 449

Group d t’s attestation: The heavily integrated passage is otherwise unremarkable and filled with many mistakes (e.g., group d’s omission of v 7: κακειθεν ∩ κακειθεν, cp. t group ad loc) or seemingly purposeful abbreviations (e.g., και απο Γαδγαδ t, εστιν > d t; the rendition in d-106). As such, they are not examined in detail here. However, the transmission history may be charted, based on the available evidence as follows:

Fig. 4.3.2: The “Samaritan Itinerary” MS groups and Associations in Deut 10.6–6‫–א‬7–7‫–א‬6

Based on the shortening of the passage through the d group’s loss of v 7 and further abbreviation by the d-106 MSS, the later transmission path in groups d t is

450 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

fairly plain. Nevertheless, the fact this reading survived is still remarkable, even if later witnesses were unaware of its Samaritan origins. Procopius’ Remark in his Comm. on Deut.: Given the previously revealed connection between Procopius of Gaza and the hexaplaric μόνον-collation, it is worthwhile examining the passage found at this point in his Comm. on Deut: Procopius at Deut 10.6–7: Text and translation Procopius Comm. (PG 87/1.903–04; sub **ΠΡΟΚΟΠΙΟΥ CatNic 1/3.1471)95 Καὶ ἀπῆραν ἐκ Βηρώθ. ἄνω ἐν τοῖς Αριθμοῖς καταλέγων τούς σταθμοὺς καὶ τάς ἐπάρσεις τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ, οὐκ ἐμνήσθη τοῦ τόπου. ἀλλ εἶπε τόν Ἀαρών ἐν Ὥρ τῷ ὄρει τετελευτηκέναι. Ἐνταῦθα γάρ ἐν ἐπιτομῇ ἀνακεφαλαιούμενος, οὐ μέμνηται κατά τάξιν τῶν τόπων, ἤ τῶν καιρῶν. Καὶ γάρ πρίν ἐλθεῖν ἐν Ὥρ τῷ ὄρει καὶ τελευτῆσαι τόν Ἀαρών, ἦλθον εἰς Γαδγάδ καὶ εἰς Ετεβαθα. Ἐνταῦθα δέ ἐναλλάξ φησί, καὶ πάλιν ἐπανατρέχει ἐπί τα πρότερα, λέγων «Ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ διέστειλε Κύριος τήν φυλήν Λευί.» Τοῦτο δέ ἐποίησεν ἐν τῷ ὄρει Σινά, ὅπου καὶ ἐν μ΄ ἡμέραις καὶ νυξίν ὑπερηύξατο τοῦ λαοῦ πταίσαντος. Procopius “And they departed from Beeroth …” [Deut 10.6]. Earlier in Numbers, when [Scripture] enumerates the stopping places and departures of the sons of Israel, it did not mention the place (i.e., Beeroth, as where Aaron dies), but says Aaron had died in Or, the mountain [Num 33.38–39]. Now here (i.e., in Deut), (the narrative) being summarized in an epitome, was not recalled according to the order of locations or times [as in Num]. For they entered Gadgad and Etebatha before coming to Or, the mountain, and (before) Aaron died. But here (in Deut), it recounts (things) in inverted order, returning to earlier events when saying: “In that time the Lord separated the tribe of Levi” [Deut 10.8]; but he did this in Mount Sinai [Num 8], where also for 40 days and nights, [Moses] prayed for the people who fell into error [Exod 32–34]. While Procopius certainly had access to the Cesarean ἔκδοσις, as the Samaritan materials he attested in Deut make clear (→ §2.3.2 at Exod 18.25–25‫)ג–א‬, properly parsing the present passage is problematic. On the one hand, there is a similarity between what he discussed here and the Samaritan passage. Yet on the other hand, he explicitly noted the “Samaritan” nature of μόνον-data elsewhere. Probably, his concern was to justify Deut and its means of recapitulating earlier narratives. Procopius then composed the note from his own observation, and it subsequently entered the MS tradition since this same scholion is also transmit-

|| 95 Nicephorus’ use of asterisks in composing his edition supports this as being truly Procopian (see Fernández Marcos 2000: 296, n. 21).

Greek and Syriac Readings with Commentary | 451

ted, anonymously, in CODEX M (fol. 134aβ). Perhaps it is not impossible the μόνον-reading prompted his note,96 though this is speculation. Deut 34.(1b–)1‫–א‬2: “… from the River of Egypt until the Great River …” SHM (CS col. 285)97; > SHV JDeut (both lac.) ¶ Καὶ ἔδειξεν αὐτῷ Κύριος πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν. Syrum exemplar notat in margine, quod illa verba, quae sequuntur usque dum dicitur, καὶ εἶπε Κυριος πρὸς&c. sint [sic] in Hexaplo Origenis notata obelisco, eo quod in Hebraico exemplari quod apud Samaritanos extabat, pro illis fuerant scripta haec, 1b καὶ ἔδειξεν αὐτῷ Κύριος πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν 1‫ א‬ἀπὸ τοῦ ποταμοῦ τοῦ Αἰγύπτου ἕως τοῦ ποταμοῦ μεγάλου, ποταμοῦ εὐφράτου 2 ° ἕως τὴς θαλάσσης τὴς ἐσχάτης. 4 καὶ εἶπε Κυριος &c. 15oI (in-text and unattributed) και ανεβη Μωυσης απο Αραβωθ Μωαβ επι το ορος Ναβαυ επι κορυφην Φασγα, η εστιν επι προσωπου Ιεριχω, 1b και εδειξεν αυτω κυριος πασαν την γην Γαλααδ εως Δαν 1‫ א‬απο του ποταμου αιγυπτου εως του ποταμου του μεγαλου ποταμου ευφρατου 2 και πασαν την γην Ἐφραιμ και Μανασση και πασαν την γην Ἰουδα ° εως της θαλασσης της εσχατης, 3 και την ερημον και τα περιχωρα Ἰεριχω, πολιν φοινικων, εως Σηγωρ 4 και ειπεν κυριος προς Μωυσην SP Deut 34.(1b–)1‫–א‬2 (om. v 3; Gen 15.18c98) 4Q45? ≠ 4Q45? (DJD 9.148; cf. p. 134)99 MasDeut100 MT ‫ ויעל משה מערבת מואב אל הר נבא ראש הפסגה אשר על פני יריחו ויראיהו יהוה‬1 ‫ ועד הים‬2 ‫{ מנהר מצרים עד הנהר הגדול נהר פרת‬Gen 15.18c} 1‫את כל הארץ א‬ ... ‫ ויאמר יהוה אליו‬4 ‫האחרון‬ MASIUS: 1b And the Lord showed to him all the land: SH notes in the margin that the words following, up until it says “And the Lord said to etc. [v 4],” are obelized [lit. noted with obeli] in the Hexapla of Origen, because the Hebrew exemplar [= ‫ ]ܨ ܐ‬extant amongst the Samaritans has written here, in place of [LXX], as follows: “1b And the Lord showed him all the land 1‫ א‬from the River of Egypt until the Great River, the River Euphrates, 2 buntil the far Sea. 4 And the Lord said etc.”

|| 96 That the Byzantine MS tradition adopted the reading certainly leads in this direction. 97 The italics and diacritics in Masius’ transcription are reproduced though ligatures are not. 98 McCarthy lists the section in question as from Gen 15.18b (BHQap). The present labeling as “18c” is meant to reflect the Masoretic divisions of the verse. 99 Ulrich is unsure in this case stating ]‫ [◦ ֯ל‬in ln. 4 could represent either MT’s ‫ כל‬1° or ‫נפתלי‬ (both in 34.2) in the case of reconstruction according to MT, though he also deems it possible to read ‫ הגדול‬as SP (p. 148). 100 Frags. c and d preserve “land of Juda⟨h⟩” in v 2 (see Yadin and Talmon 1999: 54).

452 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

MS 15:

1 And Moses went up from Araboth Moab upon Mt. Nabau, upon the summit of Phasga, which is opposite Jericho. 1b And the Lord showed to him all the land, aGalaad until Dan,a 1‫ א‬from the River of Egypt until the Great River, the River Euphrates; 2 aand all the Land of Ephraim and Manasseh, and all the land of Judah,a buntil the far Sea, a3 and the desert and surrounding region of Jericho, city of date palms, until Segor.a 4 And the Lord said to Moses … a

> SP ST

b

SP ST: pr. and

Deut 34.(1b–)1‫–א‬2101: Many elements from the current reading warrant comment, not the least of which is Masius’ description from CS. Masius’ testimony: For whatever reason, Masius decided against simply reproducing the Syriac from the margin of his MS (cp. Deut 5.21‫)ח–א‬. Instead, he only supplied a description of the annotation, its function and contents, leading to questions about the precise wording and form of the original marginal note as transmitted by SHM. This is an important point since all editions after Masius reproduced some part of his description, specifically “sint in Hexaplo Origenis,”102 giving the impression that the note specifically named Origen. However, Origen’s name is not referenced in any of the μόνον-materials, especially the colophons which exclusively mention Eusebius Pamphili; it is thus safest to postulate that Masius was generalizing. For further discussion of this aspect of the data vis-à-vis Origen’s potential involvement in the hexaplaric SP collation, see below (→ §6.2.1, Origen, #1). Whatever the ambiguities or faults of Masius’ description, based upon his record, the annotation in SH makes clear: a) the precise extent of the reading in SP, b) that the reading contained a partial replacement (v 2), and c) SP omits all of v 3. Further, d) seeing as the reading is not merely quantitatively but also qualitatively at variance with GDeut, the Caesarean collators employed obeli as in previous cases, especially at Deut 10.6–6‫–א‬7–7‫–א‬6. (For a complete discussion of the use of obeli within the μόνον-collation → §§4.4.1–4.4.2) The note is then concomitant with others transmitted by SH and related witnesses. MS 15’s attestation: Akin to those short, integrated readings 15 preserved in Num (→ §3.3.2 at Num 21.22‫ ב–א‬and 32.1 & 29), the MS preserves another here. Much like groups d t in the case of the “Samaritan Itinerary,” some scribe at some point directly added the portion of the passage which was “μόνον” when

|| 101 N.B.: MS 767 does not transmit the present reading though the MS is extant for Deut 34. 102 Field 1.327, n. 3; Brooke-McLean (1911) 1/3.673 (changing sint to sunt); Wevers’ AppII.

Greek and Syriac Readings with Commentary | 453

compared to the existing text of GDeut.103 The result is a much fuller text and reads well. Like other shorter readings which are found in later hexaplaric witnesses, it is impossible to know the state of the passage’s attribution at the point of integration. It is thus possible, as in the other cases, that the scribe who integrated the verse believed it was a marginal correction (→ §§5.3.3; 5.4).104 ► ° εως (v 2; ≠ ‫ ועד‬SP ST); της εσχατης for ‫ האחרון‬: Both SHM and 15 lack any corresponding conjunction from SP Deut 34.2. This is most likely due to the fact that the Caesarean collator(s) viewed the proper parallel for this verse to be Deut 34.2 itself albeit shorter than v 2 in GDeut (and MT). Thus the μόνον-translation “omits” the waw. This, however, is not representative of a true SP variant, but is only the result of the selected parallel. This notion is reinforced by the selection of της εσχατης for SP’s ‫האחרון‬. Again, this is due to the present GDeut text and confirms that the hexaplaric translator(s) did not have Deut 11.24 in view, which the pre-Samaritan editor(s) perhaps had in mind as suggested by McCarthy.105 While Deut 11.24 mentions “the Great River Euphrates” this was apparently not enough to prompt the Caesarean critic(s) to consult that parallel for v 2. Had he done so, then he would have produced της επι δυσμων106 for ‫האחרון‬. Attribution (Masius): Insofar as attributions are concerned, Masius’ record is further ambiguous with respect to his use of “Hebraico exemplari.” Given that so many of the SH attributions attest to ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ̇ ܘ ܕ‬, it is possible that Masius ̇ “filled in” the sense of ‫ ܒ ܘ‬if that is how his copy read. If this was so, then ‫ ܒ ܐ‬, ‫ܨ ܐ‬, or potentially even ‫ ܒܐ‬could represent the sense. Based on the attributions in SH Num, either of the first two are most probable. One additional point, though this assumes that Masius represented all of the information in the attribution, is that no mention is made of the parallel for v 1‫ א‬in Gen. Perhaps the Caesarean critic(s) did not bother to mention this despite the fact that the only parallel mentioning both the Nile (as “River of

|| 103 15’s lack of GDeut’s και πασαν την γην Νεφθαλι has nothing to do with the integration process but is rather a featured omission of 15’s MS group oI: και πασαν την γην 1° ∩ και πασαν την γην 2°. 104 McCarthy (2004: 128) holds that the SP reading here is “somehow idealistic … show[ing] how the divine promise to Abraham will be fulfilled (Gen. 15) provided that the commandments are kept strictly (Deut. 11).” Perhaps similar motives lay behind MS 15’s integration. 105 Note that T-F do not provide a parallel “source” for this passage in their listings (p. 759). In Ben-Ḥayyim’s transcription of the Samaritan reading tradition, he simply skipped from v. 1 to v. 4. Kim does not mention Deut 11.24 as laying behind SP here (1994: 290). 106 Compare, however, the recentiores ad loc (AppII): οἱ λ΄ τῆς ἐσχάτης 108b 344s(s nom); οἱ λ΄ ἐσχάτης M (ind ad τῆς) 85(s nom)-321′(s nom)s. Given the septuagintism, however, the recentiores would have played only a secondary role.

454 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

Egypt”) and Euphrates has to have come from Gen 15. Whatever the case, the fact that no evidence survives confirming the μόνον-collation was executed for Gen (→ EXCURSUS D) perhaps suggests that no such cross-reference would have been supplied for the (partial) parallel.

4.3.3 “Gerizim-Centric” Readings This section has only two readings, both of which may be restored to the μόνονcollation, though with very different levels of physical evidence. The witness for the first is less firm, even if logic demands it, whereas the second was without doubt part of the original body of readings. Deut 11.30+(?): “… opposite Shechem.” Scholion at JDeut 11.30mg (BnF Syr 26, fol. 366‫ܒ–ܐ‬, encircled107); > SHV108

‫ܒ ܘܢ ܐ ܘܗܝ܆ ܐ ܐ‬

‫ܓ‬

‫ܐܕ‬

‫ܗܪ ܐ܆ ܐ ܗܘܐ ̇ܗܘ ܕ‬ .

‫ܗ ܐ ܒ ܐ ܕܐ‬ ‫ܓ‬ ‫̇ܗܘ ܕ‬

Reference text (differences from PDeut 11.29–30 are blocked):

‫ ܗܐ‬30 .‫ܪܐ ܕܓܐܒܐܠ‬ ‫ܪܐ ܕܓܐܪܙ ܆ ܘ ̈ ܐ‬ ‫ ܬܬܠ ܒ ̈ܪ ܐ‬... ̇ .‫ܒ ܓܐ ܓ ܐ ܨ ܒ ܐ ܗܘ ܪ ܐ‬ ... : ‫ܘܢ܇ ܒ ܒ ܐ ܕ ܪܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬

|| 107 Between the columns in the MS. This same note is also found in (Ps.?-)Ephrem’s Comm. on Deut, as transmitted in CatSev (Vat. Syr. 103, fol. 81b, at Deut 11.29–30; vars.: om. ‫ ܗܘܐ‬and various orthographic differences.). Jacob’s own Comm. on Deut (at 11.29–30), as transmitted in the CatSev (fol. 60b, bottom half), bears no such comment. While the note is not explicitly attributed to Jacob in CatSev, the scholion follows directly after his Gerizim scholion (see below) which is attributed to him with a red påsôqå ‫ ܀‬dividing the two. (See the MS: https:// digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.sir.103.pt.1.) It is reasonable to presume that either the scribe of CatSev was mistaken in adding the sense division, or he neglected to repeat the attribution in the second note. Regardless, the scholion is found in JDeut, and thus his authorship, or at least endorsement, should be affirmed. 108 Nothing is transmitted in the margins of SHV at this point except the reading attributed to Aquila (see AppII).

Greek and Syriac Readings with Commentary | 455

SP Deut 11.30+ ≠ ⟨4Q45⟩ (see McCarthy BHQap; DJD 9.134, 138)109 MT

‫ הלוא הם בעבר הירדן אחרי דרך מבוא השמש בארץ הכנעני הישב בערבה מול‬30 ‫ מול שכם‬30+ ‫הגלגל אצל אלון מורה‬ JDeut scholion: This oak which he (sc. Moses) mentions here is not that of Mamre, which is near Hebron, rather it is the one near(by) Shechem. Deut 11.30+: Despite the brevity of SP’s unique locative descriptor ‫מול שכם‬,110 a good amount of ancient Christian evidence related to Gerizim’s precise location, whether circumstantially related or not, makes this case remarkably difficult to interpret vis-à-vis the μόνον-collation. In short, the reading ‫ מול שכם‬should have been a part of the original μόνον-collection, given the Caesarean collation’s intent and quantitative character (→ §1.3.2), with which the reading perfectly fits. Most decisively, this very reading “opposite Shechem” formed the very end of the Gerizim florilegium found twice, once at Exod 20.17(13)‫§ →( ו–א‬2.3.3) and then Deut 5.21‫§ →( ח–א‬4.2); this implies the Caesarean critic(s) were aware of the Samaritan distinctive ‫ מול שכם‬at Deut 11.30, at least via its parallels. Thus, there is no reason why this would not have also been included at Deut 11.30. This, coupled with early Christian awareness of the Samaritan claims for Mount Gerizim’s locale and general sanctity (viz., John 4), supports the reading’s restoration to the Caesarean effort. Most decisively, Eusebius himself was abundantly aware of the Samaritan claim (see below). In light of these historical data, the reading should be restored even if the extant hexaplaric evidence is thin if not inexistent. The context of Jacob’s note: Nonetheless, the source of Jacob’s note remains unclear. The note does not reference SP—unlike the scholion on Gerizim at JDeut 27.4 (see next reading). If Jacob’s remark cannot be connected directly

|| 109 (Skehan and) Ulrich: “The reconstruction of frg. 13 2-3 suggests that at Deut 11:30 ‫מול שכם‬ as in [SP] was probably lacking …” (DJD 9.134; see also p. 138). Barthélemy did not comment on 1Q4 (DJD 1.55) or 1Q5 (1.58) as too little survives to evaluate. Ulrich’s 2010 transcriptions similarly make no such comments (2010: 207). 110 The literature on this specific reading is extensive and need not be rehearsed here. Evaluations such as that by McCarthy (2004: 127) stating the Samaritans added this to the ire of the Rabbis, are fairly typical (see, e.g., Kim 1994: 281; Knoppers 2017: 169, n. 21 [“likely sectarian in nature”]; in BHQap McCarthy tags ‫ מול שכם‬as “ideol[ogically motivated]”; Pummer 2016: 77 [vid.], 206). Schenker’s 2014 article, in which he defends the reading as original, stands as an exception to the rule. On the Rabbinic comments, see T. Lim 2017: 91 and Bóid 1988: 609–10. On the debate as to the location in Deut 11.30 vis-à-vis Gilgal(s) and the place of the testimony of 4Q47 (4QJosha), see Ulrich 2012 and Schorch 2020.

456 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

to the Caesarean collation, then this case may be yet another example of how badly the Samaritan data was preserved by Deut’s MS history. Interpreting the note in JDeut necessitates attention to the wider context. At Deut 11.30 Jacob adopted GDeut’s reading ‫ܐ ̇ܗܘ ܪ ܐ‬ ‫“ ܒ‬the high oak” as opposed to PDeut’s ‫ܐ‬ ‫“ ܒ ܐ ܕ‬the oak of Mamre.” This tree (MT’s ‫מוֹרה‬ ֶ ), mentioned in Deut 11.30 and Gen 12.6, is for whatever reason111 rendered as ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܕ‬by P at both places; this creates a (potential) confusion with the other “oak(s) of Mamre” associated with Abraham’s travels in and around Hebron (Gen 13.18; 14.13; 18.1). Compare the wider JPent representation of these trees: Table 4.3.3.1: The Abrahamic ‫ܐ‬

‫ ܒ‬in JPent112

Gen 12.6 – MT : ‫ שכם עד אלון מורה‬... at Shechem P: ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܒ ܐܕ‬ ‫ܘ‬. ‫ ܕ‬... G: … Συχέμ, ἐπὶ τὴν δρῦν τὴν (+ μαμ[βρ]η 911 → σ΄ and P !) ὑψηλήν ‫ܐ ܒ ܐܕ‬ ‫ܘ‬. ‫ ܕ‬...; mg: ‫ ]ܕ‬συχεμ JGen (fol. 24‫)ܒ‬: ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܪ ܐ ]ܕ‬ Gen 13.18 – MT : ‫ וישב באלוני ממרא‬... at Hebron ‫ ܘ ̣ ܒ ܒ ܒ ܐ ܕ‬... P: .‫ܐ ܐ ܪ ܐ‬ G: … κατῴκησεν παρὰ τὴν δρῦν τὴν Μαμβρή (+ υψηλην 911 !) ‫ܬ ܒ ܐ ̇ܗܘ ܕ‬ JGen (fol. 26‫ )ܒ‬: ‫ܐ܇‬ ̣ ... Gen 14.13 – MT : ‫ באלוני ממרא האמרי‬... at Hebron ‫ ܒ ܒ ܐ ܕ‬... P: ‫ܐ ܐ ܪ ܐ‬ G: … πρὸς τῇ δρυὶ τῇ Μαμβρὴ ὁ Ἄμορις ‫ ܬ ܒ ܐ ̇ܗܘ ܕ‬... ; mg: ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ]ܕ‬μαμβρη JGen (fol. 27‫ )ܒ‬: ‫ܐ ܐ ܪ ܐ܇‬ Gen 18.1 – MT : ‫ באלוני ממרא‬... at Hebron ‫ ܒ ܒ ܐ ܕ‬... P: .‫ܐ‬ G: πρὸς τῇ δρυὶ τῇ Μαμβρή ‫ ܬ ܒ ܐ ̇ܗܘ ܕ‬... JGen (fol. 32‫ )ܒ‬: ‫ܐ܇‬ Deut 11.30 – MT(/SP) : (‫ אצל אלוני מורה )מורא מול שכם‬... at Shechem

|| 111 McCarthy’s evaluation (BHQap) is that PDeut (and TgPJ) assimilated to Gen 13.18. Tal’s (BHQap) evaluation is similar although he adds Symmachus and describes TgPJ as “theol[ogical].” 112 See the helpful entry “Mamre (Person/Place)” by Y. Arbeitman in ABD 4.492–3; see also McCarthy (BHQap) for a useful outline of the textual data, as well as the commentaries by J. Skinner (1910: 245–47) and Driver (1902: 133–34).

Greek and Syriac Readings with Commentary | 457

Gen 12.6 – MT : ‫ שכם עד אלון מורה‬... at Shechem P: .‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ ܒ ܒ ܒ ܐ ܕ‬... G: … πλησίον τῆς δρυὸς τῆς ὑψηλῆς (α΄ αὐλῶνος καταφανοῦς M 321(s nom)-346s SH) ‫ ܨ ܒ‬... JDeut (fol. 366‫ )ܒ‬: .‫ܐ ̇ܗܘ ܪ ܐ‬

At first, JGen 12.6 may seem somewhat confusing: Why does Jacob retain PGen’s “(oak) of Mamre” while adding GGen’s “high (oak)” in the margin? P’s interpretation was not singular of course as the testimony of σ΄ and MS 911 (late 3rd cent. CE) shows both conflated the “high” and “Mamre” traditions.113 Research thus far on JRec indicates that Jacob’s marginal readings are most often complementary or, if contradictory, were meant to present equally valid options exegetically-speaking.114 The situation at JGen 12.6 may then reflect the latter; perhaps, Jacob had not yet even decided whether or not P’s exegesis was incorrect. It is further not impossible that he assumed more than one oak “of Mamre.” Whatever the case, Jacob’s interpretation becomes clearer when all occurrences are compared: GPent never calls the oak at Hebron “high” (though MS 911 did; cp. σ΄ at Gen 12.6, suggesting he did as well); similarly, GPent never calls the Shechem oak “of Mamre.” And while Jacob does do the latter—though only at Gen 12.6— only Shechem’s oak is called “high,” resisting P’s exegesis. It would seem then that Jacob used the Greek tradition to differentiate between the two oaks, one at Shechem and one at Hebron. Nevertheless, Jacob adopted the μόνον-passage in JExod 20.17‫ו‬: ‫ܬ‬ ... ‫܀‬ ‫( ܒ ܐ ̇ܗܘ ܪ ܐ܆ ܒ ܪܒܐ ܕ‬fol. 149‫§ → ܐ‬2.3.3), which specifies the Deuteronomic “high oak” as being near Shechem. Therefore, it is possible to view the hexaplaric μόνον-collation as having at least contributed to Jacob’s adding ‫ܓ‬ ‫ ̇ܗܘ ܕ‬in the margin at Deut 11.30 even if via SH Exod 20.17‫ו‬. Still, as a result of these data, it is difficult to affirm Jacob’s scholion in Deut 11.30 as directly attesting a similar note from the μόνον-collation ad loc. || 113 See AppI II: σʹ (+ εως 413cI) της δρυος Μαμβρη M 57′cI(s nom) 130-344′s(s nom et ind ad Συχεμ). MS 911: … την γην εως του τοπου του Συχεμ, επι την δρυν την μαμ[βρ]η υψηλην … . The interpretive agreement with Symmachus is probably coincidental, though Jacob explicitly quotes Symmachus at least twice (see Salvesen 1999: xiii; also at JEzekmg 20.6 (nearly verbatim via Severus of Antioch), cp. SH ad loc; see Vat. Sir. 5, fol. 49b, online: https://digi.vatlib.it/view /MSS_Vat.sir.5). Wevers does not discuss 911’s conflation (NGTG, 166, n. 11) or the implications of this secondary reading in such an early witness. Perhaps the agreement of PGen, Symmachus, and 911 on this point of exegesis stems from the fact that each witness likely dates to the same era? 114 See Marsh 2019: 203–05, esp. nn. 22 and 27; also Marsh, forthcoming.

458 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

Indeed, Jacob’s scholion rather focused on identity/location of the tree in question, as opposed to the location of the mountains (G)Ebal and Gerizim, even if the latter are situated by extension according to the former. Jacob’s alleged comments on Gerizim’s location (beyond JPent): One further comment may be brought to bear on the state of the Caesarean collation at Deut 11.30: a relatively unknown scholion, attributed to both Jacob and Hippolytus (d. ca. 236 CE), found in a very late Arabic catena (MS Monacensis arab. 235; dated 1550 CE!). The comment may be summarized as follows:115 Fragment XXVI on Deut 27: 116.14–15: Attribution to Mar Jacob of Edessa and Hippolytus,116 “the Interpreter [Ausleger] of the Targums.” 16–25: The command to pronounce the curses and blessing (Deut 27) on the respective mountains. 26–29: “We say” [Wir sagen] the mountains are [A] near Shechem, [B] Shechem is Nablus, [C] Gerizim is “south of [rechts von]” the city while Ebal is “north of [links von] the city,”117 [D] both are associated with one another [“sind mit einander verbunden”] while the city is set between the mountains. 30–117.4: “And we say” [Und wir sagen] that after Joshua, the son of Nun, had led the Israelites into the Promised Land, he led them to the city of Shechem, that is Nablus. … And there, Joshua selected a man each from the tribes and placed them, six people each, on each of these mountains. For Gerizim, he selected six, one each from the tribes of Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Joseph, and Benjamin. 117.5–8: Then he selected those from Ruben, Gad, Asher, Zebulon, Dan, and Naphtali, and set them on Ebal. And the people of Israel were positioned between the two mountains in the valley. 9–15: The people carried out the orders to pronounce the blessings and curses with the affirmations. 16–18: And God commanded Moses to keep this command, and Moses commanded Joshua, the son of Nun, to keep it; and Joshua fulfilled it “in the Land of Shechem.” 18–22: “We say” [Wir sagen] that “the Samaritan community [die Gemeinde der Samaritaner] has taken for itself Mt. Gerizim as a possession.” “And he says” [Und man sagt”; cp. Achelis: “oder: „sie sagen“ (Jakob von Edessa und Hippolytus?)”]: it (the mountain) is a Temple [“ein Gotteshaus”] to the present day. And on it, they offer sacrifice for

|| 115 From GCS 1/2.116–117 (lines cited are those from the edition; emphasis mine). H. Achelis, editor of the Hippolytian materials in question, did not provide the Garshuni (i.e., Arabic written with Syriac letters), but only supplied a GT of the MS (on which see his remarks, p. iii). This passage is not found in Pummer’s 2002 survey which included only the mention of the Samaritans in Adv. Haer. in the Hippolytus section (2002: 37–39). 116 Jacob and Hippolytus is the order of attribution provided by Achelis. The only other example of double attribution in the catena Achelis published is frag. 4 (on Gen 8.1; see 1/2.90– 91) which reverses the order. 117 Achelis: “rechts-links] südlich-nördlich (nach Osten orientiert).”

Greek and Syriac Readings with Commentary | 459

themselves, and pray to God; it lies to the right of Shechem, i.e., Nablus, “to the West” [“gegen Westen (!)].” 23–30: Additionally on this Mountain, Jacob buried the idols (Gen 31) which Rachel stole … . And … Shechem the son of Hemor dishonored Dinah (Gen 34) … . Lastly, it was in this city that Christ had a conversation with the Samaritan woman … (John 4).

Strikingly, in light of Jacob’s attention to SP (via SH) surveyed above, the passage does not base the claimed location of Mt. Gerizim on SP but instead on the reputed activities of the Samaritan “community.” Jacob could have come by such information during his life;118 therefore, the information in the excerpt could be based on interaction with or observation of Samaritans insofar as Jacob is concerned.119 Hippolytus’ historical circumstances are more obscure. Even if he came from the eastern part of the Roman Empire, his early life and activities are undocumented.120 Further, Hippolytus’ authorship of these comments is extremely suspect.121 The same should probably be said for Jacob’s alleged authorship, especially since he would have more simply located Gerizim based on his adoption of the μόνον-data. And given the unrest resulting from the Byzantine anti-Samaritan policies from Emperor Zeno (d. 491 CE) onward, one wonders just how much interaction between Samaritans and Christians (→ §7.4) would have been possible before and during Jacob’s life (d. 708 CE).122

|| 118 Jacob was born around Antioch and studied in Alexandria in addition to his time in Edessa as a monk and eventual bishop; see the biographical summary in Salvesen 2008: 1–10. It is thus not impossible for him to have encountered Samaritans in his travels. 119 Compare, e.g., Pummer’s view that Justin Martyr’s description of the Passover sacrifice may reflect the Samaritan Passover practices he himself witnessed living around Neapolis (2002: 23). 120 ODCC: “Of his early life nothing is known” (s.v.). See also Pummer’s introduction on Hippolytus (2002: 37). 121 See A. Brent’s comments (1995: 158): We must remember that [in the period after 1000 CE] Hippolytan Supria abounded. One such example is witnessed by ms Monacensus arab. 235 … in which some commentaries on passages from the Pentateuch, in a style and perspective utterly dissimilar to Hippolytus’ known works, are attributed to “Hippolytus, the commentator on the Targum.” … Thus we find a certain tendency in Arabic mss. of this period to use Hippolytus’ name pseudepigraphically. The attribution has been long suspect. See much earlier J.B. Lightfoot’s remarks on J.A. Fabricius’ publication of another MS of the same Arabic catena (1890; 1/2.390): [With respect to] the Catena on the Pentateuch, which contains numerous passages ascribed to ‘Hippolytus the expositor of the Targum.’ We are not encouraged either by the source of these extracts, or by their contents, to regards them as a genuine work of our Hippolytus. 122 Perhaps most striking is the reference to contemporary Samaritan worship on the mountain as “a Temple” (ein Gotteshaus). On the history of Samaritan worship on Gerizim, see Pummer 2016: 78–79, where he lists Christian authors.

460 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

Wider Christian opinion: Whatever the case may be regarding the ps.Hippolytus-(ps.-)Jacob catena fragment, the precise location of Mount Gerizim was a matter of discussion in Christian writings, with various sources (mostly passively) supplying or (actively) disagreeing with the Samaritan position right up through Jacob’s own day. Ostensibly, the evidence123 tabulated below suggests that no real consensus formed, a reality perhaps represented in the Madaba Map, though the precise meaning of the 6th cent. mosaic’s dual depiction is disputed amongst modern commentators. Table 4.3.3: The Location of Mt. Gerizim in Christian Sources

Date (fl./death) Near Shechem (/Neapolis) ca. 236 CE

ps.-Hippolytus+^

fl. 333 CE

Bordeaux Pilgrim+(?)124

ca. 340 CE

Eusebius Theoph.+(?)^ +^

Jerome (Ep. 108 ; a revised view?)

th

mid-6 cent. CE

Jerome LT of Onomast.X^ Procopius of Gaza Comm. DeutX^

ca. 538 CE ca. 575 CE

Eusebius Onomast.X^ Epiphanius Haer.; De gemm. (2x)X^

403 CE 420 CE

Near Jericho

John Malalas Chron.

+125

Procopius of Caesarea De aedif.+^126

|| 123 For brief introductions to each of these sources (save the Madaba Map and Jacob of Edessa), see Pummer 2002. 124 [Civitas Neapoli … mil. XV] Ibi est mons Agazaren; ibi dicunt Samaritani Abraham sacrificium obtulisse, et ascenduntur usque ad summum montem gradi numero MCCC. Inde ad pedem montis ipsius locus est, cui nomen est Sechim (LT from Gerhard and Cuntz 1990: 95; also in Pummer 2002: 112–113; PL 8.790). Pummer’s ET: “There is Mount Gerizim: there, say the Samaritans, Abraham offered the sacrifice; and 13000 steps lead up to the top of the mountain. At the foot of the mountain is the place that is called Shechem” (2002: 113). 125 καὶ εὐθέως ὁ βασιλεὺς Ζήνων ἐποίησε τὴν συναγωγὴν αὐτῶν τὴν οὖσαν εἰς τὸ Γαργαζὶ ὄρος εὐκτήριον οἶκον τῆς ἁγίας θεοτόκου Μαρίας … (15.382–83; PG 97.568). “The emperor Zeno immediately turned their synagogue, which was on Mount Gerizim, into a chapel dedicated to Mary, the Holy Mother of God.” (GT and Jeffreys and Scott’s ET cited from Pummer 2002: 269– 270.) While he did not specify that the mountain is located by/near Neapolis, the ruins of the Theotokos church still remain around the city; thus the locale is implied. Malalas was based in Antioch then Constantinople (see ODCC, s.v.). 126 Ἔστι δὲ πόλις ἐπὶ Παλαιστίνης, Νεάπολις ὄνομα· ἐφ᾿ ἧς δὴ ὄρος ὑψηλὸν ἀνέχει, Γαριζὶν ὄνομα. [2] τοῦτο δὲ τὸ ὄρος κατ᾿ ἀρχὰς μὲν οἱ Σαμαρεῖται εἶχον· ὡς εὐξόμενοί τε ἀνέβαινον ἐς τὴν τοῦ ὄρους ὑπερβολήν, οὐδένα ἀνιέντες καιρόν· οὐχ ὅτι νεών τινα ἐνταῦθα ᾠκοδομήσαντο πώποτε, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἀκρώρειαν αὐτὴν σεβόμενοι ἐτεθήπεσαν πάντων μάλιστα. “In Palestine

Greek and Syriac Readings with Commentary | 461

Date (fl./death) Near Shechem (/Neapolis) th

fl. 6 cent. CE

+

Madaba Mosaic Map ?

Near Jericho Madaba Mosaic MapX?

early 7th cent. CE Chron. Paschale+127 ⟨Anastasius Sinaita⟩X(?)^128

ca. 700 CE 708 CE

Jacob of Edessa (JExod 20; JDeut schol.)+^

ca. 895 CE

Photius Bibl.+129

N.B.: X = Sam. trad. rejected; + = Sam. trad. unopposed; ^ = with ref. to Deut/John 4; names in bold are discussed below.

From the assembled data in Table 4.3.3 a few observations arise. First, of those supporting, or quoting the Samaritan location of Gerizim without expressly

|| there is a city named Neapolis, above which rises a high mountain, called Garizin. This mountain the Samaritans originally held; and they had been wont to go up to the summit of the mountain to pray on all occasions, not because they had ever built any temple there, but because they worshipped the summit itself with the greatest reverence.” (5.7.1–2; the GT [based on Haury’s 1913 ed.] and Dewing’s ET from LCL 343.348–51; reprint of Haury and Wirth ed. and Dewing’s ET in Pummer 2002: 302–303). The connection with John 4 follows this section along with an account of Zeno’s conquest of the mountain and building the Theotokos Church. 127 Ὁ δὲ βασιλεὺς Ζήνων εὐθέως ἐποίησε τὴν συναγωγὴν αὐτῶν τὴν οὗσαν εἰς τὸ καλούμενον Γαργαρίδην εὐκτήριον οἶκον μέγαν τῆς δεσποίνης ἡμῶν τῆς θεοτόκου καὶ Ἀειπαρθένου Μαρίας … . “The emperor Zeno immediately made their synagogue, which was in the place called Gargarides, into a great house of prayer for Our Lady the Mother of God and ever-Virgin Mary.” (PG 92.841–44; reprinted with M. Whitby and M. Whitby’s ET in Pummer 2002: 366–367). Dindorf’s edition is reprinted in full in PG; see his note (col. 841, n. 43) which provides comparative materials (especially from other chronographies) for the same incident. Pummer observes that the Chron. is based on Malalas and that the author was of the Byzantine clergy (see discussion 2002: 362–64; on “Gargarides” see his p. 363). 128 Quaest. 45 (see reprints in Pummer 2002: 370–72; PG 89.595–98). Though Anastasius did not specify where the mountain is, his source Epiphanius’ De gemmis (see the comments by R. Blake and H. de Vis 1934: xiii–xvi) clearly favored Jericho; cp. Procopius’ Comm. on Deut. Blake and de Vis, rather suggestively, decided to print Quaest. 45 and Comm. on Deut in parallel columns in order to facilitate comparison (1934: xxiii–xxv). See below for discussion. 129 Ὅτι ὁ διάδοχος Πρόκλου, φησὶν, ὁ Μαρῖνος, γένος ἦν ἀπὸ τῆς ἐν Παλαιστίνῃ Νέας Πόλεως, πρὸς ὅρει κατῳκισμένης τῷ Ἀργαρίζῳ καλουμένῳ. “He says that the successor of Proclus, Marinus, came from Neapolis in Palestine, a city situated near the mountain called Argarizon.” (LCL 242.345b [GT in Henry 1971]; reprint and Stern’s ET in Pummer 2002: 429; PG 103.1284). As Pummer notes, Photius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, cited here from the Life of Isidorus written by Damascius of Damascus (d. c. 550 CE). On the designation “Argarizon” (→ §1.2.3.7, A) and whether or not the Marinus in the excerpt was an apostate Samaritan, see Pummer 2002: 423–24. For further discussion of the form Αργαριζω (and corruptions of it), see also Kartveit 2009: 230–32 and 236.

462 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

denying it, only the ps.-Hippolytus-(ps.?)Jacob catena fragment advocate this view in the context of biblical commentary. Further, if Jacob’s above-cited scholion at JDeut 11.30 resulted from the μόνον-collation, then both said scholion and his adoption of ‫ ܒ ܪܒܐ ܕ‬in JExod 20.17‫( ו‬fol. 149‫ )ܐ‬derived from acceptance of SP itself—something which is not referenced in the catena fragment. Second, the remainder of “pro-Shechem/Nablus” positions—with the possible exception of the Madaba Map (see below)—largely involve narrating the claim of the Samaritan community (even if via John 4) unchallenged. This seems suspicious, and the motives for doing so may have well been as diverse as the individual writers.130 Perhaps those authors who added reference to Jesus’ conversation with the Samaritan woman in John 4 would have viewed attacking the Samaritan community inappropriate since the Gospel there records no such invective from Jesus.131 Despite this, it is perhaps strange that Christian writers would not make a point to underscore the Samaritans for failing to correctly identify their sacred mount, particularly so as Samaritans regularly featured in heresiological literature. Third, a number of these ostensibly “pro-Shechem/ Nablus” passages include some kind of description of the destruction or subjugation of Gerizim, imagined or historical, as a kind of judgment of God against said place of worship (e.g., Eusebius, the historians). Fourth, the references found in chronographical writings may simply stem from reporting events without commentary. Thus in Eusebius’ Chron. (not referenced above), he noted: “Manasses, the brother of Jaddus the high priest [of the Jews] built the sanctuary of Samaria on Gerizim.”132 Nonetheless, Eusebius believed the location of Gerizim claimed by the Samaritans to be inaccurate (at least for the biblical

|| 130 See, e.g., Pummer’s review of literature regarding Procopius of Caesarea’s excerpt (2002: 292–94). He seems to follow H. Kippenberg’s view that Procopius wished to show the Samaritan claim to Gerizim was illegitimate. If so, then questioning the “Gerizim” in question would distract from his point, and thus Procopius would have had no motive to contradict their claim. 131 See Pummer 2016: 42–44. As Böhm points out, the words of Jesus are meant to “relativize the different cult places” (2020: §2.3). Presumably denying one place as “false” would imply the other as “true” and mitigate, or otherwise distract from, the point at hand. 132 Pummer’s ET of George Syncellus’ Chron. (see his 2002: 405 for GT and ET). As Pummer points out (2002: 399, n. 6; also Dindorf’s earlier note in PG 92.841, n. 43) Syncellus’ is obviously based on Eusebius (→ §6.2.1). The same portion is found in the much older LT of Chron. by Jerome under Olympiad CXI (GCS 24.123, ‘a’). I have added Jerome’s “iudaeorum” in brackets for clarification since it is lacking in Syncellus’ Greek. The sanctuary in question was obviously not around Jericho.

Greek and Syriac Readings with Commentary | 463

Gerizim133), as he made clear in his Onomasticon. His Chron. entry, then, was a mere reporting untouched by criticism. Perhaps the other chronographers should be similarly interpreted, unless another motive can be established. Altogether then, it seems that very few truly supported the Samaritan location of Gerizim: Outside of Jacob’s testimony (both JExod/JDeut and the combined ps.Hippolytus-ps.(?)-Jacob catena), no Christian writer actively supported the Samaritan location.134 And even JPent is not active per se, but rather expressed support in terms of the very adoption of SP in JExod 20, which in BnF Syr 26, admittedly not the autograph, is unmarked (→ Table 2.3 and §5.2). This means that a later (uninformed) reader then might not understand the locative as specifically “Samaritan.” As for those who argued against the Samaritans, maintaining that Gerizim’s true locale was by Jericho, the evidence is much more direct. Each of these witnesses (to whom Anastasius Sinaita might be added by inference of his source) explicitly denied the Samaritan claim and did so in the context of biblical commentary. These will be taken in turn after which the ambiguous Madaba Map is discussed. Eusebius and Jerome Eusebius and Jerome are taken together since they each discussed both locations; however, the two Fathers expressly believed that Jericho was the correct location. Eusebius’ Onomasticon, composed somewhere between the years 290–mid325 CE,135 was a biblical gazetteer listing a great many places and geographic

|| 133 L. Di Segni points to this distinction in her review of Pummer’s 2002 monograph (2006: 251–52). However, it is unclear that persons, Samaritan or Christian, in late Antiquity would have necessarily maintained any such distinction. 134 This assumes the Madaba Map does not actively advocate for the Samaritan location. 135 Thus J. Taylor in her Introduction to the ET, where she reviews the relevant data and literature (2003: 3–4). While she concedes that Eusebius perhaps began the work as early as 290 (the date for which T. Barnes argued [1975: 415]) she holds the “final form of the work” must have been between 313 and mid-325 “but no later” (pp. 3–4). In her discussion, she comes to this reckoning as a means of accounting for diverse data: the relative dates of Eusebius’ enthronement as bishop, when Paulinus the bishop of Tyre (to whom the work is dedicated) retired, the use of pre-Constantinian place names, and the lack of any mention of Constantine-era building projects and/or discoveries. A. Carriker, writing at the same time as Taylor, dates the work to “after 324” following A. Louth’s earlier post-315 (ca. 326 CE) suggestion. He further posits that Eusebius used government data for the work implying a period after Constantine conquered the East (2003: 39, with n. 15). As Taylor observes, H.E. itself was revised, so it is also possible

464 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

features mentioned in the Bible. Each of these places mentioned in Scripture (predominantly from the OT136) were listed alphabetically then by canonical appearance, along with a brief description as to their location or other remarkable features. Taylor described the work as “an exegetical aid for scholars approaching Greek versions of the Hebrew Scriptures.”137 Moreover, and this is suggestive for the present study, she submits that in compiling the work, Eusebius “may even have used Origen’s [exegetical] notes” or perhaps begun the work “as marginal notes on a copy of the Hexapla [Maior?] in the Caesarean library, which Eusebius eventually expanded into a separate work.”138 The entries relevant for the location of Mt. Gerizim are as follows:139

Eusebius’ Onomasticon – § Γ. Αριθμων κ. Δευτ

Jerome’s LT of Onomasticon – same §

Γαιβάλ (Deut 11, 29). ὄρος ἐν τῇ γῇ τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, ἔνθα κελεύει Μωϋσῆς στῆσαι θυσιαστήριον. καὶ λέγεται παρακεῖσθαι τῇ Ἱεριχὼ ὄρη δύο κατὰ πρόσωπον ἀλλήλων καὶ πλησίον, ὧν τὸ μὲν εἶναι Γαριζείν, τὸ δὲ Γαιβάλ. Σαμαρεῖται δὲ ἕτερα δεικνύουσιν τὰ τῇ Νέᾳπόλει παρακείμενα, σφαλλόμενοι, ὅτι δὴ πλεῖστον διεστήκασιν ἀλλήλων (τὰ) ὑπ’ αὐτῶν δεικνύμενα, ὡς μὴ δύνασθαι ἀλλήλων ἀκούειν τοὺς ἑκατέρωθεν βοῶντας.

Gebal mons in terra repromissionis, ubi ad imperium Moysi altare constructum est. sunt autem iuxta Iericho duo montes uicini contra se inuicem respicientes, e quibus unus Garizin alter Gebal dicitur. Porro Samaritani arbitrantur hos duos montes iuxta Neapolim esse, sed uehementer errant: plurimum enim inter se distant, nec possum inuicem benedicentium sine maledicentium inter se audiri uoces, quod scriptura commemorat.

Gaibal (Deut. 11:29). A mountain in the Promised Land where Moses ordered an altar to be built. It is said that there are two mountains near Jericho facing one another close together, one of which is Garizein, the other Gaibal. The

Gebal. A mountain in the land of the covenant where an altar was built at Moses’ command. Near Jericho there are two neighbouring mountains facing one another, one called Garizin, the other Gebal. Later the Samaritans think that

|| that the Onomasticon was revised or updated as well, perhaps as a result of Paulinus’ (?) criticisms that NT locations were not adequately represented (2003: 4–5). 136 Taylor: “[Eusebius responded] to some comment such as “you have not drawn the names from the whole of divinely-inspired Scripture if you do not include the New Testament.” [Eusebius claimed to do so] but in practice he fail[ed] to deliver” (2003: 5). 137 2003: 5. Further: “… the title in Jerome[’s LT] gives some indication that Eusebius’ original project was focused on the Greek Old Testament, and only additionally included references to the Gospels” (2003: 5). 138 2004: 2 and 4, n. 24 (following P. Thomsen). 139 GCS 11/1.64–67; reprinted in Pummer with ETs (2002: 99–100 [Eusebius] and 198–99 [Jerome]). Pummer did not include the text from Josh concerning Galgala since it does not mention the Samaritans. The ETs below are by G. Freeman-Grenville (2003: 40–41). Underline is mine.

Greek and Syriac Readings with Commentary | 465

Eusebius’ Onomasticon – § Γ. Αριθμων κ. Δευτ

Jerome’s LT of Onomasticon – same §

Samaritans point out others lying near Neapolis, but in error; because they are too far from one another, so that it is not possible to hear speech from one to the other.

those two mountains are near Neapolis, but they err greatly: for they are too distant from one another, nor could the voices pronouncing the blessings or curses hear one another, as Scripture records.

Γαριζείν (Deut 11, 29). ὄρος ἔνθα ἔστησαν οἱ τὰς εὐλογίας καταλέγοντες, πλησίον τοῦ προειρημένου Γαιβάλ. Garizein (Deut. 11:29). A mountain where they stood pronouncing blessings near Gaibal aforesaid.

Garizin mons super quem steterunt hi qui maledicta resonabant iuxta supra dictum montem Gebal. Garizin. The mountain on which those stood who pronounced curses [?] beside the aforesaid Mount Gebal.

Γολγὼλ (Deut 11, 30) ἡ καὶ Γαλγάλ. ταύτης εἶναι πλησίον ἡ γραφὴ διδάσκει τὸ Γαριζεὶν καὶ τὸ Γαιβὰλ ὄρος. ἡ δὲ Γάλγαλα τόπος ἐστὶ τῆς Ἱεριχοῦς.

Golgol, quae et Galgal, iuxta quam montes esse scribuntur Garizin et Gebal. Galgal autem locus est iuxta Iericho. errant igitur Samaritani, qui iuxta Neapolim Garizin et Gebal montes ostendere uolunt, cum illos iuxta Galgal esse scriptura testetur.140 Golgol, which also is Galgal [I], beside which are the mountains written Garizin and Gebal. But Galgal [I] is a place near Jericho. Therefore the Samaritans are in error in wishing to point out the Mounts Garizin and Gebal beside Neapolis, whereas Scripture attests that they are beside Galgal [I].

Golgol (Deut. 11:30). Also Galgal [I]. Scripture teaches that it is near Mounts Garizein and Gaibal. Galgala is a place near Jericho.

§Γ. Απο του Ιησου

De libro Iesu.

Γάλγαλα (Jos 4, 19). ἡ αὐτή ἐστι τῇ ἀνωτέρω κειμένῃ Γολγὼλ «πρὸς ἡλίου ἀνατολαῖς» τῆς πάλαι Ἱεριχὼ εἴσω τοῦ Ἰορδάνου … Galgala (Josh. 4:19). This is the same as the Golgol mentioned above, east of ancient Jericho, this side of the Jordan, …

Galgala. haec est quam supra posuimus Golgol, ad orientalem plagam antiquae Ierichus cis Iordanem, … Galgala. This is where above we situated Golgol, on the east side of ancient Jericho this side of the Jordan, where …

As is clear from the respective character of the entries in Eusebius and Jerome, the latter felt free to editorialize further, something he expressly declared in the introduction to his LT: “So too we, following the industry of this admirable man [sc. Eusebius], have translated it, leaving aside those things that do not seem to be worth remembering, and changing several.”141 In light of Jerome’s policy, E.

|| 140 Emphasis original. 141 2003: 11.

466 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

Klostermann, the editor for the volume in the GCS series, demarcated those elements with italics which were “undoubtedly” Jerome’s in his edition.142 Given the entries above, one might observe that Jerome’s invective against the Samaritan location of Gerizim is substantially stronger than that in Eusebius. The latter only pointed out the Samaritan “error” once (sub Γαιβαλ) and dispassionately in comparison to Jerome’s two entries (Gebal and Golgol). The Stridonite’s first entry stated “they err greatly” ignoring the conditions “Scripture records” (as if Samaritans cannot read their own Bible); still his second occasion repeats that “Samaritans are in error in wishing … the Mounts Garizin and Gebal [are] beside Neapolis, whereas Scripture attests that they are beside Galgal [near Jericho].” The proximity of these entries makes this repetition excessive; it was clearly meant to insult.143 Eusebius’ entries together read much more clinically as if the Samaritans were sincerely mistaken.144 If so, then Eusebius’ softer commentary very well may have been influenced by his encounter with SP itself. Most likely, Eusebius, credited in this study as the one responsible for the μόνον-collation (→ §§3.2; 6.2), used the same SP as his source for both the collation as well as the chronological data from Gen 5 and 11 he cited in his Chronicon, a work completed before the Onomasticon.145 Thus, Eusebius may have felt the Samaritans were simply adhering to the version of Deut 11.30 (and parallels) they had when making such a claim. By extension, it could be hypothesized that ‫ מול שכם‬was a part

|| 142 GCS 11/1. xxxiv (“unzeifelhaften”). Pointed out, and reproduced, by Pummer (2002: 199, n. 82). 143 Kartveit interprets Jerome’s (2009: 234) editorializing (which he translates as “grossly mistaken”) as indicative of a “growing hostility towards the Samaritans” during the 4th cent. CE (→ §7.3). Compare his comments on other Samaritan-related entries in the Onomasticon in which Jerome displayed the same tendency vis-à-vis Eusebius’ original Greek (p. 235). 144 One could argue that Klostermann should have italicized “uehementer” and “quod scriptura commemorat” in Jerome’s first entry (as underlined above); σφάλλω may, but need not, necessitate the degree or quality of error (see BrillDAG, LSJ, and Lampe, s.v.). Pummer’s ET of Eusebius’ entry (“But the Samaritans show others close to Neapolis, erring greatly ….”) reads Jerome’s interpretation into Eusebius’ unnecessarily. 145 See Jerome’s preface to his LT of Onomasticon: After writing his ten books of Ecclesiastical History, the Canons of Time—which we have edited in Latin—…, he worked finally on this little book in order to bring together for us from Holy Scripture the names of almost all the cities, mountains, rivers, villages and different places, that either remained the same, or were changed later, or otherwise partly corrupted (2003: 11).

Greek and Syriac Readings with Commentary | 467

of the original collation. On the other hand, SP is nowhere cited in the Onomasticon. It is of course possible that Eusebius had not begun the collations until after the Onomasticon was completed. Either way, it is of interest that Jerome, despite his claim to have seen SP MSS (note the plural “Samaritanorum hebraea volumina” below → §4.3.4), did not accuse the Samaritans in his invective-laced entries of falsifying the text of Deut 11.30. Of course early Christians were not the only ones to criticize the Samaritan location for Gerizim and Ebal. As has been much referenced,146 the extant Rabbinic literature also transmits arguments as to where Gerizim and Ebal are to be located, including authorities which agreed with the Samaritans (R. Judah in Sifre Deut §56; see m. Sota 7:5; b. Sota 33b) as well as those who objected (R. Eliezer in Sifre Deut §56 and b. Sota 33b; j. Sota 29a–b).147 In comparison, however, Eusebius’ and Jerome’s collective denials of the claim to locate Gerizim by Shechem read differently than the Rabbinic arguments.148 Eusebius’ disagreement is based on geography and the influence of Josh, a book the Samaritans knew but did not accept, at least not as in MT and G.149 Neither Eusebius nor Jerome accuse the Samaritans of falsifying the Torah (as Sifre Deut §56). Furthermore, the tradition, transmitted on the authority of R. Eliezer, claiming the mountains were really two heaped piles of stones named Gerizim and Ebal was also not employed.150 Despite these explicit disavowals of the Samaritan claim that Gerizim was near Shechem, remarkably both Eusebius and Jerome described Gerizim as near Shechem/Neapolis in other works unopposed. Thus Eusebius in Theoph. 4.23 (written after 325 CE)151, after recounting Jesus’ conversation with the Samaritan woman from John 4, explained that Jesus in v 21 foretold the destruction of both the places of worship, in Jerusalem for the Jews as well as the same for the Samaritans on Gerizim, by Titus Vespasian and Hadrian:152

|| 146 E.g., Ben-Ḥayyim 1995, Pummer 2002: 86–7, McCarthy 2004: 127, and BHQap, and references. The references supplied here are from Pummer 2002: 86, with n. 79. 147 For the earliest extant Samaritan statement, by Marqe, see below → §7.1.2, n. 106. 148 Cp. Pummer who suggests that Eusebius “appears to follow” the Rabbinic tradition (2002: 86). 149 See above n. 95 (→ §1.1.2.1). 150 While R. Notley and Z. Safari argue that Eusebius utilized Rabbinic literature in composing the Onomasticon (2005: xxx), Eusebius’ “anti-Samaritan” location for Gerizim need not be such an example. 151 Carriker 2003: 40. 152 Syriac from S. Lee 1842: 55–56 (pagination is from the reprint in Pummer 2002: 89).

468 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

‫ܐܐ ܐܕܐܙ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫̇ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܘܐܦ ܒ ܗ‬ ̈ ‫ܓ ܒ‬ ̇ ‫ܒ ܣ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ̣ ‫ܐ ܕ̈ܪܗܘ ܐ ܕܒ ܒ ܗ ܐܬܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܗܘܘ ܘ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܐܕ‬ ‫ܐܕ‬ ‫ܘܕ ܐ ܒܐܘܪ‬ ‫̣ ܗܘܘ ܘܕܬ ܙܕܩ‬ ‫ܐܘ‬ ‫ܐ ܕܓ ܙ ܕ ܓ‬ ‫ܒ ܪܐ ܕ‬ ̇ .‫ܗܘܘ‬ ‫ܐܕ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܐܐ ܢ‬ ‫ܘܗ ܢ ̈ܪܐ ܐ ܕ‬ ̣ ‫ܐܐ‬ ‫ܕ ܒܐ‬ ‫̣ ܗܘܘ ܘ ܬ̈ܪ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܕܐ ܐ ܬ ܬ̈ܪ ܘܢ ܓܒܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘ ܐܘܪ‬ ‫ܓܙ ܕ‬ ‫ܕ ܬܗܘܢ‬ ̣ ‫ ܓ ܪ ܕ ܐ‬.‫ܒ ܐ ܕ ܬ ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܘ ܐ ܒ ܪܐ ܕܓ ܙ‬ ‫ܕ ܐ ܬܘܒ ܒܐܘܪ‬ ‫ܐܕ‬ ‫ܕܒ ܬ ܐ ܐ‬ ̈ .‫ ܗܕܐ ܕ ܐ ܗܘܐ ܓ ܐ ܗܘܬ‬. ‫ܕܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܓ ܘܢ ̇ܗ ܢ ܕܒ‬ ̈ ‫ܣ ܘܒ ܒ ܐ ܕܒ‬ ̈ ‫ܣ ܘܐ‬ ‫ ̇ܗ ܢ ܕܒ‬. ‫ܒ ܒ ܐ ܕܒ ܪ‬ ‫ ܗܘ ܓ ܕ ܓ‬. ‫̈ ܗܝ ܬ̈ܪ ܘܢ ̈ܪܐ ܐܬ ̣ ܒ‬ ‫ܗܕܪ ܣ ܕ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕܕ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܒ ̈ܒ ܐ ܘܒ‬ ‫ܒ ̈ ܐ ܕ ܐ ܙܕ ܘܒ‬ ‫ܐ ܐܘ‬ ‫̈ ܗܝ ܐܬ ̣ ܘܒ ܪܒܐ‬ ‫ܗܘ ܕ ܗ ܐ ܕܒܐܘܪ‬ ‫ܐܬ ̣ ܘܐ‬ ̣ ̣ ‫ܐ ܐܘ ܐܗܐ‬ .‫ܙܒ ܐ ܕܐܬܐ ̣ ̇ ܝ‬ .‫ܪܐ ̇ ܝ‬

And, by these things also, He fully proved that His foreknowledge was not small. For formerly, in the days of Tiberius the Roman Emperor,—in whose times these things were said,—the Jews were particularly collected together in Jerusalem, for the observance of the precepts of their Law; and the Samaritans, on the mount called Gerizim which they honoured, on the side of Neapolis, affirming that it was right the Law of Moses should there be observed. Now, these mounts are, as it were, anathemas of God. With both, certain parts were honoured; and of both, the Scripture of each bears record; that of Moses, respecting Gerizim; and those of the Hebrew Prophets, respecting Jerusalem. The sentence of judgment therefore, put forth in the Divine enouncement of our Saviour was, That no more, either in Jerusalem, or on mount Gerizim, should those henceforth worship, who then adhered so pertinaciously to these places: which came to pass soon after. (For), in the days of Titus Vespasian, and in the [siege] which happened in those of Hadrian, both these mounts were, according to His words, desolated. That [sc. the mountain!] on the side of the city Neapolis, was defiled by unbecoming Images, by Idols, by Sacrifices, and the shedding of blood, and (thus) [rejected]. [Whereas the Temple] of Jerusalem was [uprooted from its foundations] and has remained, during the whole of the time mentioned, in utter desolation and (destruction by) burning.153

Again the function of Eusebius’ argumentation, based on John 4, is to show that Jesus has predicted the end of worship on both Gerizim and the Jerusalem Temple mount. Though Lee’s ET has been criticized, it has mostly been retained here as opposed to the GT by H. Gressmann in the GCS series as the latter has wrongly interpreted the Syriac in this passage in two ways.154 First, Gressmann rendered ‫ܐ ܕܓ ܙ‬ ‫ ܒ ܪܐ ܕ‬with “auf dem (so)genannten Berge Gari-

|| 153 Lee’s ET (1843: 257–58), with my corrections in brackets (on which, see the following discussion). 154 His GT was reprinted and given in ET by Pummer (2002: 90–91). For Gressmann’s comments, see GCS 11/2.xiii (also Pummer 2002: 78, n. 8).

Greek and Syriac Readings with Commentary | 469

zim.”155 But the Syriac reads more neutrally, reflecting ἐν τῷ ὄρει τῷ καλουμένῳ Γαρζειν; Lee translated correctly. Gressmann was probably reading Eusebius’ comments from the Onomasticon into the present passage; however, as noted above, such runs across the purpose of Eusebius’ apologetic. Nothing linguistically demands such an interpretation, irrespective of what Eusebius believed vis-à-vis the true location of Gerizim. Second, Gressmann rendered ‫ܗܘ ܓ ܕ‬ ... ‫ܐ ܐܘ‬ ‫ ܓ‬as “Denn der Temple in der Nähe der Stadt Neapel ...”156 Again, however, Lee’s is more correct retaining a certain amount of ambiguity in the Syriac. The immediate context of the sentence is about the destruction of the mountains, viz., the ‫̈ܪܐ ܐܬ ̣ ܒ‬ ‫ ܬ̈ܪ ܘܢ‬immediately preceding. ܿ Thus the Syriac ‫ ܰܗܘ( ܗܘ‬masc. sg. demon. pron.) is more naturally read as referring to one of the mountains (‫ܪܐ‬ ‘mountain’ is masc.). The Syriac text nowhere states that a temple or shrine was on Gerizim at the time of destruction, only that the Samaritans worshiped there, which is itself inferred from the Gospel text.157 Whatever the case for Eusebius’ discussion in Theoph. vis-à-vis the “true” Gerizim, his opinion on the matter was clearly stated in the Onomasticon. Additionally, Jerome is thought by some to have changed his opinion on the matter. Though he made his thoughts on the true location of Gerizim abundantly clear in his LT of Eusebius’ Onomasticon, written ca. 390 CE,158 some 15 years later in 404 CE, Jerome appears to have described Gerizim as immediately next to Shechem/Neapolis in his Ep. 108.13: transiuit Sychem — non, ut plerique errantes legunt, Sichar —, quae nunc Neapolis appellatur, et ex latere montis Garizim extructam circa puteum Iacob intrauit ecclesiam, super quo dominus residens sitiensque et esuriens Samaritanae fide satiatus est, quae quinque Mosaicorum uoluminum uiris … .159 Passing by Shechem (not Sychar as many wrongly read) or what is now called Neapolis, she entered the church built upon the side of Mount Gerizim around Jacob’s well; that well

|| 155 GCS 11/2.200*. 156 GCS 11/2.201*. 157 See John 4.20 and cp. Pummer’s discussion about the Samaritan Temple supposedly mentioned in Eusebius’ discussion (2002: 78–79). However, this is based on Gressmann’s GT which here overreached. It seems he read ‫ܗܘ ܕ ܗ ܐ‬ ‫ ܗܘ ܓ ܕ‬and ̣ to be parallel to ‫ܓ‬ thus implying a temple for Gerizim. However this is not in the Syriac. Pummer more recently referenced this passage without claiming Eusebius described the destruction of a Samaritan Temple (DBR 10.116). As Magen points out (2008: 49), Eusebius’ source for the claimed destruction is unknown and archeological evidence is lacking. 158 Thus E. Klostermann (GCS 11/1.xxiv); W. Fremantle opted for 388 CE (NPNF 2/6.485). 159 LT from CSEL 55.322; reprinted in Pummer (2002: 202–03; PL 22.888) with ET from J. Wilkinson. Present ET from S. Greenslade 1956: 360.

470 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

where the Lord was sitting when, hungry and thirsty, he was refreshed by the faith of the woman of Samaria. Forsaking her five husbands, by whom are intended the five books of Moses …

Jerome’s description here contrasts starkly with his earlier invectives against the Samaritans’ claim. Some, as Pummer notes, have taken this instance as an indication what he had in fact changed his mind, after well over a decade of further biblical study.160 However, this interpretation may be perhaps too facile. While it is certainly possible Jerome changed his mind, it is also possible he was approaching the topic the same way Eusebius had in Theoph. 4.23: he simply repeated whatever was in line with the goal of his work. Jerome’s Ep. 108 is commonly described as an obituary161 or epitaph162 for his saintly Roman patroness Paula (d. 404 CE, who had then recently died), addressed to her daughter Eustochium. The above passage, in which he narrated Paula’s Holy Land journey, supplied information regarding ancient Christian pilgrimage.163 However, as Cain observes, his was no mere epistolary consolation for Eustochium alone. Jerome’s letter had a wider audience in mind164 and more than one motive. Rather Jerome was engaged in hagiography, presenting “Paula as a latter-day Abraham,” “offering her to contemporary aristocratic Christians as the quintessential pilgrim and, as such, as the embodiment of his teachings about sacred geography and the Christian’s duty to deepen his or her faith by going on pilgrimage.”165 Indeed Cain argues that Jerome’s motive in such a public and hyperbolic166 statement was meant to serve as “the textual fulcra” for Paula’s eventual cult,167 something Jerome could possibly benefit from financially168 as well as bolstering his ascetic center at Bethlehem.169 Cain concludes: … he was not just offering consolation to Eustochium. … The historical Paula, as soon as she was refracted by the lens of his narrative, became an icon for Jerome’s ascetic ideolo-

|| 160 2002: 188, with n. 39 (following Wilkinson’s interpretation; also earlier when discussing Eusebius on p. 86). 161 Pummer 2002: 189, with much literature. 162 A. Cain 2010. 163 See Greenslade’s introductory comments (1956: 346–47). 164 Cain 2010: 117–18. “There are clear indications that he intended his work to circulate broadly throughout the Christian world, far beyond the walls of his monastic retreat in the countryside” (p. 117). 165 2010: 120. 166 2010: 121. 167 2010: 125. 168 2010: 130–31. 169 2010: 131 and passim.

Greek and Syriac Readings with Commentary | 471

gy. The suggestion is that her outstanding spiritual successes were the direct result of his longtime mentoring … . She therefore became a credible spokesperson, albeit from beyond the grave, for Jerome’s controversial brand of ascetic spirituality ... [¶] [Additionally, Jerome’s] monumental Vulgate … was harshly criticized by the leading biblical authorities of the day as well as by lay Christians everywhere from Rome to the backwoods of North Africa. This translation, like his biblical commentaries, was not produced under an official ecclesiastical mandate; it was free-lanced, and Paula was the primary financier. In life, she had made much of his scholarship possible … . In death, she continued to validate his labors by lending a retroactive seal of saintly approval to them.170

If Cain’s assessment of Jerome’s underlying (at least partly self-serving) motives in writing Ep. 108 is correct, then the question arises: What would have been the point in remarking that one of the stops along Paula’s pious pilgrimage—where the Gospel itself describes Jesus having visited—was falsely claimed by the Samaritans as the Gerizim of Deut 11.30? There is simply no motive to make any such correction in this context.171 There is then no reason to suppose that Jerome had really changed his mind.172 Epiphanius, Procopius, and Athanasius Sinaita As noted above, both Epiphanius and Procopius of Gaza, and possibly by inference Athanasius Sinaita, held the Samaritans’ claim that Gerizim was near Shechem/Neapolis to be false. Unlike the genres of those authors who approved of (save Jacob), or perhaps merely repeated without contradiction, the Samaritan claim as to the whereabouts of Gerizim, these writers wrote within the contexts

|| 170 2010: 137–38. 171 Compare his correction “not Sychar as many wrongly read” was lodged against “many” anonymous persons, not Paula. 172 Note Di Segni’s earlier criticism of Pummer’s analysis (2006: 252): Even Jerome’s pretended change of mind in [Ep. 108.13] … is a fallacy: the difference is simply due to the fact that in Liber locorum Jerome, following Eusebius, was discussing the identification of the places mentioned in Deut 11:29–30, while in the Epistle he was reporting Paula’s visit to Shechem-Neapolis and to the church built at Jacob’s well beside Mount Gerizim. Di Segni’s point is well taken though Jerome’s actions are presented without nuance (cp. n. 133 above). Jerome stated in his LT he did not merely “following Eusebius.” Differently, Schenker recently argued that Jerome’s Vulgate translation of Deut 11.30 implies he did eventually disagree with his earlier position (2014: 442–43). While Schenker is right to describe Jerome’s LT of Deut 11.30 as vague, it is also just as possible that such was the result of MT Deut 11.30 which is itself unclear. See further McCarthy, who links V with the Tgs (2004: 127 and BHQap).

472 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

of both biblical commentary and/or heresiology. Epiphanius’ are taken first as his likely served as the source173 for Procopius (and Athanasius). Epiphanius: Panarion Haer. and De Gemmis Panarion Haer. 9.2.4–6174 καὶ αὕτη ἡ αἵρεσις ἀθετοῦσα μὲν νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν, ἀπωθουμένη δὲ εἰδωλολατρείαν, ἐν ἑαυτῇ δὲ εἰδωλολατροῦσα κατ' ἄγνοιαν διὰ τὸ ἀποκεκρύφθαι τὰ εἴδωλα τῶν τεσσάρων ἐθνῶν ἐν τῷ ὄρει τῷ παρ' αὐτοῖς Γαριζὶν σεσυκοφαντημένως καλουμένῳ. [5] τῷ γὰρ βουλομένῳ ἀκριβῶς περὶ τοῦ ὄρους Γαριζὶν ἐρευνᾶσθαι ἰστέον ὅτι πρὸς τῇ Ἱεριχῷ κεῖνται τὰ δύο ὄρη, τό τε τοῦ Γαριζὶν καὶ τὸ τοῦ Γεβάλ, πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου πρὸς τῇ ἀνατολῇ τῆς Ἱεριχώ, ὡς ἔχει τὸ Δευτερονόμιον καὶ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ναυῆ ἡ βίβλος. [6] εἰδωλολατροῦσιν οὖν ἀγνοοῦντες ἐκ τοῦ πανταχόθεν προσέχειν πρὸς τὸ ὄρος ἐν τῷ αὐτοὺς εὔχεσθαι * δῆθεν ὅτι ἡγίασται. ἀδύνατον γὰρ τὴν γραφὴν ψεύσασθαι φάσκουσαν »ἔμειναν ποιοῦντες τὸν νόμον καὶ προσκυνοῦντες τὰ αὐτῶν εἴδωλα ἕως τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας«, ὡς ἐμφέρεται ἐν τῇ τετάρτῃ τῶν Βασιλειῶν. [4] And yet this sect, which denies the resurrection of the dead but rejects idolatry, (is) idolatrous in itself with[out] knowing it, because the idols of the four nations are hidden in the mountain they libelously call Gerizim. (5) Whoever cares to make an accurate investigation of Mount Gerizim, should be told that the two mountains, Gerizim and Ebal, are near Jericho—across the Jordan east of Jericho, as Deuteronomy and the Book of Joshua the son of Nun tells us. (6) They are unwitting idolaters then, because from wherever they are, they face the mountain for prayer, it sacred, if you please! For scripture cannot be telling a lie when it says, “They continued even to this day keeping the Law and worshipping their idols,” as we learn from the Fourth Book of Kingdoms.

De Gemmis §11175 These mountains [Gerizim and Ebal] are over against Jericho on the eastern side near Galgal. … [¶] But certain people there are who think thus, who have not read through the divine books with understanding, more especially the tribe of the Sa-

|| 173 So Blake and de Vis 1934: xv (wrongly cited as Procopius’ Comm. on Deut at 12.11); also Pummer 2002: 229–30. 174 Greek from GCS 25.199; reprinted in Pummer 2002: 149, 156; PG 41.225. ET from F. Williams (2009: 33). Note that Pummer quotes Williams’ earlier ET from 1987 which bears distinct differences, i.e., σεσυκοφαντημένως was then translated as “quibblingly” whereas it was later rendered “libelously” (see s.v. in both Lampe and BrillDAG in support of the latter). 175 ET from the Georgian by R. Blake (ed. Blake and de Vis 1934: 184–85, 191–93); reprinted, with the Georgian, in Pummer 2002: 170–178, 180–81. The Georgian version was based on an Armenian translation which was in turn based on a Syriac version of De Gemmis (1934: xlix, lxxvii), itself based on the Greek.

Greek and Syriac Readings with Commentary | 473

maritans, say that mount Gerizim is elsewhere—the lofty mount whereon is Sikimay, which is Syk’em, that is over against Syk’em, the city of the Samaritans, into which the Lord entered … . Sichem (Syk’em) is now called Neapolis … . For the mountain which is near to this city is called the mount of Someray, and he had a son and he called his name Somoron; the name of the mountain, too, is called Somer. … [¶] They think that the mountain which is near to Neapolis is it, for the mount of Gerizim is great and high, and there is a mountain which is over against it, which they erroneously say to be Ebal, for Sichem and the place in which Joseph was laid are between the two mountains in the midst of the valley, and from this side and that are the mountains. One slope of the mountain of Gerizim is cut into steps up to the very top of the mountain of the Samaritans, who dwelt in the city of Neapolis. … The summit of this mountain is lofty and should any one give a shout on the top of the mountain, it is not possible for the sound (lit. voice) to be heard in the valley down below. … [¶] Now the books(sic) of Joshua the son of Nun show us, which are written in order after the books of the Pentateuch (lit. Genesis), that on the eastern side over against Jericho there stand the two mountains, Ebal and Gerizim, near to the place which they call Galgala (sic), where they set up the twelve stones; … This spot is Galgal, which lies to the east of Jericho. Near it are located the mountains, which are little hills Gerizim and Ebal, on which they spake the blessings and the curses, for the great mount of Gerizim, that is, Sikimay, lies to the south of Jericho, nearer to the eastern side (i.e., southeast), and is fifty-two miles away from Jericho. These, however, are the mountains, Ebal and Gerizim, near to Jericho, at a distance of about two miles to the east, tending to the southern side.

The first above-provided excerpt of Epiphanius’ Panarion Haer., a work completed approximately 377 CE,176 is but a portion of a much longer section regarding the many and diverse errors of the Samaritans. While some level of invective is to be expected in heresiological work, it should be underscored that Epiphanius’ arguments for the location rest entirely upon a combination of (MT/)GDeut 11.30 and Josh together, viewing traditions in Gen 35 through 2 Kgs 17.177 Epiphanius’ tone accords with that of Jerome in his LT of the Onomasticon. The second excerpt from De Gemmis, written ca. 394 CE,178 also a small part of a much larger section lambasting the Samaritans for their various heretical beliefs and practices, restates much the same. However, Epiphanius added details to his arguments which reflect the Onomasticon, namely the inability to hear the blessings and cursings on those mountains near Neapolis as well as language

|| 176 See Pummer’s introduction to Epiphanius (2002: 122). 177 Following Pummer 2002: 141. He notes that Ps.-Philo Liber antiq. 25.10 (ca. 100 CE) had already made this connection. 178 Blake and de Vis 1934: xiii.

474 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

reflective of the Galgala entry. Again his tone (i.e., “who have not read … with understanding”) is punchy and fits with Jerome’s disposition. Notably, much like Jerome, both of the Epiphanian excerpts do not accuse the Samaritans of forgery. Doing so, particularly in the Panarion, would have fit perfectly with his stated motives and would have further reinforced his polemic. In this context, an accusation (with “proof”) of said forgery would have been most damning. Perhaps then it might be hypothesized that Epiphanius did not have access to the μόνον-collation in any form; if he had, he could have inferred as much from the variation. It is difficult to accept that he could have known SP’s variant readings but then chose not to interpreted them in this way. (Perhaps this inference should also be applied to Jerome.) Next are the Epiphanian-derived comments found in Procopius of Gaza and Athanasius Sinaita, both of whom are believed to have possessed the now lost Greek text of Epiphanius’ De Gemmis in full.179 Procopius Comm. on Deut180

Athanasius Sinaita Quaest. 45181

ἑρμηνευέται τὸ μὲν Γαριζεὶν, ὄρος λελυτρωμένων, ἢ διατομὴ παροικίας αὐτῶν τὸ δὲ Γαιβὰλ, ὄρος μεματαιωμένων ἢ ὠδίνων αὐτῶν. εἰκότως ἄρα ἐφʼ οὗ μεν αἱ εὐλογίαι, ἐφʼ οὗ δὲ αἱ κατάραι. Κεῖται δὲ ταῦτα κατὰ τὸ αν̓ατολικὸν μέρος Ἱεριχοῦς ἐπέκεινα τοῦ Γαλγὰλ τόπου. οἱ δὲ Σαμαρεῖται νομίζουσιν αὐτὰ παρακεῖσθαι Σικίμοις πόλει τῇ καὶ Συχὲμ, ἔνθα παρὰ τῷ φρέατι διελέχθη Κύριος τῇ Σαμαρείτιδι. ἥ νῦν καλεῖται Νεάπολις, καλεῖται δὲ καὶ Σαμάρεια ἐπεὶ τὸ ὄρος, ὅ φασι Γαριζεὶν, ἦν τοῦ Σωμὴρ, ὅς ὑιὸν ἔσχε τὸν Σομορών. Ἐβεβαιώθη δὲ τοῦνομα μετὰ τοῦς ἀποσταλέντας ἐκ τοῦ βαιλέως τῶν Ἀσσυρίων ἐγκαθισαι τῇ γῇ. τὰ δὲ τῶν παροικοῦντων ἔθνη, οἵ ἀπέστρεψαν τὴν καρδίαν τῶν Σαμαρειτῶν, ὡς ἀποστρεφομένους ἐν ταῖς εὐχαις ὁρᾶν πρὸς

Επιφανίου ἐκ τοῦ πρὸς Διόδωρον. Σομορών μέν οὖν ἐκλήθη τὸ ὄρος καὶ τὰ ὁμοροῦντα ἀπὸ Σεμήρ, ἑνὸς υἱοῦ τῶν Χαναναίων, πρὶν ἤ ἐπιβῆναι τὸν Ἀβραὰμ τῇ γῇ. ἐλθόντων δὲ τῶν φυλακῶν, ἐκλήθησαν Σαμαρεῖται, τουτέστι, φύλακες. φύλακες δὲ ἦσαν οὐ μόνον τῆς γῆς, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦ νόμου ἐφύλαττον γὰρ τὴν Πεντάτευχον μόνην, ἣν ἔλαβον δία Ἔσδρα τοῦ βασιλέως {leg. ιερέως}, ἵνα ἐκ τούτου διακρίνηται τὸ σπέρμα τοῦ Ἀβραάμ ἀλλʼ οὐ τελείως τὸν νόμον ἐφύλαττον, διό φησιν ἡ Γραγή «ἔμειναν ποιοῦντες τὸν νόμον τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ προσκυνοῦντες τὰ αυτῶν ἔιδωλα.» τοῦ δὲ νόμου

|| 179 Thus Blake and de Vis (1934: xv). 180 PG 87/1.905–08; reprinted with his ET in Pummer 2002: 230–231; also Blake and de Vis 1934: xxiii–xxv. Original Greek text from Cat Nicephori 1/3.1479–1480 (sub ** προκοπιου). The present ET is Pummer’s. 181 PG 89.595; reprinted in Pummer 2002: 370–72, with ET (not reproduced here); Blake and de Vis 1934: xxiii–xxiv.

Greek and Syriac Readings with Commentary | 475

Procopius Comm. on Deut180

Athanasius Sinaita Quaest. 45181

κελεῦοντος εἴδωλα μὴ τὸ ὄρος, ὡς ἄν ἔχοι τῶν εὐχομένων ἡ γῆ κλίμακός [Pummer emends κλίματός] τε καὶ προσκυνεῖσθαι, πῶς ἔτι πληρωθήσεται; ἔχει δὲ ἡ θέσεως. οἱ γὰρ ἱερεῖς τῶν ἐθνῶν τῶν ό ὑπόθεσις τὸν πρόπον τοῦτον γνόντες, ὡς ἐνεδήμησεν Ἔσδρας βδελυττόμενος τὰ εἴδωλα, νόμον ἔχων θεοῦ γνόντες γὰρ οἱ μιαροι {MS μιερεῖς} τὸν κελεῦοντα τὸν εἰδωλολατροῦντα τῶν τεσσάρων ἐθνῶν, ὅτι λιθοβολεῖσθαι, σπεύσαντες ἐπῇραν ἀπὸ τῶν ἐνεδήμησεν Ἔσδρας, ὑψηλῶν οἴκων τὰ εἴδωλα καὶ ἐν μυχῷ τινὶ τοῦ βδελυττόμενος τὰ εἴδωλα κατὰ Γαριζεὶν κατέκρυωαν ὄρους, ὡς ἡ παράδοσις τὸν νόμον θεοῦ, σπεύσαντες ἔχει. καὶ κειμένων κάτω τῶν εἰδώλων, οἱ ἔκρυψαν τὰ εἴδωλα ἐν τῷ Γαρίζῃ Σαμαρεῖται προσεύχονται, κἄν ἠγωοήκασι ὄρει ἐν μυχῷ τινί καὶ ἀπέστρεψαν τοῦτο. ἀδύνατον γὰρ ψεύσασθαι τὴν Γραφὴν {v.l. ἀπέτρεψαν} τὴν καρδίαν τῶν λέγουσαν, «ἔμειναν ποιοῦντες τὸν νόμον τοῦ Σαμαρειτῶν πρὸς τὸ ὄρος θεοῦ, καὶ προσκυνοῦντες τὰ αυτῶν ἔιδωλα.” εὔχεσθαι. ὅθεν ὅπου δʼ ἄν ὦσι, ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ ὄρους, ὅπερ ἐνόμισαν Γαριζεὶν, πρὸς τὸ ὄρος εὔχονται οἱ ἀπὸ ναὸν κατασκευάσαντες ἤυχοντο. καίτοι εἰ ἦν ἀνατολῆς πρὸς δυσμὰς Γαριζεὶν καὶ Γαιβὰλ ὄρη τὰ παρακείμενα ἀποστρεφόμενοι, καὶ ἀπὸ δυσμῶν Νεαπόλει, ἅπερ εἰσὶν ὑψηλότατα, πῶς ἄν πρὸς ἀνατολὰς, καὶ ἀπὸ βοῤῥας κάτωθεν ἢ τῆς εὐλογίας ἢ τῆς κατάρας πρὸς τὴν μεσημβρίαν, πρὸς τὸ ἤκουον, ἑκατέρας ἄνω λεγομένης, καὶ ἀρκτῷον τῷ ὄρει προσέχοντες πλείστου τοῦ ὕψους, ὡς νῦν ὁρᾶται, εὔχονται, ἵνα πληρωθῇ ἡ Γραφὴ ἡ τυγχάνοντις; εἰς γὰρ τὸ παρʼ αὐτῶν λέγουσα «ἔμειναν ποιοῦντες τὸν λεγόμενον Γαριζεὶν, ͵α και φʹ, ὡς φασί, νόμον τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ βαθμῖσιν ἀνέρχονται. ἔχει δὲ καὶ ἡ προσκυνοῦντες τὰ αυτῶν ἀκολουθία τῆς βίβλου τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, ὡς κατὰ ἔιδωλα.» εἰ γὰρ καὶ αὐτοὶ ἀνατολὴν Ἱεριχοῦς τὰ δύω κατθέστηκεν ὄρη, ἀγνοοῦσι κειμένων τῶν εἰδώλων ἔνθα καὶ τόπος τὰ Γάλγαλα δύω σημείοις ἐκεῖσε, ἀλλʼ οὐ δυνατόν ἐστι τὴν ἀπέχοντα τῆς πόλεως. ἡ δὲ Σίκιμα τῆς θείαν Γραφὴν ψεύσασθαι. Ἱεριχοῦς βορειοτέρα τε καὶ δυτικωτέρα σημείοις αὐτῆς ἀπέχουσα νβʹ. Procopius: You shall put the blessing on Mount Gerizim, and the curse on Mount Ebal. “Gerizim” means “mountain of the redeemed” or “severance of their dwelling;” “Gaibal” (means) “mountain of those who act foolish,” or “(mountain) of their pangs of childbirth.” Reasonably, then, on this (are placed) the blessings, on that the curses. These (mountains) lie towards the eastern part of Jericho, beyond the site of Galgal. But the Samaritans believe them to be adjacent to Sikima, a city which is also called Sychem where the Lord conversed by the well with the Samaritan woman. It is now called Neapolis, but it is also called Samaria, since the mountain which they call Garizin belonged to Somer, who had a son, Somoron. But this name was established after the (people) were sent by the king of the Assyrians to settle in the land. As for the nations of the surrounding peoples, they led astray the hearts of the Samaritans. (For the Samaritans) turn around, in their prayers, in order to look at the mountain, whichever direction and position of the land of those who are praying might be. But the priests of the 70 peoples, knowing that Esdras had

476 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

Procopius Comm. on Deut180

Athanasius Sinaita Quaest. 45181

migrated (there) with a loathing of idols, having the law of God that ordered that the idolator be stoned, hastily removed the idols from the houses set on high and hid them in a cave of Mount Gerizim, as the tradition has it. (As a result,) since the idols lie below, the Samaritans pray to them although they do not know it. For it is impossible that the Scripture lies when it says: “They continued to fulfill the law of God, and worshipped their idols.” On the mountain which they called Garizin, they built a sanctuary and prayed (in it); and so, if Garizin and Ebal were the mountains adjacent to Neapolis, which are very high, how could they hear from below the blessing or the cursing, each one being pronounced above, when the height is immense, as one can see (even) now? For the (mountain) which by then is called Garizin, they go up 501 steps as they say. The sequence of the Book of Joshua also has it that the two mountains lay towards the east Jericho, where there is also the site of Galgal, two miles from the city. But Sikima is more northerly and westerly of Jericho, at a distance of 52 miles from it.

Both representations, or rather repetitions, of Epiphanius’ collected arguments against the Samaritans, occur here in different genres; for Procopius it is biblical commentary, while Athanasius Sinaita’s was used in an heresiological work.182 This dual purpose mirrors Epiphanius’ own usage of (most of) this information. Nevertheless, Procopius’ Comm. in Deut represents a point of contact, even while indirect, between the Epiphanian invective and the μόνονcollation. For as has been established above (→ §§2.3.2; 3.3.2) and indeed will be reinforced further below (→ Deut 27.4), Procopius had access to at least part of the Caesarean effort. For he made mention of some of the Samaritan crossreferences found in the hexaplaric data, and makes mention at Deut 27.4 that τὸ σαμαρειτικόν, “the Samaritan (sc. exemplar; see below),” reads “Gerizim” instead of “Ebal.” It would seem then that either the reading ‫ מול שכם‬had fallen out of the hexaplaric MS tradition, or (more likely) his source(s) for the μόνονcollation was already incomplete or otherwise defective. While his passage bears no explicit polemic, inviting an accusation of forgery, including the datum would have been in step with the function of his commentary as shown by the Samaritan data he transmitted elsewhere. In the end, when the context of the writings in question is considered, the wider Christian attestation to the location of Gerizim favors Jericho. Those wit-

|| 182 See Pummer’s introduction for a brief discussion and literature (2002: 369). While Athanasius did not mention the location of Gerizim, his endorsement of the bulk of Epiphanius’ information suggests he would have. In any case, his context and purpose in writing clearly would not have necessitated the discussion.

Greek and Syriac Readings with Commentary | 477

nesses, outside of Jacob of Edessa, who mention the Neapolis/Shechem tradition, do so in contexts where it is simply not expedient for the individual author to contradict or pedantically correct any such claim. That expediency trumps “biblical fact” is shown particularly by Eusebius and most likely also by Jerome. Furthermore, one might hypothesize that these sources, especially the chronographers and the records of pilgrimage, were perhaps operating under still another distinction, namely that of “(supposed) biblical” versus “present-day” identity.183 It is germane that each source claiming the Samaritans erred was from a work in which the author comments on the biblical text of Deut or Josh specifically, even if in polemic, whereas the majority of the sources describing or “supporting” the Samaritan claim do not. These, again Jacob excepted, comprise of pilgrims’ reports recounting what they saw on their journeys or historians’ recording more recent events at locales with de facto designations. None are biblical expositions meant to determine the exact location God commanded the Israelites to pronounce the blessings and curses of Deut 11 and 27. The Madaba Mosaic Map Perhaps the most vexing piece of early Christian evidence regarding the location of the mountains Ebal and Gerizim is the mid-6th cent. CE Madaba Mosaic Map. The mosaic,184 discovered in 1884,185 although in fragmentary state, shows a map of the Holy Land, with various cities and landmarks (e.g., rivers, mountains,

|| 183 Here, though above I argue caution when making this distinction (nn. 133 and 172), I follow Di Segni, who in her review of Pummer heavily criticized his discussion of Christian writers vis-à-vis Gerizim: “Pummer (86-87, 112, 188) sorts them into “correct” (those writers who placed the mountains near Neapolis) and “incorrect” (the supporters of the location near Jericho). But there is no “correct” and “incorrect” solution of the problem, or at least not in these terms: it all depends on the point of view” (2006: 251). I would rather state: it all depends on the overarching motives and goals of a given written work. 184 For an overview of the extant parts of the map as well as another plate representing the above Figure 3.3.3 (with ET), see M. Avi-Yonah 1954: Plates A and 6, respectively. For color photos of the mosaic in its present condition in the Church of Saint George, see here: https://madainproject.com/madaba_map. The above section can be seen at the latter in the photo showing Joseph’s Tomb. 185 On which, see V. Gold 1958: 51–52. Unfortunately it was damaged by modern construction.

478 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

etc.), of both biblical and then contemporary186 fame. It was undertaken with considerable industry187 during the 6th cent.188

Fig. 4.3.3: The Dual Locations of Ebal and Gerizim in the Madaba Map. N.B.: Jericho is immediately above the palm trees (top middle), Neapolis is to the left, while “The Holy Ci[ty of Jerusalem]” is to the right in the photo (Archäologisches Institut der Universität Göttingen, photo Stephan Eckardt; with permission)

|| 186 See the standard publication by Avi-Yonah (1954: 16–18), who in discussing the date of the mosaic, pointed to buildings constructed in the 5th–6th cent. CE. 187 For the techniques of the mosaic, see Avi-Yonah 1954: 18–19. Gold approximated that the complete map would have had 2.3 million(!) cubes and taken 11,500 hours to lay, equating a year’s worth of labor for a team of three artists working 12 hours a day (1958: 55–56). 188 Avi-Yonah 1954: 16–18; Gold surveyed a number of attempts to determine more precisely the date of the construction (1958: 54).

Greek and Syriac Readings with Commentary | 479

One of the most remarkable, and highly debated, features is the dual representation of (G)Ebal and Gerizim. For one pair, labeled γεβαλ and γαριζειν, is located near Jericho (the latter just to the left of the palm trees), whereas the same mountains—oddly transliterated in Aramaic—τουρ γωβηλ (‫ )טור גובל‬and τουρ γαριζιν (‫)טור גריזין‬, are located near νεαπολισ straddling συχεμ (above and below respectively in the photo → Figure 4.3.3). Eusebius’ Onomasticon clearly influenced the mosaicist, in addition to other sources, as has been often pointed out.189 However, scholars are divided as to why there are two locations of these same mountains and how this quandary should be interpreted. Researchers have been torn over whether the map favors the locale near Jericho or Shechem. Avi-Yonah, strangely, seemed to have favored both in his initial publication in 1954, suggesting that the mosaicist was “forced to adopt [the Jericho site as a Jewish tradition], at least partially.”190 Yet, Avi-Yonah later favored the “Samaritan” location pointing out that the Aramaicized names have larger letters, something which demonstrates that the mosaicists had doubts. Gold followed, maintaining the Aramaic names represent an “implied suspicion” of Eusebius’ Onomasticon (a la Jerome’s Ep. 108, as he interpreted it).191 Originally Pummer, following Avi-Yonah, argued the mosaicist only included the Jericho location out of deference to Eusebius and other Christian writers.192 H. Donner, taking Avi-Yonah’s comments to their natural end, claimed that the artisan “preferred as Solomonic solution: he listed the mountains twice, indicating by larger letters that he regarded the [Samaritan location] as being correct.”193 Di Segni also views the Map as favoring, even if in a qualified way, the

|| 189 Avi-Yonah (1954: 28–32) listed further sources including a road map of the Holy Land, Josephus, and other lesser sources. Gold (1958: 58) pointed out that the mosaicists followed some of Eusebius’ mistakes and suggested that they probably used Jerome’s LT. It is believed that Eusebius’ Onomasticon may also have had an accompanying map (Avi-Yonah 1954: 30–31; Gold 1958: 58; Taylor 2003: 5, with literature). For Jewish traditions, see Avi-Yonah 1954; 32–33 (“mostly adopted by way of the Onomasticon”) and Gold 1958: 58, n. 7. 190 1954: 33. It is unclear how this “partial” adoption can be a “typical case” of the adoption of a Jewish position. 191 1958: 64. He also believed, although this was not included in his argument for the Samaritan position, that since the mosaicist employed Aramaic names and imperfect Greek, he was “a Palestinian or a Syriac, rather than a Greek” (p. 60). 192 “… but [the artisan] probably preferred the identification with the mountains near Neapolis…” (1987: 22–23, with literature). Somewhat later, Pummer held a less certain position (2002: 86–87). 193 1992: 24. Here he seems to echo the view of R. O’Callaghan (“Madaba (Carte de)” DBSup 5.642–43).

480 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

Samaritan locale.194 In Pummer’s more recent writings, he seems not to offer a firm opinion.195 Knoppers felt that the Map “[had] it both ways.”196 Kartveit propounds a strong view in favor of Jericho. In the course of his discussion of the increasing polemic against Samaritans amongst Christians (e.g., see Jerome above), he claims that the use of the Samaritan Aramaic vernacular must be read against the backdrop of Eusebius’s/Jerome’s Onomasticon, Procopius’ Commentary, and Emperor Zeno’s construction of the Church of Mary Theotokos on the Samaritan Mount Gerizim197—each of which displays some form of polemic against the Samaritan claim. Thus, paralleling Christian use of Αργαριζιμ (and variants), “[i]n the Madaba map [Gerizim] in its current Aramaic form was rendered in Greek transliteration, but with an anti-Samaritan purpose.”198 Receiving less attention in these discussions is the very function and purpose of the Madaba Map. Avi-Yonah’s evaluation was that it was religious: “We therefore need not look for any other purpose but the instruction of the faithful.”199 Donner, expanding somewhat upon this view, held that there was likely more than one purpose. Certainly, the instruction of pilgrims, education of the faithful, and contribution to divine liturgy were all practical functions. However, he further elaborates on Avi-Yonah describing the Map’s function as “to illustrate God’s salvation history in a map,” something “totally unknown before the 6th century.”200 While the religious motives for the Madaba Map are naturally attractive, they need not serve as the only underlying purpose for the mosaic. More recently, B. Leal, countering typical interpretations of the map such as Donner’s, has argued that the map functioned as not primarily as a religious tool but an expression of specifically political power.201 She holds the mosaic was designed originally not for a church but for a government meeting hall which hosted legal

|| 194 “[The Mosaicist favors the Samaritan location] in explicit disregard of Eusebius’ statement” (1999: 116; cp. also her 2006: 252). Di Segni argues the Map is “more than one stage of elaboration and adaptation” away from Eusebius’ Onomasticon (1999: 119). 195 2016: 77; EBR 10.117. 196 2013: 201, n. 80. Note he questioned Donner’s larger letters argument. 197 Di Segni argues the opposite with respect to the Theotokos church which, she rightly cautions, is not even represented on the Map (1999: 116). 198 2009: 234–36 (at p. 236). 199 1954: 34. 200 1992: 30–31 (at p. 30). 201 2018: passim.

Greek and Syriac Readings with Commentary | 481

proceedings.202 After all, in the Byzantine era, Madaba was the seat of the bishop, and many bishops and ecclesiastical authorities occupied themselves with political and indeed economic concerns.203 Amongst other critiques of the traditional “religious function” explanation, she interprets the eastern orientation of the Map, with its artistic depictions and inscriptions, as intended to impress approaching claimants for legal cases.204 This, she hypothesizes, has been obscured by the fact that the modern church of St. George was built over the ruins of a much older but unidentified Byzantine structure.205 Leah’s thesis is highly suggestive even if it has not convinced all.206 Yet, if the Madaba Map’s original context was not merely ecclesial, then the potential meaning of τουρ γωβηλ and τουρ γαριζιν changes considerably. Certainly the government of Madaba would have been Christian in the 6th cent., and thus the use and/or acknowledgement of Eusebius’ expressed opinion is warranted. (And perhaps, it was just simply practical; what else would they have used?) However, if potential legal claimants would also have included Samaritans— which is without doubt given the governmental policies of emperors Zeno, Justinian I, and Justin II207—then perhaps the inclusion of the “Samaritan-ized” locations was a simple acknowledgement of de facto Samaritan opinion on the matter. While this assumes a more conciliatory attitude on the part of the Byzantine government, it should be pointed out that Samaritans did convert to Christianity (at least nominally) to preserve their inheritance; according to Justinian’s Novella 144 Samaritans were forbade to bequeath land to other Samaritans save for agricultural purposes.208 Wealthy Samaritans would therefore have had motive to “convert” (real or otherwise), and Byzantine officials would have had motive to take a more conciliatory attitude towards the Samaritan population in general, at least after the hostilities subsided. || 202 2018: 137–39. 203 2018: 140–41, with literature. She also focuses on the depiction of the surrounding regions vis-à-vis Madaba itself (admittedly no longer extant in the fragments): “By displaying Madaba as a flourishing civic center in a landscape defined and dominated by such places, the map visualizes and justifies the power base of the local ruling class” (p. 142). 204 2018: 139–40. 205 2018: 125–26. She even argues that the original mosaic extended beyond the structural limits of the 18th cent. church of St. George. 206 P. Arad, for one, is unconvinced of Leah’s analysis (2020: 13, with n. 3; with thanks to S. Schorch for this reference). Further, Schorch has recently voiced support for Donner’s construal of the Map as a “cartographic translation of Biblical salvation history” (2020: 231). 207 See the brief summary in Pummer 2016: 136–41. 208 Pummer: “During these difficult times, some Samaritans—how many is impossible to know—converted to Christianity. Many, however, did so only outwardly” (2016: 141).

482 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

Nevertheless, even if the traditional ecclesial context for the Madaba Map is maintained, the evaluative proposals outlined above need not be assumed. Other possibilities also may explain the data. For example, if conversions of rich Samaritans, baited by Justinian’s policies, were an historical reality, then perhaps one such recently converted Samaritan contributed to the mosaic, as a way of publically expressing his newly acquired identity. This hypothetical wealthy Samaritan might naturally insist upon the Aramaic labels near Shechem, adding a tinge of “Semitic authenticity” to the mosaic that even modern Christians are fond of. And such an explanation is, of course, not the only possibility. Conclusions: Whatever the case for the Madaba Map, the wider Christian witness to the “Samaritan” location of Gerizim is inconclusive vis-à-vis the μόνον-collation. In light of the joint testimony of these data, it seems unlikely that the note at JDeut 11.30mg was directly related to the μόνον-collation. Nevertheless, the character of the Caesarean effort itself, in conjunction with Eusebius’ discussion with the location of Gerizim in his Onomasticon, make it very likely that the original collation did have the reading ad loc. Perhaps the strongest evidence, even if by analogy, in support of the reading’s restoration is the inclusion of the locative in the Gerizim florilegium in Exod 20.17(13)‫→( ו–א‬ §2.3.3) and Deut 5.21‫§ →( ח–א‬4.2). Deut 27.4: “… on Mount Gerizim …” JDeut (fol. 389‫ ܒ‬in-text w/attrib. scholion,209 cp. IshoʿdadComm Barh.Comm) > SHV 210 ‫ܐ ܒ ܪܐ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܐܐ‬ ‫̈ܐ ܐ ܗ ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ ܐ ܕ ܒ ܬܘܢ ܪܕ ܐ‬4

...

‫ܕܓܐܪܙ‬

SP Deut 27.4 ‫“ בהרגריזים‬XQDeut” (forgery?)211 αρ(?)γαρ[ι]ζιμ Gie (but prob. = τὸ σαμ΄) (in) monte garzin Latcod 100212; … οὐκ ἐν ὄρει Γεβὰλ ἔχει τὸ σαμ΄ ἀλλʼ ἐν τῷ Γαριζείν C′’ comm ProcopComm (ProcopComm > AppII !) ≠ ‫⟨ בהר עיבל‬4Q33?⟩213 MT

|| 209 The scholion is indexed to ‫ܒ ܪܐ‬, encircled, and built into the bottom part of the column. 210 Nothing in the margins of fol. 182a suggests any tampering. 211 The debate as to the authenticity of this fragment, also labeled “DSS F.Deut2 (DSS F.154)” (Ulrich 2019: 8–9) is not discussed here. In short scholarly evaluations differ (see below); perhaps Ulrich’s conclusion is best: “Apart from whether it is a forgery … its witness is not needed, [due to Gie and OL MS 100]” (2019: 9). If Gie is Samaritan (→ §§1.2.3.2; 1.2.3.5; 1.2.3.8–10), its witness is not independent of SP; however, the OL is still germane to Ulrich’s point. 212 See MS 100 online (fol. 18a, col. 3): https://florus.bm-lyon.fr/index.php?type_recherche =cote&choix_secondaire=Ms%200403&tri=. As U. Robert recorded in his edition (1900: 30), the scribe wrote Garizym also in v 12 (fol. 18b, col. 1). See also the online cataloging for the MS: https://elmss.nuigalway.ie/catalogue/1179.

Greek and Syriac Readings with Commentary | 483

‫ והיה בעברכם את הירדן תקימו את האבנים האלה אשר אנכי מצוה אתכם היום‬4 ‫ ושדת אתם בשיד‬214‫בהרגריזים‬ Deut 27.4: Despite the deluge of recent scholarly comments supporting, albeit with varying levels of certainty, the textual priority of Gerizim over Ebal in Deut 27, the latter likely representing an anti-Samaritan Jewish emendation,215 surprisingly very little attention has been directed towards the fact that Gerizim—as a distinctive SP reading—was widely transmitted in Christian MSS, well before SP was “rediscovered” by Renaissance Europe (→ §1.1.2[.1]). In fact, the present reading is unquestionably the best attested of the hexaplaric Samaritan data transmitted in the Christian MS tradition, due to its eventual integration into the catena. The present section posits that the reading was an integral part of the original μόνον-collation undertaken by Eusebius of Caesarea and was transmitted in the Greek exemplar(s) used by Paul of Tella for SH Deut. Previous publication: As observed above (→ §1.2.1.1), despite the fact that the catena transmits the reading Γαριζείν, attributed to “τὸ σαμ΄,” for whatever reason it was not recorded in any edition of LXX (in notes or apparatuses) or hexaplaric fragments until Wevers’ first edition of Deut in 1977 (→ ADDENDUM). This is an extraordinary omission, in particular since Procopius recorded this in his Comm. on Deut (see below),216 a work first published in 1555(!)—32 years before the publication of the SIXTINE LXX—by Conrad Clauser in LT (d. 1611): “Lapides vero non in monte Ebal, verum Garizim collocasse exemplum habet Samariticum, … Garizim montem nominat qui circa Neapolim est, quem Samaritae colunt.”217 This fact evaded both Walton218 and Montfaucon (and || 213 W. Crawford does not comment as to whether there is space to either (DJD 14.53–54). 214 With orthographic (‫ )בהרגרזים‬and word division variants (‫ )בהר גריזים‬in SP MSS (→ §2.3.3). 215 For a recent review of the entire issue, see Kartveit 2009: 300–05 (on Deut 27.4) and 306– 09 (development of Deut 27 vis-à-vis Josh); on the latter, see most recently Schorch 2020. Many scholars have weighed in, for which see the following abbreviated list of publications where relevant: Pummer 2007; Kartveit 2009; Charlesworth 2009 (editio princeps of “XQDeut”); Schenker 2010; Schorch 2011 and 2020; Ulrich 2012; McCarthy BHQap; Gallagher 2014; Knoppers 2019; Tov 2020 (somewhat noncommittal; cp. his earlier TCBH3, 88, with n. 140); Dayfani 2022. For modern dissenting views, see the literature cited in these publications. Ulrich’s thesis, that Gilgal was the original location (unnamed but by implication, see his 2012 article) has convinced some (e.g., Gallagher 2014) though not all (e.g., Schorch 2020). 216 Note, however, that Procopius’ witness is not mentioned in AppII. 217 Reprinted PG 87/1.941–2 (bold mine); original 1555: 456. For brief comment on Clauser’s work, see K. Metzler’s GCS edition (2015: xxxv). 218 While Walton flagged up Procopius’ mention of the Samaritan cross-references and discussed the reading Gerizim in general, I have not found any mention of this in his Proleg.

484 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

therefore Field, et al → §4.1.2). Still further, the parallel comment transmitted anonymously in the catena was published later in the 1772/73 Catena Nicephori.219 Nearer to the μόνον-collation, de Sacy published in 1799, an article in which he observed that JPent transmitted Samaritan passages from the hexaplaric tradition (→ §4.1.2). In the course of his description, he supplied Jacob of Edessa’s Samaritan attribution scholion from JDeut 27.4 (in FT → §5.2.1) relaying this very same datum. Therefore, it is fair to state that the current reading was unduly overlooked by editions and critics. (Greek and) Old Latin evidence: Unsurprisingly, all Samaritan evidence (SP, ST, their reading tradition) supports reading “Gerizim” in 27.4 against “Ebal” reflected in MT and most other associated witnesses. As such, if Gie is accepted as Samaritan (→ §1.2.3.2), the only remaining textual witness independent of “Samaritan” influence is OL MS 100. First published in 1900, this OL Heptateuch, containing parts of Deut, is dated somewhere from the (5th?)6th–7th cent.220 In Deut 27, the MS reads that it is on Gerizim where the altar is to be built in vv 4 and 12 not Ebal. While its origins are “obscure,” generally the earliest Old Latin translations are believed to have comprised a collection of texts translated from Greek by Christians in North Africa ca. 2nd cent. CE.221 The translators were not Jewish neither is direct access to Hebrew texts thought to have taken place amongst Latins before Jerome.222 According to McLean’s evaluation, MS 100’s underlying Greek Vorlage(n) were decidedly mixed.223 When commenting on Deut specifically, McLean held that MS 100’s readings displayed “on the whole a more ‘Lucianic’ text,” but “[in MS 100] nowhere do we

|| 219 1/3.1584. Nicephorus observes the similarity of the passage with Procopius’ (see his n. 3). 220 Wevers listed the 7th cent. (Deut, 20). For others who dated the witness to the 5th or 6th cent., see Robert’s review of opinion (1900: xv). He expressly rejected Leo Ziegler’s assessment of the 7th cent. See also the summary in N. McLean’s review of Robert (1901: 306). 221 See Gallagher THB 1.1.4.3, and literature cited there. Note also P. Bogaert’s apt summary: As it appears from patristic quotations and from manuscripts, the Old Latin is not constant and contains many divergencies. Augustine and Jerome were aware of this vitiosissima varietas (most vicious diversity). But, with the exception of some special cases, the differences do not attest the plurality of translations for a given book (ABD 6.799–803, at p. 799). 222 Gallagher THB 1.1.4.3; note especially M. Kraus 2003: 513. 223 “… [one] must be at once impressed by the extraordinarily mixed character of the readings …” (1901: 306, italics original). Again, after supplying some examples: “This evidence of mixture might be prolonged indefinitely ….”

Greek and Syriac Readings with Commentary | 485

fail to meet with mixture of readings.”224 He was unsure how to account for the textual character of the Lyons MS. McLean did, however, reconstruct three proposed scenarios: 1) The OL “for the most part” reflects the old Greek κοινή, which was the source of the odd combination of readings and not the results of an eclectic effort; 2) the OL was itself the result of an eclectic effort which combined various readings from diverse sources; or 3) MS 100 is a late and corrupted OL witness. This last scenario was that which he favored positing the OL originated in Syria (the home of the Lucianic text) and picked up a variety of readings as it crossed from North Africa into Europe.225 While there is no “Lucianic” recension in the Pent, as Wevers demonstrated, and thus McLean’s hypothesis could be modified accordingly, A. Billen in his later 1927 study on the Old Latin Heptateuch determined much the same. Specifically, he described the “composite character” of Deut in MS 100 which, while some traces of earlier OL texttypes exist in the latter part of the book, “no part of the Lyons Deut. [MS] can be regarded as early; the Cyprianic [d. 258 CE] characteristic are few, and the general character of the book is in all parts decidedly European.”226 Determining how the background of OL MS 100 affects evaluation of its reading “garzin” is difficult. If, as many scholars would have it, MS 100 reflects the original GDeut reading, predating the “Jewish correction” of Gerizim to Ebal, then it is remarkable that such would have survived in a late, mixed witness. Indeed, if the textual character of MS 100 is late and mixed then one might expect “garzin” to have been emended to (G)Ebal, whether it be by the original OL translator(s) or a subsequent scribe(s), if such had not already occurred in the Greek Vorlage. Along these lines, van der Meer explains MS 100 by arguing that Garzin(/-zym) resulted not from the original GDeut reading but rather “a secondary attempt by the Latin translator, or a Greek or Latin copyist, to make sense of a corrupted Greek/Latin Vorlage.”227 In support of this reconstruction, he points to corrupted forms of (G)Ebal as found in certain GDeut MSS: γαβαιλ 509mx, γεβαδ 71y, and γαλααδ 19b. However, this argument is not altogether convincing. In addition to the fact the vast majority of MSS read uncorrupted—and thus a mixed or eclectic witness should have encountered the correct form (Γεβὰλ) at some point—the MSS transmitting such corruptions are very late, being from the 9th/10th, 13th, and 12th cents., respectively. Furthermore, it is unclear how “corruption” would have led the scribe to produce a mountain at odds with

|| 224 1901: 307. 225 1901: 307–08. 226 1927: 14–15; also pp. 175–76. 227 2004: 501.

486 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

the reading “in monte Gebal” at Josh 8.30(9.2a) in MS 100 itself.228 Would it not have been more natural for a scribe to resolve corruption by recourse to the parallel in Josh?229 This last point was posited by Schenker in favor of the authenticity of MS 100’s reading; while he acknowledges that OL MSS were emended variously throughout time, being glossed over, and brought into line with G MSS, this was clearly not such a case.230 Schenker’s judgement then is that the OL bears no underlying Tendenz which would have lead a scribe to adopt Gerizim in Deut 27. It must therefore represent the original, pre-Masoretic GDeut reading in Latin dress.231 Remarkably, this is not the only occasion where the OL stands alone in preserving an unrevised pre-MT reading for which a subsequent theological correction has affected all known textual witnesses.232 As Fernández Marcos observes, such a situation can also found in OL Judg 1.16.233 As to the date of the change from Gerizim to (G)Ebal in GDeut 27.4 one can only speculate.234 The papyri included in Wevers’ edition unfortunately do not transmit readings for vv 4 or 12.235 However, as indicated above (→ §2.3.3 at Exod 20.17[13]‫)ג‬, in light of the restoration of the reading Gerizim at Deut 27.4, the displacement of Gerizim with (G)Ebal must have predated any readings to which the Caesarean library would have had access. (Which in any case should be obvious.) Had LXX MSS then read Gerizim in Deut 27, the Caesarean μόνονcollation would not have resulted in any such annotation.

|| 228 See Robert 1900: 68. 229 Or, alternatively, he should have changed Josh 8 to conform to the earlier “correction.” 230 2010: 106–07. As Schenker points out, there is certainly no direct Hebraic or Samaritan influence on MS 100. 231 2010: 107. Also Ulrich 2012: 364. McCarthy was originally unsure which direction the alteration flowed (2004: 125); however, more recently, she favored Schenker’s reconstruction (see BHQap, citing others). As recent as 2019, Kartveit cites OL and Gie (which he holds as nonSamaritan) as evidence in favor of this view (2019: 77). 232 For a larger scale example of OL’s potential import for the pre-MT stage of the biblical text, see T. Tekoniemi 2021 (this case, as it so happens, also involves anti-Samaritan sentiments!). 233 Fernández Marcos 2021: 210; for a full textual discussion, see his commentary in BHQap, where he lists G MSS 44, 52, 53, 85, 130 as containing both the original and later corrected readings. BHSap lists the catena as also transmitting the original reading. 234 Kartveit’s recent suggestion that the change, at least in Hebrew MSS, occurred “in the middle of the 5th cent. BCE” (2015: 217) is difficult to reconcile with the OL evidence (as reflective of the OG). If the change had occurred so early in Hebrew, it clearly could not have affected the entire MS tradition. Hendel recently suggested that Jewish scribes made this change on the Hebrew side in the Hasmonean era (2016: 224); this better comports with the OG/OL evidence. 235 See Deut, 14–17. The extant fragments of MS 848 (ca. 50 BCE) do not cover the passage.

Greek and Syriac Readings with Commentary | 487

The Reconstructed μόνον-collation: That the reading “Gerizim” instead of “(G)Ebal” was provided in the original hexaplaric Samaritan collation is a certainty despite its lack in SHV. This is confirmed not only by analogy, since the mountain is mentioned in the parallel occurrences at both Exod 20.(13)17‫→( ג‬ §2.3.3) and Deut 5.21‫§§ →( ד‬1.1; 4.2), but also by three separate witnesses to this reading’s presence ad loc in SH Deut itself, each of which has already been discussed in this study as a known carrier of syrohexaplaric μόνον-data. Three Syriac Fathers on “Gerizim” in SP Deut 27.4: Texts and translations JACOB OF EDESSA (d. 708 CE; Syriac Orthodox; scholion in (ps.?)Ephrem’s Comm. on Deut (at 11.29–30) in CatSev fol. 81b; same at JDeut 27.4mg, see above)236 238 ⸂ ‫ܪܐ ܕܓܒ‬ ‫ܪܐ ܕܓ ܙ ܆ ܘ ̈ ܐ‬ ‫⸃ܗܒ ܒ ̈ܪ ܐ‬237 ‫܀ ܀ ܀‬ ̈ ̇ ‫⸃ܘ ܐ ܕ ܒ ܬܘܢ ܐ‬239 ‫ܒ ܕܐܘܪܗܝ‬ ‫ܐܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܐܗ ܕ‬ ‫ܪܕ ܆ ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬

|| 236 The text from CatSev is more legible than my pictures of JDeut and thus provided here (with discernable variants). A differently phrased form of Jacob’s scholion is also in (Ps.-?)Ephrem’s Comm. on Josh (at 8.30) in the CatSev (fols. 93a–b):

‫ܐ ܕܐ ܐ ܒ ܪܐ ܕܓܒ ܀ ܒ ܪ‬ .‫ܐ ܕ ܒ ܢ ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܐܘ ܒ̇ܘ‬ ‫ܒܐ‬ ‫ܪܐ ܕܓ ܙ‬ ‫ ܀‬.‫̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܘ ܕܓܒ‬

‫ܥ ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܒ ܐ‬.‫܀‬. ‫ܒ ܐܘܪܗ ܐ‬ ‫܀ܕ‬ ‫ܐ܆ ܒ ܪܐ ܕܓ ܙ‬ ‫ܐ ܒ ܐ ̇ܗܘ ܕ ܬ‬ ‫̇ ̇ ܝ ܕܒ‬ ‫ ܘ ܒ ܒܐ ܐ‬. ‫ܘ ܐ ܗܘܐ ܒ ̇ ܘ ܕܓܒ‬ ̇ ‫ܕ ̈ܘ ܒ ̈ܪ ܐ܆ ܘܒ‬ ‫ܕܒ ̇ ܘ ܕܓ ܙ‬ . ‫ܕܓܒ‬ ‫ܐܐ‬

From Jacob of Edessa: “And Joshua built the altar to the Lord God of Israel on Mount Gebal.” [= PJosh (‫ܒ ܐ ]ܘܒ ܐ‬ ‫])ܗ‬. In Deuteronomy, in the exemplar of the Samaritans, it is written that Moses said that they would build the altar on Mount Gerizim and not on Mount Gebal. And doubtlessly it is right that in Mount Gerizim the altar would be built and not in Mount Gebal. For it was commanded that the blessings would be in (Mount) Gerizim and the curses in (Mont) Gebal. This version was excerpted in PS 1.642, sub ‫ܓܒ‬, 3. For the implications of this scholion for the reading in JJosh 8.30, itself no longer extant, see below (→ §5.2.2). 237 The lemma is PDeut 11.29b (var.: ‫)ܗܒ‬. 238 ‫ܒ ܕܐܘܪܗܝ‬ ‫ ܕ‬is in reddish-brown ink. 239 The character of the quoted lemma (Deut 27.4–5a) is mixed, owing either to the catenist or perhaps (?) to Jacob’s pre-recensional text which, as the following variants (save “Gerizim”) show, does not equate that of JDeut: ‫ ܕ ܐ ]ܘ ܐ‬JDeut GDeut SH | ‫]ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬JDeut 8a1 ] ‫ ܒ ܪܐ‬JDeut P SH G | ‫ ܕܓܐܪܙ ]ܕܓ ܙ‬JDeut 9a1fam 9k1 12b1 GDeut (στησετε = SH) | ‫ܪܐ‬

488 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

⟨‫ܐ‬

⟩ ‫ܒ ܐ‬

‫ܒ ܐ܆ ܘܒ ܬ‬ ‫ ܒ ̇ܘ ܕ ܕܓܒ‬: ‫̈ ܒ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕܒܓܒܐܠ ܒ ܐ ܒ ܐ‬ ‫̇ܗܝ ܕܘ ܐ ܐ ܐ ܕܐܦ‬ ‫ܐ‬ .‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒܐ ܒ ܐ ̇ܗܘ ܕ‬ «‫ܒ ܐ ܀‬

‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܐ‬. ‫ܪܐ ܕܓ ܙ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܒ ܪܐ ܕܓ ܙ ܒ ̈ܪ‬ ‫»ܐܢ ܗ‬240 ⸂‫ܐ ܟ ܀‬ ‫̇ ܗܘܬ ܕܘ‬ ‫ܐ ܢ܆ ܐ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫̈ ܐ‬ ̇ ̇ ‫ܒ ܘ ܕܓ ܙ ܐ‬ ‫ ܕ ܐ ܗ‬.‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܐ ܢܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ̈ܪ ܐ‬ ‫̈ܐ ܐ ܗ ܘܒ ܬ‬ ‫ܕܒ ܪܐ ܕܓ ܙ ܐ‬

“Give the blessings on Mt. Gerizim and the curses upon Mt. Gebal.” [PDeut 11.29b]:

Jacob of Edessa says: “And when you cross the Jordan, raise stones, those which I am commanding you today, upon Mt. Gerizim. And plaster them with plaster. And build there an altar to ⟨the Lord⟩ your God.” Now if the blessings are being given in Mount Gerizim, but in Mount Gabal, the curses are being said, how is it right that the altar would be built in Gabal to the Lord? Perhaps then “in Gerizim” is more correct, where the blessings are being said. Indeed, (this is) just as (it is) rightly written in the exemplar of the Samaritans: “… in Mount Gerizim set up these stones and build there the altar.” ISHO‘DAD OF MERV (fl. 9th cent. CE; Church of the East; Comm. on Deut)

‫ ̈ ܐ ܕ‬. ‫ܒ ̈ܪ ܐ ܒܓ ܙ‬ ‫ ܐ‬.‫ ܕܘ ܒ ̈ܪ ܐ‬.‫ܗܘܐ ܗܘܐ‬

‫ܒ ܐ ܒ ܪ ܕܓܒ ܆ ܐ‬ ‫ܕܒ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ ܙܕܩ ܗܘܐ ܕܐܦ ܒ ܐ ܒ ܪ ܕܓ ܙ‬. ‫ܒܓܒ‬ . ‫ܗ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕܐܦ ܒ ܐ ܕ‬

And why is it commanded: “Build an altar on Mount Ebal” if it is on Gerizim that the blessings will be, and the curses on Ebal? There must also have been an altar on Mount Gerizim, the place of the blessings, as is, moreover, written in the codex of the Samaritans.241 BARHEBRAEUS (1226–86 CE; Syriac Orth.; The Storehouse of Mysteries, or Scholia)

̇ ‫ ܐ ̈ ܐ‬.‫̄ܗ‬ ‫ܡ‬ .‫ ܘ ̇ ܬ‬. ̇ ‫ܐ ܒ ܪܐ ܕܓ ܙ ܐ‬ ‫ܕܨ ܐ ܕ‬ ̈ .‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܒ ܪܐ ܕܓܒ‬.‫ܐ ܐ ܕ ܐ ܢ ܒ ̈ܪ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܪܐ ܕܓ ܙ‬ ‫ܕ ̈ ܐܘ‬ . ‫ ܘܐ‬.‫ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܕܐܬܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ ܐ ܒܐܬܪܐ ܕ ̈ ܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܒ ̈ܪ ܐ‬ ‫ ܒ ܪܐ ܕܓܒ‬. ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܒ ܢ‬ ‫ ܐܦ ܓ ܘ‬.‫ܐ‬ . ‫ܐܘܢ ܕ ܐ ܕ ܒ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ ܕ‬.‫ܒ ܐ ܒ ܐ‬

[After quoting PDeut 27.4–5a] That is, some say that the codex of the Samaritans has (the reading) “upon Mount Gerizim,” and correctly so. For, shortly before, God had commanded that blessings should be spoken on Mount Gerizim, and curses upon Mount Gevel (cf. 11.29); [mg: and how could he command

|| 240 Jacob’s Gerizim scholion is demarcated in the MS with citation markers 〈. along the RH side of the text. Variants in comparison with JDeut’s form: init.] pr. ⟨‫ܢ‬ ⟩.‫ ̄ܣ‬JDeut | ‫ ܗ‬1°] ‫| ܗ‬ ‫ ܕܓ ܙ‬1–3°] ‫( ܗܘ ]ܗܘܬ | ܕܓܐܒܐܠ ]ܕܓܒ | ܕܓܐܪܙ‬vid?) | ‫] ܒ ܐ | ܕܒܓܐܒ ]ܕܒܓܒܐܠ‬ ‫ܐ|ܕ ܒܐ‬ ] > | ‫( ܕܘ ܐ‬vid)] ‫| ܐ ܐ ]ܐ ܐ | ܕܘ ܐ‬ ] ‫|ܕ‬ ‫? ]ܐ‬. In particular, Jacob’s typically plene orthography indicates the catenist perhaps regularized spelling. 241 McCarthy’s ET (2004: 125; also found in BHQap).

Greek and Syriac Readings with Commentary | 489

that an altar should be built to him in the place of curses? But we say that for the curses,]242 and not the blessings, propitiation is needed, as further also Joshua the son of Nun did build an altar upon Mount Gevel when he had destroyed Ai [Josh 8], as the sixth section of his book relates.243 ► Certainty of the restoration: The Syriac evidence can be used definitively to restore the reading to SH, and thus, the Caesarean μόνον-collation. It should also be pointed out that each witness, encompassing both Western and Eastern Syriac traditions, used the datum in a completely different way: Jacob replaced his running text based on the SP reading; Isho‘dad combined the readings assuming an altar on both mountains; still Barhebraeus considered the Samaritan reading and ultimately rejected it. These varying exegetical trajectories suggest that neither Ishoʿdad nor Barhebraeus copied their predecessor(s), and thus each had encountered this datum independently, i.e., from a SH MS and not in a commentary or floating scholion. Further, each is a known user of SH; thus, their witness at this point approximates three different SH MSS, each of which transmitted the reading. In reality, neither Ishoʿdad’s nor Barhebraeus’ witness is required to restore the reading to SH Deut. For that only Jacob of Edessa’s witness, as explained above, need suffice. In terms of the transmission history of SH, however, both Ishoʿdad and Barhebraeus still bear merit. The former’s exemplar, likely the product of Timothy I’s sponsorship (→ §2.3.1 at Exod 6.9‫א‬, attribution), attests to the reading’s presence in the East Syriac milieu (→ §5.1). As for the latter, Barhebraeus’ description suggests that by his time the reading ̇ ‫)ܐ ̈ ܐ‬. However, he claimed to have had gained further currency (i.e., verified it (‫)ܘ ̇ ܬ‬, surely by direct consultation of SH. Since Barhebraeus is not believed to have known Greek,244 his consultation of the catena is improbable. || 242 The reading here is a marginal correction which has been reinserted into the text in the above transcription. 243 Sprengling and Graham’s ET (1931: 239). Compare Barhebraeus’ comment at Deut 11.29– 30: “‘Put the blessings upon Mount Gerizim’, i.e., where the Lord is choosing a sanctuary ܰ ] for himself ….” Sprengling and Graham believed that this remark “corresponds to [‫ܳ ܐ‬ Samaritan interpretation” (1931: 227–28, with n. ‘g’). In light of Barhebraeus’ opinion in Deut 27 as to where the altar was built it seems unlikely that he embraced any such view. Perhaps then ܰ should be understood in a more general sense ‘holy place’, i.e., a place where the ‫ܳܐ‬ blessings would be pronounced, as opposed to ‘sanctuary’. 244 See, e.g., J. Watt 2019: 430 (regarding his usage of earlier Syriac translations of originally Greek philosophical works). Note further, that in his Scholia references to “the Greek” are believed to refer only to SH (see Marsh 2019: 32, with n. 73 and literature). This implies that his mention of “some” is in reference to scholia akin to those in CatSev or Syriac commentaries as opposed to Greek sources.

490 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

► Nature of the reading: While it is tempting to presume some kind of evaluative comment was attached to the original μόνον-variant due to the ostensible rhetorical agreement between Jacob and the catena tradition (see below), the fact that these three Syrian exegetes so differently evaluated the reading, suggests it is better to presume “Gerizim” was recorded neutrally, without further assessment.245 The narrative’s logic, as is shown by all three Syriac exegetes, could, and probably could still, be construed variously, textual arguments aside. Furthermore, no other μόνον-passage or reading transmitted any such evaluative comment (e.g., → §4.3.2 at Deut 10.6–6‫–א‬7–7‫–א‬6). Thus, it is unnecessary to posit that any such appraisal was supplied. ► Nature of the attribution: Each witness, while being independent, uses the same language to describe the Samaritan source, i.e., ‫“ ܨ ܐ‬exemplar.” It follows then that the language in the SH attribution reflected ἀντίγραφον. Later witness to the hexaplaric tradition: Much like those readings at Num 32.1+ and 29+ (→ §3.3.2), eventually this reading made its way into the Greek catena tradition, where it was much expanded upon. In like manner, the reading is not from the “Samareitikon” (i.e., σαμ΄),246 but rather had been adapted from an hexaplaric source by the catenist(s). This assessment is further buttressed by an earlier version of the same passage recorded by Procopius. The catena version reads as follows: Gerizim Scholion from the Catena: Text and translation CatNic (1/3.1584 = MS 417cII 247) ΑΝΕΠΙΓΡΑΦΟΥ. Τὸ στῆσαι τοὺς ὅρους, οὐκ ἐν ὄρει Γεβὰλ ἔχει τὸ Σαμαρειτικὸν, ἀλλʼ ἐν τῷ Γαριζεὶν, ἔνθα καὶ τὰς εὐλογίας ἐκέλευσε λεχθῆναι, τὰς δὲ κατάρας ἐν Γεβάλ. εἰ δὲ αἱ κατάραι ἐν Γεβὰλ ἐλέγοντο, πῶς εἰκὸς ἐν αὐτῷ τὸ θυσιαστῆριον ἀναστῆσειν προστάττεσθαι; ἐν [δὲ] τῇ βίβλῳ τῶν Κριτῶν, Γαριζεὶν ὀνομάζει τὸ περὶ Νεάπολιν ὄρος, ὅ σέβουσιν οἱ Σαμαρεῖται, ἐφʼ ᾧ στὰς ὁ Ἰωάθαμ, υἱὸς Γεδεὼν, κατηράσατο τὸν

|| 245 Compare Eusebius’ Onomasticon, sub “Gaibal,” where the altar is expressly said to have been built. 246 Pace, among others, Knoppers 2019: 289, n. 45. 247 N.B. My paragraphing is artificial. The same scholion can be seen in MS 57cI, a handsomely illustrated, 11th cent. catena MS in the Vatican (Vat. gr. 747; see fol. 204b, LH mg; online: https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.747). See also PLATE VI for the representation in MS 529C (BnF, Coisl. 6, 13th cent.; fols. 174aβ–bα; https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b11004648s).

Greek and Syriac Readings with Commentary | 491

λαὸν τὸν βασιλεύσαντα ἐφʼ ἑαυτὸν Ἀβιμέλεχ τὸν ἀπο δούλης υἱὸν Γεδεὼν τὸν ἀδελφοκτόνον. Εἰ μήτις εἴποι, ὅτι νεώτερος ὤν ὁ συλλέξας τὰς ἁγίας Γραφὰς Ἔσδρας ὁ προφήτης, ἤ ἕτερός τις, ἀπὸ τῶν ἐπὶ αὐτοῦ πολιτευομένων ὀνομάζει τοὺς τόπους. Ὥσπερ οὖν καὶ Ἱερουσαλήμ καλεῖ τὴν Ἰεβοῦς καλουμένην ἐπὶ τῶν ἀρχαίων, καὶ Βηθλεὲμ τὴν Εὐφραθά. ⸂Γαριζεὶν ἑρμηνεύεται διατομὴ, ἤ διαίρεσις, ἤ περιτομή. Οἱ ἄξιοι εὐλογιῶν ἐν τούτῳ τῷ τόπῳ εἰσί. Γεβὰλ δὲ ἑρμηνεύεται χάσμα παλαιὸν, ἤ φάραγξ παλαιά. Οἱ ἄξιοι ἀρῶν ἐν τοῦτῳ τόπῳ εἰσί. Καὶ δηλοῖ τοῦτο ὁ πλούσιος καὶ ὁ Λάζαρος. Εἰς χάσμα οὖν παλαιότητος ἀπελεύσονται οἱ τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον μὴ ἀποδυσάμενοι σὺν ταῖς πράξεσιν αῦτοῦ. Οἱ δὲ περιτομὴν καρδίας λαβόντες, καὶ διαιρεθέντες τῶν σωματικῶν, καὶ διακοπέντες ἐκ τῆς κακίας, ἀπελεύσονται εἰς ὄρος Γαριζείν.⸃248 Anonymous: The erecting of the mountains [mend.; rd. τοὺς λίθους “the stones” with Procopius below]. The Samaritan [exemplar] does not (read) “in Mount Gebal” but rather “in Gerizim”; (this is) where he also commanded the blessings to be said, whereas the curses (were to be said) in Gebal. Now if the curses were pronounced in Gebal, how is it logically plausible that in (Gebal) the altar was commanded to be set up? Now in the Book of Judges [ch. 9], the mountain near Neapolis is called Gerizim, which the Samaritans venerate, upon which Ioatham, son of Gedeon stood and cursed the people who made Abimelek, that fratricidal son of Gedeon by a servant girl, king. Unless249 someone should say, that someone more recent, the Prophet Esdras who collected the holy writings together [sc. after the Exile], or someone else, used names for these places (assigned by) those citizens who lived there. Now in the same way (Scripture) designates Jerusalem, which is called Jebus by the ancients,250 and Bethlehem (similarly previously named) Euphratha. Gerizim is interpreted as ‘separation’ or ‘division’ or ‘circumcision’. Those worthy of blessings are in this place. Whereas Gebal means ‘ancient abyss’ or ‘ancient ravine’. Those worthy of curses are in this place. And the (parable of) the Rich Man and Lazarus [Luke 16] makes this clear. For they will pass away (in death) to the chasm of old, those who have not stripped themselves of the old man by their (meritorious) deeds. But those having received the circumcision of the heart, and having separated themselves from carnal things, and breaking off from evil, they shall pass away (or: over?) to Mount Gerizim.

And now compare that version from Procopius’ Comm. on Deut 27.4.251

|| 248 The text in angled markers is found in CODEX M at Deut 27.12 (fol. 146β); CODEX F has no such annotation (see fol. 187b). 249 See BDF §376 for this sense. 250 Cp. here to Theodoret’s Quaest. Judg 2. 251 BSB Cod.gr. 358, fol. 363a, ln. 16ff; online: http://mdz-nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb: 12-bsb00109048-6. I would like to thank Jonathon Wright and Jeremiah Coogan for deciphering

492 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

στῆσαι δὲ τοὺς λίθους οὐκ ἐν ὄρει γεβαλ ἔχει τὸ σαμαρειτικὸν ἀλλ͗ ἐν τῶι γαριζεὶν· ἴσως εὐλόγως· ἐπεὶ κακεῖ τὰς εὐλογίας προσέταζε γενέσθαι ἐν δὲ γεβαλ τὰς ἀράς· καί πως εἰκὸς ἐν τούτωι τὸ θυσιαστήριον ϊστασθαι· ἐν δε τη βίβλωι τῶν κριτῶν γαριζεὶν ὀνονάζει τὸ περὶ νεαπολιν ὄρος ὂ σέβουσιν οἱ σαμαρεῖται. ἐφ͗ ὡ ῖστὰς ὁ ϊωθανὰν ῡσ γεδεὼν ὁ περιλειφθεὶς. καὶ κράσατο τοὺς βασιλεύσανας ἐφ͗ ἑαυτοὺς τὸν ἀβιμέλεχ τὸν ἀπὸ δούλης υιον γεδεὼν τὸν ἀδελφοιστόνον· εἰμή τις ἐιποι τὸν ἔσδραν ἠτὸν συλλεζαντα τὰς γραφὰς εἴ τις ἕτερος ἠῶ· ὡσνεώτερον ἐκ τῶν ἐφ͗ ἑαυτοῦ πολιτευομένων ὀνομάσαι τοὺς τόπους· ὥσπερ οὖν καὶ ϊλ̅ην καλεῖ τὴν ἐπὶ τῶν ἀρχαίων ϊεβοῦς καλουμένην· καὶ βηθλεὲμ τὴν ἐφραθά·252 As argued above (→ §2.3.2 at Exod 18.25–25‫ג–א‬, later witnesses, §3.3.2 at Num 10.10‫ג–א‬, attribution, and 32.1+ & 29+ [33+]), the use of Σαμαρειτικοῖς/-κὸν, etc. by Procopius, whose witness to this scholion is earliest, does not refer to the Samareitikon, i.e., a/the Samaritan Greek translation, but rather was shorthand for the “Samaritan exemplar (ἀντίγραφον)” (cp. below Deut 27.26 → §4.3.4). While there is rhetoric in common between Procopius/catena and Jacob’s annotation, viz., πῶς εἰκὸς ἐν αὐτῷ …, there is little reason to assume that the μόνονattribution expanded on the variant by commenting in this way.253 For as Barhebraeus’ exegesis indicates, in accordance with Josh 8, the logic of the narrative could be construed either way. Thus, Jacob and Procopius only followed a common exegetical direction. (Note that while the former emended the text of Scripture, the latter stopped short of proposing any such alteration.) All the

|| and transcribing the MS for me as my skill with Byzantine scripts is imperfect. Procopius’ Comm. here is not in Pummer’s 2002 study. 252 For reference Clauser’s LT is as follows: Lapides vero non in monte Ebal, verum Garizim collocasse exemplum habet Samariticum, nec forte absque ratione, eaque videlicet, siquidem ibi quoque benedictiones fieri praecepit: “In Ebal vero maledictiones.” Ecqui igitur consentaneum fuerit in hoc altare esse constitutum? Porro in libro Judicum Garizim montem nominat qui circa Neapolim est, quem Samaritae colunt. Super quo cum constitisset Jothan filius Gedeonis superstes exsecratus est eos qui regem super se creaverant Abimelech Gedeonis filium ex ancilla, qui fratres suos interemit. Nisi quis asserat Esdram aut Scripturarum collectorem, sive alium quempiam fuisse, qui nova nomina ex suae gubernationis locis traducta locis imposuerit. Quemadmodum videlicet Jerusalem vocat quae antiquitus Jebus vocabatur, Bethlehem item quae Ephrata (PG 87/1.941–2). 253 For a discussion of the Christian adaptation of the Aristarchian literary-critical concept of εἰκός, or “logical plausibility,” see Schironi 2020: 201–04. (I would like to thank Jeremiah Coogan for this reference.) While Schironi illustrates examples from Eusebius, it should still not be argued that he included an evaluative comment for the reading “Gerizim” in Deut 27.

Greek and Syriac Readings with Commentary | 493

evidence taken together suggests a multi-staged growth of the note, from its origins in the Caesarean Samaritan collation until the fullest form in the catena, which might be hypothesized as follows: i) μόνον-attribution specifying that SP reads Gerizim instead of (G)Ebal ii) added comment questioning the propriety of an altar on the curses mountain iii) further cross-reference to Judg 9; iv) a note on biblical anachronism; v) etymological exegesis of the names presented in homiletical fashion That these stages were layered, one upon the other, is clear from the evidence. The first stage, part i, is represented by all witnesses, save CODEX M’s transmission of part v only. Yet, this fact, and that Procopius and the Syriac Fathers all lack part v,254 supports the notion that the etymological explanation and homiletical application was originally separate from i–iv. Parts iii–iv appear only in Greek evidence, while part ii is found in all sources including commentary. However, the exegetical directions taken by all parties after considering part ii vary making a common source improbable.

4.3.4 The “χολ scholion” The χολ scholion: Texts and translations OrigenAdnotDt (?) SHVmg JeromeCommGal ProcopiusCommDeut 255 C′’comm Origen(?)256 Adnot. in Deut (PG 17.36, “ex Bibliotheca Gallandiana”257)

|| 254 Note, however, that an etymological explanation of Gerizim is found in wider Syriac literature. Thus Bar Bahlul in his Lexicon defined Gerizim as “mountain of circumcision” (see quotation in PS 1.780). This definition is also found in the tractate on biblical names transmitted regularly in the so-called Syriac Masora. See, e.g., Vat Syr. 152, fol. 199b‫ܐ‬, in the Josh section: https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.sir.152. 255 Procopius’ Comm. Deut, as recorded in PG (87/1.944) reproduced the Greek from CatNic (1/3.1590), where Nicephorus recorded it sub “*ΠΡΟΚΟΠΙΟΥ.” According to Nicephorus’ system (see Devreesse 1959: ix, and Fernández Marcos 2000: 296, n. 21) he used a single asterisk to indicate he doubted Procopius’ authorship. However, BSB Cod.gr. 358 (see fol. 363b) transmits the passage which was translated by Clauser into Latin (1555: 457). The matter then is not whether Procopius witnessed the fragment, but from which source he derived it. Procopius’ Greek, as Nicephorus recorded, equates verbatim that from Origen’s scholia as recorded in PG. 256 MS 529C (BnF, Coisl. 6, 13th cent.; fols. 175aβ–bα; see n. 247) listed the note without apparent attribution (→ PLATE VII). MSS 57cI (see note 247; fol. 205a, upper margin), 73cI (Vat. gr. 746,

494 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

Στίχ. κς΄. Ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ἄνθρωπος, ὅς οὐκ ἐμμένει ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς λόγοις τοῦ νόμου. Τὸ, ἐν πᾶσι, κείμενον παρᾶ τοῖς Ἐβδομήκοντα, κυροῦται ἀπὸ τοῦ Σαμαρειτικοῦ ἀντιγράγου, ἐν ᾧ τὸ χὸλ, ὅπερ ἐστί πᾶσιν ἤ πάντα, φερόμενον εὕρομεν. Οἷς συνᾴδει καὶ ὁ Ἀπόστολος λέγων Ὅσοι γὰρ ἐξ ἕργων νόμου εἰσὶν, ὑπὸ κατάραν εἰσίν. Ὅθεν οἱ ἐκ περιτομῆς ἐλέγχονται ὑπὸ κατάραν ὅντες, τὸ {ed: τῳ} μὴ πάντα ποιεῖν Verse 26. “Accursed is every man, who does not abide by all the words of the law” The “in all” is extant in the Seventy, (something which) is confirmed by the Samaritan exemplar (ἀντιγράγου), in which we found transmitted chol, that is “in all” or “all.” Now the Apostle is also in harmony with this, saying: “For as many as are from the works of the law, they are under a curse.” [Gal 3.10] From which, those from the circumcision are put to shame under a curse, having failed to do “all.”

SHVmg (fol. 182b)258

‫ܐܒ̇ܘ‬ ‫ܨ ܐܕ‬ . ‫)?( ܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܢ )?( ܬ‬ ... ... ... ... ... ... ...]‫ܒܐ‬

‫ܪܪܐ‬ ‫ܐܐ‬ ‫ܐܐ‬ [...]

‫ܐ ܬ ܒ‬ ‫ܢ ܀ ̇ܗܝ ܕܒ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܘܢ ܐܘ‬ ‫̇ܗܘ ܕܐ ܘܗܝ‬ ‫ܕܗܝ ܕ‬ ̈ ‫ܒ ⟩ܐ ⟨ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ ܗ ܢܓ ܕ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫[ ܒ‬...] ‫̇ܗܝ‬ (?)‫[ ܘܗܝ‬...] ‫ܐ‬ .‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ [ܬܐ‬... ...?]‫[ ܢ ܕ ܐ‬...]‫[ܪ‬

. ‫ܬ‬

] πασιν ] παντα Jerome Comm. on Gal. 3.10 (CCSL 77A.84; PL 26.357–58) … et incertum habemus utrum Septuaginta interpretes addiderint ‘omnis homo’ et ‘in omnibus’ an in veteri hebraico ita fuerit et postea a Iudaeis deletum sit. In hanc me autem suspicionem illa res stimulat quod verbum ‘omnis’ et ‘in omnibus’ quasi sensui suo necessarium, ad probandum illud quod quicumque ex operibus legis sunt sub maledicto sint Apostolus, vir hebraeae peritiae et in lege doctissimus, numquam protulisset nisi in hebraeis voluminibus haberetur. Quam ob causam Samaritanorum hebraea volumina relegens inveni ‘chol’, quod interpretatur ‘omnis’ sive ‘omnibus’, scriptum esse et cum Septuaginta interpretibus concordare. Frustra igitur illud tulerunt Judaei ne viderentur esse sub maledicto si non possent omnia complere quae scripta sunt, cum antiquiores alterius quoque gentis litterae id positum fuisse testentur.

‫ܘܢ‬

We do not know for certain whether the Seventy added “everyone” and “in all” or whether these words had been present in the original Hebrew text but later excised

|| 11th–12th cent., fol. 418b, https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.746.pt.2/0221), and 528cI (BnF, Coisl. 5, 1264 CE; fol. 121b; https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b11004680v) each appear to lack attribution as well. I leave it to forthcoming editions of the catena to evaluate attributions. Origen’s authorship is probable at least insofar as his Comm. on Gal. is concerned. 257 According to the note in Migne (PG 17.9–10, n. ‘a’), the Greek was reprinted from the collection of Origen’s scholia in Bibliotheca Gallandiana vol. XIV, appendix, p. 14. The MS source cited in the latter is “Veneto 534” which is Rahlfs MS 739C (see further n. 262); as of this writing the MS is not available online (see http://www.internetculturale.it/). 258 I thank Prof. L. Van Rompay for his helpful suggestions in the reconstruction of the Syriac.

Greek and Syriac Readings with Commentary | 495

by the Jews. I am inclined to believe that the Apostle, a man of Hebrew learning and exceptionally well-versed in the Law, would never have added these words, as if they were necessary to prove that all who rely on keeping the Law are under a curse, unless they were in the Hebrew manuscripts. This led me to read through the Hebrew manuscripts of the Samaritans. I found the word chol, which means “everyone” or “in all” and agrees with the Septuagint translators. The Jews expunged these words to avoid looking as if they were under a curse for failing to comply with everything that is written. Their efforts, however, were in vain, for the ancient literature of another nation testifies that these words had originally been present.259

The χολ scholion: Historically, critical editions have unevenly recorded the evidence for this particular scholion, despite it first being published in 1555(!).260 Field, whom Wevers followed, recorded the (presumably) Procopian testimony from CatNic, omitting any reference to Jerome’s witness.261 Brooke-McLean recorded nothing. More interesting, however, is the Origenic attribution transmitted in the MS sources used by Andreas Gallandi (1709–79) in the 1781 edition of Origen’s works reprinted in PG 17.262 Can Gallandi’s attribution be corroborated?263 It would appear so; for it is probable that both Jerome’s testimony as well as the anonymized version found in SHV—the latter of which no one has recorded—confirm as much when the context of each is considered more closely. Jerome’s Comm. on Gal. has long been regarded as having appropriated significant portions of Origen’s now lost Galatians Comm.264 Indeed the Latin Father expressed his debts to his forebears, Origen included, in his preface.265 Is it possible that Jerome took his Samaritan information from Origen? Or had Je-

|| 259 ET from Cain (2010b: 135–36). 260 Such is the date of publication for Procopius’ version. A similar though somewhat different version was published in Latin by Francisco Zephyro Florentino again without attribution (1597: 219b) albeit in the context of the catena itself. Florentino’s Latin looks more like a summary of the information than a translation of the extant Greek. 261 1.311–12, nn. 12–13. This was strange for Field. 262 Taken from both MS 739 (10th cent.) and MS 730 (12th cent.); see Devreesse 1959: 30, n. 6. 263 Devreesse accepted the attribution to Origen without reservation (1959: 50). 264 See, M. Schatkin 1970: 49–58; Cain 2010a: 216–17, nn. 5–6 (also 2010b: 26–30). Neither mention this case as evidence. 265 See his Comm. Gal. I, preface: Am, I then, foolish or rash to promise what he was incapable of accomplishing? Not at all. I believe that I am more cautions and timid because I have recognized the scantness of my own abilities and have followed the commentaries of Origen. He wrote five extraordinary volumes on Paul’s epistle to the Galatians and rounded out the tenth book of his Miscellanies with a brief section expounding it. He also produced various homilies and scholia [et Excerpta] that would be sufficient all by themselves. (ET from Cain 2010b: 57; CCSL 77A.6).

496 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

rome independently consulted SP himself? Many scholars have remained uncommitted with respect to the present case,266 presumably due to the paucity of wider evidence for Jerome’s having used SP. Recently, M. Williams openly doubted this specific instance was an indication of Jerome’s independent research.267 Historical ambiguities aside, the Stridonite’s testimony is an important piece of historical datum. This is especially so in connection with the marginal scholion from SHV—one Wevers left out of his edition. SHV’s witness is significant because it relocates the context of the scholion to one within the hexaplaric endeavor.268 There, though the end of the passage is fragmentary, the text reads precisely as the extant Greek from Gallandi’s source, relating each part of the note in corresponding order: 1) GDeut “reads” (κειμενον / ‫ܐ‬ ) εν πασι, 2) SP “corroborates” (κυρουται / ‫ܪܪܐ‬ ) GDeut’s reading; 3) the transcription χολ for ‫;כל‬269 3a) an attending translation of πασιν/παντα for ‫;כל‬ 4) an explicit reference to its discovery (i.e., “we found extant” φερομενον ευρομεν / ‫ ;)ܕ ܬ ܐ ܐ‬and 5) mention of the Apostle’s (ο Αποστολος / ‫ܐ‬ ) usage thereof, specifically in Galatians. The correspondence to Jerome’s Comm. is clear—he took this from Origen and adapted it for his argumentation, reordering the elements in the process. The only issue is Jerome’s exact source: In what form did he find this information, from Origen’s Comm. on Gal. or the scholion version in a hexaplaric MS? In fact, the two are not mutually exclusive. The Eusebian-Pamphilan ἔκδοσις often transmitted Origenic scholia, many of which were provided anonymously in the margins. Evidence of this practice is found in the colophon to SH Prov (→ APPENDIX).270 The case in Prov is germane to the present discussion as many (though not all) of these notes appear in SH anonymously, viz., ‫ܢ ܀‬

|| 266 E.g., M. Graves (2007: 54, n. 140) and Gallagher (2012: 199–200). W. Adler is the only exception, calling this present case an “often unacknowledged dependence on Origen” but without citing the scholion specifically provided by Gallandi (1990: 10–11). 267 Williams 2006: 75–77 and n. 31; here p. 77. 268 Consequentially, together with Jerome, this would also imply the scholion is much older than what the catena literature could provide, notwithstanding any attribution to Origen. 269 As found in Secunda, as opposed to χωλ (= ‫ ;קול‬see MS 1098 ad loc). See further, Kantor 2017: 251, 265, 310, and elsewhere. 270 Compare also the colophon to Ezek (CODEX Q) reading similarly.

Conclusions | 497

... (e.g., at Prov 2.9, 3.5, 10, 5.14, 6.22, 9.12, 26.8), whereas in other, Greek sources these same scholia were transmitted as Origen’s.271 These circumstances have import for the present case. While the SH Deut colophon is lost (→ §4.2), it is quite possible that it included such a notice mentioning that Origen’s own scholia had been added to the MS by Eusebius. Certainly, the Caesarea-based collator(s) had to hand Origen’s work on Galatians, just as Jerome, and thus they could have excerpted this specific scholion, taken from Origen’s Comm. on Gal., given its “Samaritan” character (→ §1.1). It is a fine addition to the μόνονcollation, despite its alignment with the otherwise ignored SP = G ≠ MT category. Thus, if Jerome had an hexaplaric MS of Deut, it is possible that he took this from its margins. But since he specifically mentioned using Origen’s Comm. on Gal., as well as his biblical scholia,272 it is not necessary to assume so. And if, as argued here, the Caesarean collator(s) took the same from Origen’s Comm. on Gal., then there is no difference as to the ultimate origin of the note itself. For discussion as to the source of Origen’s information on SP here, as well as its implications for historical reconstruction, see below (→ §§6.2.1–6.2.2).

4.4 Conclusions Now that the whole of the μόνον-collation from Exod, Num, and Deut has, insofar as the data permits, been surveyed, reconstructed, and analysed, it is appropriate to hypothesize as to the process by which the collation was executed. How precisely did the Caesarean collator(s)-translator(s) work? What tools were at his disposal, which enabled him to decipher the Hebrew SP and render its readings in Greek? In the following reconstruction, the method of the hexaplaric critic(s) is considered, and it is concluded that the critical undertaking was executed by employing the most important resource for biblical studies then available—the Hexapla Maior.

4.4.1 The μόνον-Type Collator-Translator’(s) Procedure: An Hypothesis Perhaps the most unavoidable historical obstacle of the μόνον-materials is the suggestion that these data represent a case of early Christian Hebraism. Assum-

|| 271 Ceriani compared (1874: 43ff) these to the scholia recorded by C. Tischendorf (1860; by A. Mai PG 17.161–252). See Mercati 1941: 43–44, n. 1. 272 See above n. 265.

498 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

ing the party responsible, in our case Eusebius, did not have any formal Hebrew training,273 how is it that he, and/or any of his coworkers, was able to connect the quantitatively longer Hebrew SP—even in Samaritan characters (→ EXCURSUS A; §6.2)—with the appropriate Septuagintal parallels? For in order to crib the Greek parallels, the collator-translator(s) would first have to distinguish which parts were relevant and to what extent they could be used. The present hypothetical reconstruction posits that his method involved the columned Hexapla Maior. This unique, Caesarea-based (and at the time, already completed) tool could, in addition to the worker’(s) SP exemplar and external collation materials, embody how the process took place. If the following hypothesis can be maintained, the techniques employed by Eusebius (and his assistant[s]?) would not require anything beyond a rather elementary understanding of Hebrew, indeed one that may have been acquired or perhaps reinforced through this very undertaking. Ultimately, the process was more the result of an inventive use of pre-existing text-critical tools than a manifestation of linguistic skill. Assuming this, the μόνον-materials may very well serve as a demonstration of early Christian Hebraism, broadly construed.

The process of the collator(s)-translator(s) The following proposes a four step process resulting in the μόνον-collation: 0) 1) 2) 3) 4)

Acquisition of collation materials; Alignment of SP with GPent (via the Hebrew column of the Hexapla Maior); Insertion of comparative hexaplaric sigla; “Translation” of those compared text-units where SP ≠ G, quantitatively; Resulting collation applied to the margin of the hexaplaric ἔκδοσις with respect to SP exclusivities.

0) Acquisition of materials: At some point, the Caesarean library acquired a SP MS. As to how this came about, one can only speculate (→ §6.2.1). As has been previously pointed out, the existence of this exemplar presupposes the completion of whatever process whereby the Samaritan community both fixed and copied its text (notwithstanding any early Samaritan variants), and that such MSS circulated around Caesarea, before Eusebius’ time (→ §7.1). 1) Alignment of SP with GPent: The first step was the alignment of the SP and GPent textual traditions. For this the tools needed were: a) the Samaritan

|| 273 For varying assessments of Eusebius’ Hebrew knowledge, see → §6.2.1, Eusebius, #2.

Conclusions | 499

exemplar, b) the Caesarea-based Hexapla Maior, c) a slip of paper with both the Samaritan script and the corresponding square script letters juxtaposed, and d) a person(s) having an elementary understanding of Hebrew who would be capable of using all of these items in conjunction to align verses or phrase units on e) a separate synopsis, with SP and GPent compared. Essentially, the worker(s) in question would only have to use the script key and Hexapla Maior in unison to create a separate SP-GPent diglot. Given the nature of both the resultant collation and the character of the “translation,” there is no reason to presume that the alignment was (or approached) word-for-word as the Hexapla Maior. Rather the alignment was probably on the major-phrase level. This would significantly reduce the materials used (and cost expenditure), without betraying the level of quality the resulting data produces. Unknowns: There are two major unknowns in this stage. First is whether or not the person(s) aligning the SP with GPent had “translated” the Samaritan script into square script.274 Doing so would have facilitated use with the Hexapla Maior. Certainly, when the “expansions” and related large scale qualitative variants were found, they would have been written out in square script for the sake of more precise alignment and “translation.” A second unknown is whether or not this step had already been accomplished. As Norton has previously suggested, it is likely that the first three columns of the Hexapla Maior were prepared by Jews.275 Doubtless, it is possible that the Samaritans may have had need of such a document for their own (apologetic?) purposes, and that it was this document (or a copy thereof) which the Caesarean library acquired.276 The existence and use of parallel texts in the ancient world, in particular during Eusebius’ era, is well known277: Indeed, the Hexapla Maior itself is one such text. Further still, the existence and use of dual language glossary lists, some of which are Semitic-Greek, is further known.278

|| 274 Again, on the specific script Eusebius encountered in his copy of SP see above (→ EXCURSUS A). Whichever position one maintains, i.e., Samaritan uncial vs. paleo-Hebrew, the point is that the Caesarean Father specifically mentioned that it differed from the post-Ezran square script (→ §6.2). Without doubt, the primary exemplar of the Jewish script in Eusebius’ eyes would have been the first column of the Hexapla Maior. 275 1991: 148–50. 276 Compare the similar comments by Kantor vis-à-vis the first column and Secunda (2017: 45–46 and passim). 277 See the overview of such documents, both parallel running texts and glossaries, in S. Yardney 2019: 171–76. See also Kantor 2017: 57–67, whose discussion revolves around Secunda’s pre-hexaplaric existence as a language learning tool. 278 See the seminal study by E. Dickey 2015.

500 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

Nevertheless, if the cultural and religious flourishing (or revival) attributed to “Baba Rabba” (fl. 3rd/4th cent. CE; → §7.1.3) actually occurred, there is little reason to suppose that Jews and Christians were the only groups engaged in such textual constructions. The Samaritans, who spread throughout Palestine in the early centuries CE, would have had every reason to create such a parallel text, perhaps in response to the emergence of Christianity. That being said, nothing in the μόνον-collation demands that a Samaritan-derived SP-MT or SP-LXX diglot had been used. 2) Insertion of comparative hexaplaric sigla: Next comes the marking of the SP-GPent synopsis. Using again the compared scripts slip (at least insofar as was necessary) and the Hexapla Maior, the Hebrew in SP was compared to the first column, which was in turn compared to the remainder of the columns, especially LXX. Then, those text-units and passages representing a “plus” in the separate SP-LXX collation would be marked, on the Hebrew side of the diglot, sub ※. Correspondingly, those parts where GPent represents text greater than SP would be marked, on the Greek side, sub ⨪/÷. For those parts of SP which represent large-scale variant readings (i.e., Num 21.[22+]22‫[ ב–א‬possibly], Deut 10.6–6‫–א‬7–7‫–א‬6, and 34.1b–1‫–א‬2 → §4.3.2), a second obelus mark (⨪/÷ or ~) would be applied to the Samaritan Hebrew side, hence the language present in ̈ the extant collation notes: ... ‫ܐܒ ܒ ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܗܘܘ‬ ‫“ ܗ‬These [words] have obeli set on them in the (Samaritan) Hebrew …” (Deut 10.6–6‫–א‬7– 7‫–א‬6 in SHV; cp. SHM Deut 34.1b–1‫–א‬2; also cp. at Exod 22.4 → §2.4, n. 572). In order to reconcile the use of “obelus” in the “SP Omits” annotations (→ §2.4.2), one could imagine that the obelized text from the Greek side was somehow indexed to the respective location in the SP side of the synopsis. (One might also assume that more than one type of obelus was used.) This use of the hexaplaric obelus does not contradict its more regular usage, but is rather a natural extension of such a function. In fact further hexaplaric evidence suggests that the obelus could be employed for purposes beyond its usual purpose.279 Simply put, there was no other (hexaplaric) siglum available, and the unexpectedly described application “in the Hebrew” signals that its usual function should not be assumed.

|| 279 See the discussion by J. Parry regarding the otherwise anomalous obeli in OG Dan (THB 1C.562–63). This is not to say that Parry’s proposed function of those obeli are the same as that suggested here. Only that hexaplaric critic(s) felt free to re-employ the obelus for another purpose as it suited a given situation. Compare the Harklean re-appropriation of the hexaplaric obelus (→ §4.4.2).

Conclusions | 501

Unknowns: It is also possible that the alignment or marking of the texts was performed by a specially commissioned, native Hebrew speaker as opposed to a Christian with the use of the Hexapla Maior. Nevertheless, when the μόνον“translations” are considered, if a Hebrew speaker was involved in the process, his participation ended after this stage, and the application of the sigla suggests that such a native Hebrew speaker did not engage with the project further. 3) “Translation” of those compared text-units where SP ≠ G: In accordance with the above analyzed μόνον-passages and attendant scholia, the process used by the Caesarean worker(s) at this point is much clearer. They took the portions sub ※ (purely quantitative “additions”) and those sub obelo ⨪/÷/~ (those jointly quantitative and qualitative) from the Hebrew SP collation materials. Presumably by this point, these portions had been rendered in square script. Then by using the Hexapla Maior as a kind of giant analytical lexicon, these Hebrew segments were deciphered by use of the LXX column at the parallels. At times, and only when necessary, the recentiores, perhaps mostly Theodotion and, from time to time, Aquila (and/or Symmachus), were consulted as in Exod 9.5‫ג‬, (probably) 9.19‫§→( ג‬2.3.1), and 23.19‫§ →( א‬2.5.1). Given this ostensible procedure, these passages cannot aid in determining whether the fifth column of the Hexapla Maior was already edited with the attendant sigla or not (→ §6.1); the collator(s)-translator(s) could have just as easily compared these columns himself as he could an hexaplaric text edited for wider dissemination bearing the sigla. That the LXX column was preferred is an important point; for while the scholia state the texts were taken from “here” (≈ οʹ ερμηνεια), the passages themselves show that LXX was cribbed—mostly—in exclusion to the recentiores (→ §6.2.3). Many small Hebrew words appear to have been missed or omitted in these translations, i.e., ‫כל‬, bound pronouns, waws, etc. These, however, are mostly not true variants. Rather, it is more likely that these words were “omitted” because the LXX column in the Hexapla Maior did not contain them.280 This is why

|| 280 This reconstruction presumes the LXX column was either uncorrected (pace Schaper 1998), or that the column was corrected and the translator ignored any interpolated text sub hexaplaric sigla (assuming they were consistently marked). Given the likelihood that the collator(s)-translator(s) were conscious of the SP = G ≠ MT category, their apparent disregard for these sigla is understandable, though somewhat perplexing with respect to smaller variants where MT = SP ≠ G, some of which were corrected in the edited hexaplaric texts. Admittedly, the first scenario, which cannot be determined conclusively, would facilitate the present reconstruction. See Fernández Marcos 2001: 213–15 (also Field 2005: 99–100; 1.lii). The status of the fifth column is still a debated topic, even if Hexaplarists presently tend to favor the uncorrected view.

502 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

the translations are precise with respect to the extent of the passages, while at the same time imprecise in reflecting small words or inflections within said range. The layout of the Hexapla Maior is probably as much to blame as any carelessness on the part of the translator(s). For example, in Exod 20.21‫ ג‬where most GDeut witnesses at the parallel omit ‫§ →( כל‬2.3.3), the LXX column in the Hexapla Maior most likely lacked παν*/σ*. If ‫ כל‬in Deut 18.18 was represented in bound form, i.e., the first column contained ‫כל אשר‬, the recentiores’ columns should have read with (κατα) παντα (οσα) or something analogous (cp. AppII at Exod 21.30), making it easier to make this “mistake.” Compare the extant layout of MS 1098 at Ps 88(89).51: [‫ ]כל־רבים‬χολ ραββιμ παντας αδικιας παντων πολλων πολλων πασας τας αδικιας

It is also possible that ‫ כל‬was bound irregularly with the word previous to it (cp. MS 1098 at Ps 48[49].2 where this occurs). Thus, adhering strictly to the G column would result in the “omission” of small words, if the translator(s) was uncareful. A further element in the Hexapla Maior which likely played a role in the Caesarean critic’(s) deciphering of the Hebrew SP is Secunda. Above at Exod 9.5‫ג‬ and (probably) 9.19‫§→( ג‬2.3.1, assuming my emendation), it was observed that the translator(s) exceptionally departed from the G parallel in adopting λοιμός as represented by Aquila and Symmachus for the Hebrew ‫“ ֶדּ ֶבר‬plague.” There, it was determined that this decision displayed an example of the limits to the septuagintism (e.g., ανηρ in Exod 3.22+ → §2.5.1, and others) the μόνονtranslation otherwise nearly ubiquitously exhibits. Usually, whenever the Caesarean critic(s) encountered a non-verbal occurence of ‫דבר‬, the G parallel was taken over. However, in that case, the parallel’s θανατος was judged insufficient. The recentiores, although not Theodotion in this case, supplied the more precise λοιμός, i.e., the manner of death, and the translator’(s) adopted it. Nevertheless, the question remains: How did the μόνον-translator(s) know when departing from the G parallel was safe linguistically? Recent research by B. Kantor on Secunda’s function within the Hexapla Maior sheds light on this and other similar cases. Origen’s intent, according to Kantor’s analysis, in incorporating Secunda into the massive synopsis was to disambiguate unvocalized Hebrew terms. His suggestion is worth quoting at length: [Secunda] served Origen as a concordance in his text-critical work in a way that neither the Greek versions nor the Hebrew consonantal text could. ... If Origen wanted to trace the occurrence of a particular [Hebrew] word throughout the scriptures, he would only be

Conclusions | 503

successful if the translations were consistent. When they were not, seeking out a particular pattern would be a fruitless endeavor. For these sorts of issues, he needed to reference the original. ... The solution was found in the text of the second column. Rather than get lost in the potentially inconsistent renderings of the Greek versions, the second column functioned as a “key” for tracing certain words through the scriptures. By using the second column in this way, Origen was able to keep his primary focus on the Greek translations ... . Origen’s work with the second column … might be compared to one using four English translations of the Bible, but with a keyed-to-Hebrew concordance for each of them.281

This insight into the place of Secunda in the Hexapla Maior helps explain how Eusebius could feel confident in departing from the G parallel. Thus when he encountered ‫ דבר כבד מאד‬... / ‫ דבר כבד מאד‬... at the end of Exod 9.5‫ג‬, G’s θανατος could be evaluated vis-à-vis all of the recentiores since Secunda would have marked each location of this ‫דבר‬, as “deber” (or something similar). By tracing deber in Secunda’s column the very first instance of the word in Scripture could be located at Exod 5.3. The same word, and the choice(s) of rendering by each of the recentiores, could then be compared with G in those other respective places in order to determine whether or not G’s was appropriate to the specific context of SP Exod 9.5‫ג‬. The word for “plague” was then preferred, and correctly so. However, this decision did not result in the rejection of the GExod parallel’s translations for those occurrences of ‫ דבר‬in Exod 9.5‫;ה–ד‬ there at the parallels, Secunda should have marked them, presumably, with δαβαρ, meaning ‘matter’, ‘word’, etc. Thus, the translator(s) could understand that the unvocalized text represented two distinct Hebrew words—and thus two distinct Hebrew meanings—in the same passage. In this way, Secunda could be used to confirm the adaptation of the recentiores over against the G parallel, or vice versa, where such was deemed appropriate according to context.282 This “translation” process, whereby LXX was adapted, explains why Samaritan vocalization and exegetical niceties are completely absent—no such tradition was part of the Hexapla Maior. Also there was no Samareitikon in the Caesarean library (→ §7.2). It further explains why the translation does not always agree with the hexaplaric text of each parallel. Again, if a native Hebrew speaker were involved with this process, the LXX column would have been adapted

|| 281 2017: 35–36. Kantor here is evoking the Strong’s numbers system, from James Strong’s (d. 1894) Concordance (1st ed. 1890), still used in modern English Bibles with this feature. 282 Such a process may well also help clarify, at least in part, the rendering παραβασις for ‫ עברה‬at Exod 23.19‫ א‬in the absence of a more apparent explanation (→ §2.5.1), especially if the supposed Hebrew Theodotion translated at 4 Kgdms 2.24 was in any way represented in the Caesarean library’s resources. Granted the case at Exod 23.19‫ א‬is very difficult.

504 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

more precisely (or pedantically), supplying what was lacking in terms of pronouns, ‫כל‬, etc.283 Multiple workers, i.e., Eusebius’ students, may also be responsible for the inconsistencies in these “translations.” One translator may have been more thoroughgoing in his adaptation, or more likely to consult the recentiores or the hexaplaric emendations, than another. Whatever the case, the overall character of the μόνον-passages is consistent enough to support the notion that if multiple workers were employed, their work was of one mind (a la Paul of Tella → §1.1.1), under the auspices of Eusebius’ editorship. And it is not at all impossible that he alone was responsible for the entire enterprise; and perhaps his knowledge of the language grew throughout the process (→ §6.2.1). 4) Resulting collation applied to the hexaplaric ἔκδοσις with respect to SP exclusivities: Then taking the results of this effort, the Caesarean collator(s), Eusebius, took the SP-G diglot, i.e., the collation materials, with the newly “translated” μόνον-readings, and added those parts of the collation which would contribute to the hexaplaric text of Exod, Num, and Deut. (For the strange lack of data in Gen, see below → EXCURSUS D.) The asterisks from the original SP-G diglot were retained given they were set in the margin and could not create confusion in any case since they were labeled. However, “the obeli” mentioned in the “SP omits” notes were not reproduced in the hexaplaric running text lest they confuse the reader. Similarly, the obeli may have been omitted with respect to the two large scale variants Deut 10.6–6‫–א‬7–7‫–א‬6 and 34.1b–1‫–א‬2. However, as SH has not survived intact for these readings, it is difficult to know whether or not the sigla were included in the margin of the Eusebian exemplar. Cross-references were supplied in Deut, though to what extent this was done (Deut 1–3 only?) cannot be confirmed. Mention of this collation was made in all three of the exemplars’ colophons, each, with its own special emphasis. For discussion of the wider historical implications of the μόνον-collation for early Christian scribal culture, see below (→ §6.3).

4.4.2 The Use of Hexaplaric Sigla in the Caesarean Collation of SP Another issue which the whole of the data set presents is the variance in the sigla used to mark the passages. While the MS evidence is naturally incomplete,

|| 283 Another issue worth consideration is the nature of the cribbed text. Was it the LXX column only? Were other LXX MSS compared? The uncertainties as to the nature of the LXX column (was it marked with sigla or interpolations?) have a great effect on this hypothesis.

Conclusions | 505

of those extant, SH Exod MSS (L and V) as well as s-group MSS 344 (twice) and 85321′ (once) in Num marked the Samaritan excerpts with the asterisk ※. However, the SH MSS in Num (again L and V), when the passages are so denoted, employed a lemniscus, either stylized with a half ringlet or in its more standardized form ÷. Presumably, the original Caesarean critics(s) used only one such siglum for both sets since the use of different markers would only cause, or lead to, confusion. Field first noticed this variance in his edition and, more or less, dismissed the matter: Since in fact [the function of] neither the obelus nor asterisk is consistent with the practice of Origen, either can probably be excused: the asterisk, because the words so noted are not read in the LXX, the obelus because the words so noted do not exists in the Hebrew.284

Such an explanation is overly facile. In any case, the Samaritan collation, in addition to occupying the margins, was itself beyond any such typical MT-vs.-G hexaplaric scheme. Thus, its accompanying sigla should not be expected to adhere strictly to the regular usage. As the previous section explains, the use of hexaplaric sigla in the μόνον-collation was an adaptation, or better extension, of the original Origenic hexaplaric scheme. As such, its sigla need not be judged by Origen’s expressed rubrics—they need only reflect the spirit of said usage. In accordance with the above-reconstructed collation procedure, the siglum employed for those passages “only in SP” vis-à-vis the hexaplaric LXX, i.e., the SP > hexaplaric LXX(/MT) category, the asterisk ※, as in SH Exod MSS and certain s-group MSS in Num, clearly ought to be reckoned as original. In this sense, the siglum is nearly self-explanatory, especially if we note that it indicates “not in LXX” as opposed to “(Jewish) Hebrew > LXX.” Additionally, if the above reconstruction and comments on the mention of “obeli” in the hexaplaric Samaritan collation are accurate, then using the obelus to mark those passages “missing” or simply reading differently than the hexaplaric LXX makes perfect sense. As explained above, mention of “the Hebrew” in such notes does not mean that the Hebrew/(pre-)MT of the first column was compared to SP. The reference in these notes to “the Hebrew” is either a reference to “the Hebrew underlying the hexaplaric LXX” (when SP omits) or a reference to the marked Samaritan Hebrew exemplar (where SP reads differently). Comparison of (proto-/pre-)MT and SP was then only indirectly achieved, a mere byproduct of the process.

|| 284 2005: 154–55; 1.lxxxiii; see also p. 123, n. 2; 1.lxv, n. 2.

506 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

The only issue remaining is the use of the idiosyncratic lemniscus in SH Num MSS.285 Here a number of facets may come into play. First, it is probable, given that Paul of Tella’s Vorlage for SH Num was at least two or perhaps three MS generations away from Eusebius’ master copy (→ §3.2), that an intervening Greek scribe had changed the asterisks replacing them with the uniquely shaped lemniscus since the asterisk was originally used to mark the Jewish Hebrew text not the Samaritan. Thus, the scribe may have hyper-corrected, having found the asterisk somehow inappropriate (or potentially confusing). Second, the alteration should not be attributed to any scribe at the Syriac level. It is very improbable that a scribe subsequent to Paul of Tella would have done so, especially as Lazarus the scribe of SHL Exod (written 697 CE) was sure to keep the original siglum untouched. Further, had Paul himself “corrected” any sigla, one would reasonably expect him to level forms as to avoid the inconsistency or perhaps even eliminate them as superfluous in the margins. Third, the wider SH MS data suggests that Greek scribes previous to Paul had indeed been introducing various forms of sigla into their MSS. Indeed, it is not imposible to find more than one type of obelus on the same page of a given SH MS. For example, SH 3 Kgdms 21(20).24–48 (see BL ADD. 14437, fol. 116b) exhibits two (or three?286) distinct forms, namely the hypolemniscus ⨪ and the lemniscus ÷, each of which follows the usual hexaplaric practice. Why is this so? Field accused Paul of using both “indiscriminately,”287 while a third such obelus ~ / he discussed at length, unsure of its precise function.288 It is highly improbable that Paul of Tella, whose compatriot and co-worker was Thomas of Harkel, who himself reappropriated the hexaplaric sigla for his own purposes (→ §5.2.3), indiscriminately interchanged—on the same page—between ⨪ and ÷. A more logical assumption is that his Greek Vorlagen already bore this inconsistency. As dis-

|| 285 The siglum ÷ (very inconsistently) applied to the μόνον-passages in JExod and JNum is not relevant for this discussion. The looseness with which Jacob treated the attribution annotations in SH suggests that he felt free to use whichever siglum he wished. Alternatively, one might explain his use of the lemniscus by analogy to Thomas of Harkel’s adaptation of the hexaplaric sigla. 286 De Lagarde, in his edition (Br.-M. followed), did not distinguish a third possible wavylined lemniscus, (apparently as the MS is somewhat faded), seen in the MS for the ‫ܐ‬ ending v 29. 287 2005: 121; 1.lxiv. See also Law (2011: 34, with n. 102) who does not advance the matter beyond Field. It is perhaps germane that Law did not factor the SH 3 Kgdms colophon into his analysis. 288 2005: 121–26; 1.lxiv–lxvii. Throughout his discussion, he seems to suggest that perhaps the readings sub ~ / may represent a reading found in only part of the wider G tradition.

Conclusions | 507

cussed above (→ §1.1.1), in particular with the colophons to SH Exod (→ §2.2) and Num (→ §3.2), the exemplars used for each book had been previously crosscollated by preceding Greek scribes (→ APPENDIX). A reasonable supposition is that Greek scribes actively sought to differentiate in their own copies the corrections resulting from said collating vis-à-vis the obelus from those of their exemplars, viz., they used one to indicate those from their Vorlage and another for those from their control MS(S). The logic behind doing this is that not every scribe could confirm that a given word or phrase in their control copy(-ies) marked the true “Seventy” vis-à-vis the Hebrew; doing so required the Hexapla Maior so the Hebrew could be checked. Thus, when a scribe was copying exemplar ‘A’ collating it against control MS ‘B’, when B obelized a word whereas A did not, what was the scribe supposed to do? Without access to the Hebrew column in the Hexapla Maior (or a copy thereof, even if partial) there was no way for the scribe to know which copy’s obelus was accurate and which was a mistake. Thus different forms of the obelus were employed to denote the difference.289 This permitted a collating scribe to faithfully represent both his Vorlage and control copy(-ies); as a result, no witness was lost.290 With this reconstruction in mind, it is less strange that the Samaritan passages in SH Num MSS were found sub as opposed to the asterisk which SHL Exod and s-group MSS confirm was original. While the motive(s) for the shift ※ → remains obscure, someone before Paul of Tella changed the symbol.291 In the end, the sigla transmitted in the diverse MSS and witnesses must be taken “as is.” Fortunately, the sigla— both ※ and — are secondary at least

|| 289 Note that this practice began well before Epiphanius’ time (d. 403 CE). As his writings attest, theories attributing the different forms to the original Seventy(-Two) translators(!) already circulated in his day (see De Mens et Pond §§8 and 17). Such an explanation would also illuminate why MSS often “misplace” these sigla vis-à-vis the Hebrew. 290 Would such have occurred for material sub asterisk? The siglum is not as easily modified to form distinct variations (other than axial rotation). Note that many of the older SH copies have in-text attributions for the asterisked portions, to Aquila or Theodotion, the Three as a whole, or the Hebrew. If this was the original practice, then it is less likely that asterisks would be questioned by successive scribes even if the interlinear attributions were dropped. 291 It would be inappropriate to impute a censorial meaning, akin to Jerome’s usage for the “Apocrypha” sections of Daniel he translated, to whoever changed the siglum. One, the readings are marginal, and thus bear no implication that they are superior to the Seventy (or asterisked “Hebrew”). Two, many of the Seventy’s readings are themselves obelized. However a given scribe or Christian reader might have felt about readings in their Bible being sub ⨪ / ÷, it was their Bible nonetheless. On Jerome’s use of the obelus as a marker of censure, see Gallagher, THB 1.1.4. Cp. also Meade and Gallagher’s discussion of the use of the obelus for censoring a biblical book in a canon list (2017: 53).

508 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

functionally as they appear in the extant MSS, viz., both the passages’ placement in the margins as well as the attribution scholia, i.e., “only in SP,” moderate any presumed meaning inherent to a given siglum. Thus, the particular sigla (and their presumed meanings) should not distract from the information provided in the scholia. Ultimately, it is the attribution scholia which bear meaning for, and therefore add value to, the Samaritan elements in the hexaplaric Textgeschichte.

Excursus D: Was the μόνον-Collation Ever Supplied for Hexaplaric Genesis? | 509

Excursus D: Was the μόνον-Collation Ever Supplied for Hexaplaric Genesis? From the foregoing, it is not difficult to confirm that Paul of Tella and his team purposefully sought out MSS transmitting Samaritan readings for their new Syriac translation of the Greek Old Testament (→ §1.1.1). These readings, derived from the old hexaplaric Eusebian collation, are thus found in sizeable portions in the margins of SH MSS and other SH-derived sources in Exod, Num, and Deut. Furthermore, the (syro-)hexaplaric colophons for each of these books specially draw attention to these data, presumably underscoring them as a special feature perhaps in order to elevate the prestige of the MS in question (→ §§2.2; 3.2; 4.2). However, conspicuously absent from extant MSS is any trace of the μόνονcollation in Gen. This is surprising and in stark contrast to the well-known comments made by a few Church Fathers, one of whom is Eusebius, whose works reference “Samaritan” readings from the first book of the Bible. This gap in the evidence is further bewildering since Eusebius is the only named individual in the colophon for Gen (→ APPENDIX). After all, it is reasonable to presume that Eusebius, as the “principle investigator” of the μόνον-collation (→ §3.2), would have included the fruits of his special Samaritan research in the margins of his eponymous MS. Nevertheless, based on the surviving evidence outlined and analyzed below, there is no hint suggesting that μόνον-data were ever added to the margins of the hexaplaric ἔκδοσις of Gen. The Extant “Samaritan” Readings in Genesis As noted above, sources transmitting σαμ΄-readings derive exclusively from MS witnesses dating from the 7th cent. CE or later and are found especially in catena sources (→ §1.3.1.1). The readings in Gen may be tabulated as follows: Table D.1: το σαμ΄-Type Readings in Gen

Group

MS

Date

Reading(s) Notes (based on Wevers)

O

135

10th cent. CE

7x

once s nom; catena MS with hex. notes292

17

10th cent.

Gen 5.25

cp. Jerome

127

15th cent.

Gen 4.8

many hexaplaric notes293; see MS 344

s

|| 292 Wevers states that in Gen this MS has the most readings recorded in AppII (Gen, 60). 293 Gen, 15.

510 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

Group

cI

MS

Date th

Reading(s) Notes (based on Wevers)

344

10 cent.

Gen 4.8

cp. Jerome; on MS 344 → §3.4

730

12th cent.

1

a catena MS

57

th

11 cent.

4x

catena MS with hexaplaric notes; twice with MS 413 (= 57′); 47.22 is s nom (cp. MS 135)

C

catena?

73

11th–12th cent.

1

catena MS with hexaplaric notes

413

12th cent.

3x

see comments for MS 57; often with MS 550 (= 413′); 47.22 is s nom

550

12th cent.

2

of which 552 is a copy; 47.22 is s nom

14

11th cent.

1

see comments on MS 500

25

11th cent.

1

500

11th–12th cent.

1

often w/ MS 739 (= 500′)294; 47.22 is s nom

739

10th cent.

2

see comments on MS 500; 47.22 is s nom

Field

?

Gen 5.26

cited on authority of Montfaucon’s edition (1713: 21–22);295 cp. Jerome

As the table illustrates, the majority of those extant σαμ΄-type readings are primarily transmitted through the catena in MSS dating to the 10th cent. or later.296 When these are removed from consideration, a mere three readings remain: two of which deal with the “Samaritan” chronology in Gen 5.25–26 and one making reference to Cain’s dialogue in Gen 4.8. This is a most unimpressive set. Nevertheless, it is striking that these three bear one common characteristic—they all appear, nearly verbatim, in Jerome’s Hebraicae Quaestiones in Libro Geneseos (HQG; written 389–91? CE297). Given the Stridonite’s well-established track record of using hexaplaric sources, can his remarks be used to determine whether the hexaplaric MS tradition transmitted SP readings in Gen of either type?

|| 294 “Innerhalb von C gehen die Hss. 14´-77´-500´ in der Regel zusammen” (Gen, 57). 295 “[In vv 25–26] interpretationem ex Schedis Combefisii desumpsimus. Ille vero ex Codd. Monspeliensi & Mazarinaeo exscripsisse se decit” (1713: 22). François Combefis (1605–79) was a French, Dominican patristic scholar. See Field 1.4 and 21, nn. 20 and 23; cp. F. Petit who cites no evidence for v 26 (1993: 67). 296 In Pummer’s evaluation (1998: 295–96), these catena-based readings may reflect some amount of genuine Samaritan exegesis, even if also bearing interpretations in common with Jewish Targumim. On this debate between Pummer and Joosten’s evaluation, see above (→ §§1.2.3.7; 1.2.3.9). 297 So P. Antin (CCSL 72.vii); see also J. Kelly 1975: 153 and 155–57. Observe, however, that R. Hayward dates the work from late 391 to early 393 (1995: 26).

Excursus D: Was the μόνον-Collation Ever Supplied for Hexaplaric Genesis? | 511

Matters related to Samaritan Chronology (Gen 5.25–26)298 Among the Jerome-referenced Samaritan readings in Gen is the controverted299 age of Methuselah who, according to G’s reckoning of the genealogical data, survived the Flood by 14 years.300 In explaining the faulty enumeration of the antediluvian patriarchs in G, Jerome claimed to have “found” that both SP and MT agree on Methuselah’s age against G: Siquidem et in hebraeis et Samaritanorum libris ita scriptum repperi: et vixit Mathusala CLXXXVII annis et genuit Lamech. Et vixit Mathusala, postquam genuit Lamech DCCLXXXII annos. Et genuit filios et filias. Et fuerunt omnes dies Mathusalae anni DCCCCLXVIIII, et mortuus est. Et vixit Lamech CLXXXII annos et genuit Noe.301 However, both in the Hebrew books, and in those of the Samaritans, I have found it written thus: And Methuselah lived for 187 years and begat Lamech. And after he had begotten Lamech, Methuselah lived for 782 years and he begat sons and daughters. And all the days of Methuselah were 969 years, and he died. And Lamech lived for 182 years, and begat Noah.302

This information, which he explicitly stated he had “found” (repperi) in the books, of not only the Jews but also of the Samaritans (collectively?),303 is in agreement with two marginal notes transmitted sub σαμ΄ in later MS sources: 5.25: το εβρʹ το σαμʹ εζησεν Μαθουσαλα ετη ρ̅π̅β̅ [rd: ρ̅π̅ζ̅]304 και εγεννησεν τον Λαμεχ 17O305

|| 298 On the whole matter of the variations in the patriarchal chronologies in Gen 5 and 11, see especially Hendel 1998 (for the various versions) and Tov 2015. Kim earlier summarized the situation in SP: “The differences between SAM and LXX on the one hand and MT on the other are far too systematic to be the result of isolated misreadings but must be products of different chronological calculations” (1994: 39). Recently, Tov explained the connection between G and SP, at least for Gen 11, as stemming from a common Hebrew ancestor (2015: 37–38, with n. 1). 299 E.g., the scholion attributed to Eusebius of Emesa (d. c. 359 CE), who as ter Haar Romeny points out only noted the matter without offering a solution or making mention of SP (1997: 248–50, see frag. XVII at Gen 5.3). See also Jerome’s description: Famosa quaestio et disputatione omnium ecclesiarum … post diluvium Mathusala vixisse referatur (CCSL 72.8). Note further Hendel who mentions Augustine’s remarks on the matter (1998: 61). Hayward lists further references (1995: 127). 300 On the problem generally, see Hendel 1998: 61–71, whose discussion is much depended on here. See Table 4-1 in which he lays out nicely all the sources (p. 65). 301 CCSL 72.8–9. Bold mine. 302 Hayward’s ET (1995: 36). 303 Strictly speaking, nothing in his Latin would require that he claimed to have looked in more than one Samaritan source. Compare Jerome’s claim for the χολ scholion above (→ §4.3.4).

512 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

5.26: το εβρʹ το σαμʹ (και εζησε Μαθουσαλα μετα το γεννησαι αυτον τον Λαμεχ) δυο και ογδοηκοντα και επτακοσια ετη FIELD There is, however, one obvious difficulty with both his claim and the readings later transmitted sub το σαμ΄—they do not equal any known Samaritan tradition (≠ SP ST).306 Presuming that SP always read 67 (when Methuselah begot Lamech) and 653 years (for Methuselah’s life after Lamech)—for there is no reason to suppose otherwise—Jerome’s source could not have been SP itself. Thus, it remains to establish Jerome’s source. It is improbable his source was Eusebius’ Chronicon;307 all the remaining textual evidence points towards his transmitting the correct Samaritan years for Methuselah, being 67 and 653, respectively.308 Determining Jerome’s source beyond doubt is difficult. Perhaps Jerome’s Hebrew teacher had wrongly informed him about the matter.309 It is even possible that Jerome (or his teacher) had seen an MT-aligned paleo-Hebrew MS with these figures and assumed it was Samaritan because of the script.310 Whatever Jerome’s source, if Eusebius’ SP exemplar transmitted the correct

|| 304 Here MS 17 should be emended from 182 to 187. Seventh century Greek cursive (and tenth century minuscule) script permits this confusion, which was perhaps aided by the figure for Lamech in v 28. See Field at v 25 (1.21, n. 20), who cited the “schedis Combefisii” as reading ρ̅π̅ζ̅ here. Field’s was not recorded by Wevers. 305 See Petit 1993: 67 (#601) for further MS sources. The attribution of this information to Eusebius in one of Petit’s MSS cannot possibly be correct as the discussion shows. For a more recent treatment, see P. Chia (2021: 174–77) who does not question this attribution found in MS 628 (Leningrad, Gr. 124, 13th cent.). 306 See Kohn 1894: 3; Pummer 2002: 190 with n. 62. Hayward fails to mention this (1995: 127– 28). Pummer also cites this figure as is it were truly σαμʹ (2002: 77). Chia (2021: 177) lists the information without explanation. 307 Ter Haar Romeny believed Jerome’s source was Eusebius’ Chron., without explaining the disagreement between the two (1997: 150). 308 See the very helpful tables and discussion in Pummer (2002: 81–86 [with tables]; also pp. 91–99 [reprints and translations of Karst’s edition]). Pummer emends the Armenian (p. 84) from 603 to 653 based on the totals presupposed by the Armenian translation itself and the data preserved by George Syncellus (fl. 800 CE) whose own Chronographica (reprint in Pummer pp. 399–405) was based on Eusebius and others (see M. Wallraff 2011: 32–33; frags. T16e and T16h). According to ter Haar Romeny, however, Pummer’s emendation is unnecessary since the Armenian text (correctly reading 653) had been misprinted (1997: 66, n. 108). 309 His speaking with a “Samaritan” who had given him the wrong figures should also not be excluded. 310 That Jerome was aware of the Samaritans used an earlier script is well known from his comments in the Prol. in Libro Regum and Comm. on Ezek 9.4 (→ EXCURSUS A and §6.2.1). See Pummer (2002) for a convenient reprint of the respective critical texts (pp. 206–08) and discussion (pp. 189–90).

Excursus D: Was the μόνον-Collation Ever Supplied for Hexaplaric Genesis? | 513

count, then it is unlikely Jerome used either Eusebius or a Samaritan MS with the wrong years. It is thus very doubtful Jerome actually consulted SP here at all. As for the so-called σαμʹ readings in MS 17O and that cited by Field: It is possible that these traditions, both of which specifically list “the Hebrew” and “the Samaritan” (in that order), are in fact derived from Jerome’s work. After all, Jerome’s textual analysis and exegesis are known to have made their way into the works of Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444 CE) and other Greek MSS.311 If this is so, then Jerome probably did not take this figure from Origen’s “Hexapla,” as is often assumed.312 Rather, it was the Latin Father who influenced the Greek MS tradition.313 “Let us go out into the field.” (Gen 4.8)314 The other Samaritan reading Jerome discussed is at Gen 4.8, where Cain lured Abel into the field before murdering him: Et dixit Cain ad Abel fratrem suum. Subauditur : ea, quae locutus est dominus. Superfluum ergo est quod in Samaritanorum et nostro volumine [= G/OL] reperitur transeamus in campum.315 And Cain said to Abel his brother. What the Lord spoke is understood. So what is found in our scroll, and in that of the Samaritans, namely, Let up go out into the field, is unnecessary.316

|| 311 On this, see Fernández Marcos 2000: 157–58. Barthélemy, whose work first proposed this, believed that Jerome’s work was not used directly but via an epitome (1960: 352). 312 Thus Pummer 2002: 190. 313 Earlier suggested by Geiger (1876: 122), and most recently posited by Joosten (2015: 5, n. 19). Pummer remarked, as many scholars before him (e.g., Kohn 1894: 3), that the attribution was mistaken (2002: 295; also Field 1.329). The present conclusion maintains this is an error, i.e., the reading is not really from SP, but that Jerome believed it was correct, and that it was his information which entered the Greek MS tradition. As for Jerome’s data in Greek, one need not go further than to suggest that Sophronius (fl. 4th cent. CE), a friend of his known to have translated large parts of his Vulgate into Greek (see Fremantle, “Sophronius (7)” DCB 4.718), was responsible. I thank Alison Salvesen for suggesting this connection. If this is true, one wonders just how many Vulgate-derived readings entered the Greek MS tradition sub “το εβρʹ.” 314 Kim here holds that SP reflects an originally longer reading (1994: 22–23). Hendel agrees and restores the reading to the Hebrew (1998: 128–29). Some scholars differ, however, see M. Scarlata 2012: 129–30. 315 CCSL 72.7. 316 ET from Hayward 1995: 34.

514 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

He was most terse in dismissing SP’s ‫נלכה השדה‬. Unfortunately, Jerome did not describe how he knew of SP’s reading; had he found it in a “Samaritan book” as in his other claim at Gen 5.25–26?317 Jerome’s observation is interesting in light of certain other scholia present in Greek MS sources concerning this same reading. These scholia—one of which is even attributed to Origen—are extant in three distinct forms: Table E.2: Scholia on Gen 4.8: Texts and translations318 Selecta in Gen. (Metzler 2010: 198–99, D 24; Petit 1993:17–18, # 509)319 Ὠριγένους Ἐν τῷ Ἑβραϊκῷ τὸ λεχθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ Κάϊν πρὸς τὸν Ἄβελ οὐ γέγραπται· καὶ οἱ περὶ Ἀκύλαν ἔδειξαν ὅτι ἐν τῷ ἀποκρύφῳ φασίν οἱ Ἑβραῖοι κεῖσθαι τοῦτο ἐνταῦθα κατὰ τὴν τῶν Οʹ ἐκδοχήν The words Cain speaks to Abel are not written in the Hebrew text. But those around Aquila showed that in the midrash the Jews say that those words can be found there (that is, in the midrash), in accordance with the interpretation of the Seventy.320 “ex schedis Combefisii”321 (Petit 1993: 17, # 508; see Field 1.18)322 Παρʼ οὐδενὶ τῶν λοιπῶν κεῖται τὰ ῥήματα τοῦ Κάϊν τὰ πρὸς Ἄβελ. Ἀλλʼ οὐδὲ παρʼ Ἑβραίοις, ἀλλʼ ἐν ἀποκρύφῳ φασίν. Παρὰ δὲ τοῖς Οʹ κεῖται ἔχει δὲ αὐτὰ καὶ τὸ Σαμαρειτικόν

|| 317 Whatever his source, he later retained the reading for his Vulgate despite his reservations (perhaps because of the OL; thus Simon’s suggestion [1682/2.78]), as do many modern ETs (e.g., NRSV, NAB-RE, NET; cp. NJPS which uses ellipses with a footnote). For the varying Masoretic and later Jewish treatment of this case, see Hendel 2016: 3–7. 318 These scholia are very insightfully discussed by Ceulemans (2011), especially with respect to the phrase οι περι Ακυλαν. His ETs (or rather interpretations) are reproduced here (bold mine). 319 Additional MS listings for the first two scholia are provided in Petit 1979: 80 (# 512) and Devreesse 1959: 32 (Origen’s only). They are found in catena MSS from the 10th–13th cent. (see also PG 12.101). 320 Cp. Metzler’s GT: Im Hebräischen steht nicht geschrieben, was Kain zu Abel sagt; und die Übersetzer um Aquila wiesen darauf hin, dass die Hebräer sagen, dass dies, was hier nach der Ausgabe der Siebzig steht, zum nicht-authentischen Text gehört. 321 For the present purposes, the second form is labelled “Combefisii” (see Devreesse 1959: 30, with n. 4). Petit lists the following sources for this second scholion (1979: 80 [I have converted them to Göttingen sigla]): MSS 628 (sub Κυρρλιου, 13th cent.), 135O (10th cent.), 550mg-cI (12th cent.), 14C (11th cent.), and 408cII (12th–13th cent.), and CatNic, sub *Κυρρλιου. Montfaucon viewed the attribution to Cyril suspiciously (1713: 20; PG 15.184); Petit lists it as anonymous (1993:17). 322 Earlier recorded by Montfaucon 1713: 19–20; PG 15.183.

Excursus D: Was the μόνον-Collation Ever Supplied for Hexaplaric Genesis? | 515

The words Cain speaks to Abel cannot be found in any of the other versions (that is, other than lxx). Then again, people say that they are also not contained in the Hebrew one, but that they can be found in a midrash. They are present in ο΄, and the Samaritan version has them as well. s-group (MSS 127, 15th cent. CE, and 344, → §3.4) ταῦτα ἐκ τοῦ ἀποκρύφου δοκεῖ ὑπὸ τῶν ο̅ εἰλῆφθαι, ἔχειν (pro ἔχει) δὲ αὐτὰ καὶ τὸ σαμαρειτικόν· ἐν γὰρ τῷ ἑβραικῷ οὐ γέγραπται οὐδὲ ἐν τοῖς περὶ (+ τον 127) Ἀκύλαν It seems that these words are taken from the midrash by the Seventy, and that also the Samaritan version has them, because (i.e., the reason why they appear to be taken from elsewhere) they are not written in the Hebrew version nor in the minor versions such as that of α΄. At issue here is how Jerome’s reference to SP—clearly much earlier than any from the latter two scholia—fits within the wider Christian scholiast tradition. Each form of these scholia makes some reference to a common set of elements: “the Hebrew,” G, Aquila (Origen and s-group only; οι λ΄ in Combefisii), an “αποκρυφος,” and “the Samaritan” (Combefisii and s-group only). To make matters more frustratingly complex, each tradition offers their respective elements in a different order: Origen’s: H-Aq-α-G

Combefisii: οι λ΄-H-α-G-Sam

s-group: α-G-Sam-H-Aq(= οι γ΄323)

Undoubtedly, the s-group and Combefisii versions are secondary, seeing as they both make reference to “the Samaritan”—something conspicuously absent from Origen’s version (→ §6.2)—hence implying a growth in the tradition. In fact, when considering the common elements amongst all three, the Origenic version appears to have been expanded and rewritten in both the s-group and Combefisii versions independently of one another.324 However, the rewriting process, probably due, in part, to the ambiguity325 of και οι περι Ακυλαν εδειξαν,326 cannot clarify the origin of the Samaritan information.

|| 323 So Ceulemans 2011: 76. 324 Petit does not offer any comment on how these three are related. Rather the Combefisii version is described as “un texte parallèle,” while the s-group’s is “un troisième texte très voisin” (1979: 80). See the following notes. 325 For earlier literature and discussion, see A. Kamesar (1993: 100–101, n. 11), de Lange (1976: 51–52, n. 15), and R. Hanson (1959: 172–73). De Lange interpreted the note as making direct reference to Aquila’s own midrashic school (οι περι Ακυλαν, viz., “Aquila’s colleagues”). Ceulemans has convincingly challenged his interpretation (2013: 481; especially 2011: 74–75).

516 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

When Jerome’s reference to SP is factored into the question, it seems probable he was the first to make any such observation. However, a considerable gap in the evidence ought to be acknowledged. For due to folio loss, the sole surviving SH Gen MS begins just after this part of 4.8: “and Cain rose up … .”327 Presumably any such scholion would have been on the folio just before the break. Hypothetically speaking, if Origen’s, or either of the other two forms, was a part of the Eusebian edition of the text—something Jerome could have conceivably had access to—then it is possible he took this from an hexaplaric MS source. After all, Eusebius himself dealt with SP at least for the chronological materials of chh 5 and 11; it is thus conceivable that he added, or better, expanded on Origen’s original note and placed the scholion in his edition of the text for circulation.328 This could reasonably explain Jerome’s remark. However, it is also possible that the addition of “the Samaritan” to these scholia should be attributed to Jerome’s influence—just as is probable for those at Gen 5.26–27. Whatever the derivation of “το σαμαρειτικον” in these scholia, none of the extant evidence supports the hypothesis it was of hexaplaric origin. It is known from the more complete SH Gen colophon in SHV (→ APPENDIX), that the Greek exemplar(s) upon which the Syriac was based was the result of a copy of the “tetrapla” being collated against the “hexapla” which was in Eusebius’ own library in Caesarea. No mention is made of SP in the colophon. It is also not unimportant that any mention of “the Samaritan” here is missing from Procopius’ Comm. on Octateuch.329 Thus, it would appear that no hexaplaric source can

|| Originally, Montfaucon regarded και οι περι Ακυλαν εδειξαν as: “Α. Ο. Διεθωμεν—πεδιον.” Field disagreed (“… perperam vertit … eum potius sonent: id quod etiam docet Aquilae versio” 1.18–19, n. 16; thus Ceulemans 2011: 75–76, n. 20). Field seems to have viewed the scholion through his own interpretation of MS 127’s construal of the ambiguous phrase. 326 Ceulemans, having studied the use of οι περι as found in Theodoret and other hexaplaric notes at length, believes that (contra de Lange) they always refer to a reading as opposed to a midrash (2013: 481). He explains οι περι Ακυλαν can be interpreted inclusively (α΄σ΄θ΄ / οι γ΄ or οι λ΄), exclusively (all but α΄), or periphrastically (i.e., α΄ only; 2013: 474–78). Obviously, the Combefisii-form interpreted οι περι inclusively. Ceulemans believes that the s-form is best interpreted in the same way (2011: 76). One cannot help but notice the s-form still bears the original ambiguity of Origen’s note versus that in the Combefisii. See the list of examples provided by Ceulemans where various Greek scribes differently interpreted certain οι περι notes taken from Theodoret (2013: 495–96). Whether or not Ceulemans’ interpretation of the s-form is accepted, it is probably older than the Combefisii, as the latter removes all ambiguity. 327 See de Lagarde’s edition (1892: 38) of BL ADD. 14442 (7th cent. CE according to Wright, CSMBM 1.28–29). 328 For a similar case, see the discussion of the χολ scholion (→ §4.3.4). 329 See PG 87/1.239–40.

Excursus D: Was the μόνον-Collation Ever Supplied for Hexaplaric Genesis? | 517

verify that any form of the scholion bearing reference to a “Samaritan” reading was ever present within the Eusebian ἔκδοσις of Gen at 4.8. And when the nearly-complete book of Gen from the recension of Jacob of Edessa is taken into consideration (→ §4.3.1), the gap in the evidence seems larger still. For Jacob, who was so fond of the μόνον-passages, failed to mention or produce any Samaritan readings in his version of Gen (see further below).330 Due to this lack of evidence, it would appear that Jerome’s reference to SP’s concord with G at Gen 4.8 was the result of his own research—whether the consequence of physically searching SP itself (which is exceedingly unlikely) or something he learned from his Jewish informants (much more likely). μόνον-Type Passages Missing from SH and other Hexaplaric MSS Now that the extant, non-σαμʹ “Samaritan” evidence has been examined, it is helpful to keep in mind the nature of the collation itself as attested by the hexaplaric MSS. The primary characteristic of the Caesarean-collation is that the reading in question is μόνον “only” in SP. This is the main reason why it is unlikely that Samaritan readings for either Gen 4.8 or the chronological data from Gen 5.26–27 (as provided in Greek MSS and/or Jerome) were noted in the Caesareanbased edition—they fail to comply with the principle characteristic of the collation. There are, however, many portions of SP Gen which would have qualified for such a collation. And while SH Gen is fragmentary, JGen is nearly complete: Can JGen be used to restore any μόνον-passages to (syro)hexaplaric Gen as in JDeut? Unfortunately, no. In addition to adhering generally to G’s genealogies

|| 330 For Gen 4.8, even if there had been a scholion in Jacob’s SH MS(S), he would not have mentioned it (→ §4.3.1, cp. JDeut 27.26). The authority of P and G was sufficient for the reading.

518 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

in chh 5331 and 11332, several other μόνον-eligible readings are missing or unrepresented in JGen:333 1) Gen 10.19 (SP’s delineation of the Promised Land334): Presumably, this would have been included had the hexaplaric collator(s) known about it; compare above at Deut 34.(1b–)1‫–א‬2 (SHM and MS 15; → §4.3.2). Jacob’s adoption of the latter cannot be confirmed (folio loss). 2) Gen 11.11–25 (SP gives totals for Shem—Nahor): While the dates in G and SP for the year of their firstborn sons align, the remainder dates often differ and MT-G-P all lack anything corresponding to SP’s ... ‫ויהי כל ימי‬. This is a quantitative difference, i.e., μόνον-eligible, however mundane, cp., among others, the “the half of the tribe of Manasseh” readings (→ §3.3.2 at Num 32.1+ and 29+). 3) Gen 24.45+ (SP adds ‫)מעט מים מכדיך‬: JGen (fol. 47‫ )ܒ‬also reads ‫̈ ܐ‬ ... “a little water from your jar” but only in accordance with PGen (but om. in P MS 5b1!; cp. AppI: μικρον υδωρ b d-44 f t). Thus, this reading would not have been “Samaritan” to Jacob. 4) Gen 30.36‫( ג–א‬SP supplies the Angel’s instructions to Jacob335): This is missing from JGen (fol. 61‫)ܒ‬. Given the quantity and nature of the Samaritan passages integrated into JPent, Jacob should have adopted this if his (SH) source also transmitted it.

|| 331 For the Antediluvian Patriarchs (BnF Syr 26, fols. 13–14), Jacob clearly favored G’s chronology and no figure equates SP. As he neared the Flood, he switched to P’s tradition, probably to resolve the issue with Methuselah. (For analysis of MT-G-SP here, see Tov 2015: 44–49.) If Jacob had access to the Samaritan chronology, which he would have encountered via Eusebius’ Chron. (see W. Witakowski 2008), he did not mention or use it for his recension. It is uncertain whether Jacob translated Eusebius’ work into Syriac or only updated it (Witakowski 2008: 32). Either way, he would have been familiar with its readings. 332 For the Postdiluvian Patriarchs (fols. 22–24), nothing in JGen 11’s genealogy can be accounted for by SP exclusively. SP included total years of life which JGen only provided for Terah (as P, MT, and G). The very presence of Kenan II conforms to G alone. (See Tov, 2015: 45, who feels that Kenan II was perhaps added to G for the sake of creating ten patriarchs in this section.) In JGen, Arpaschshad’s 330 remainder years came from a variant G tradition (see AppI: CODEX M, et al), as did both Shelah’s 350 and Eber’s 270 remainder years. 333 Here I list the more noticeable, i.e., sizeable, quantitative variations, comparable to those found in this study. 334 Kim holds SP changed based on parallel passages (1994: 64). See also Hendel 1998: 144. 335 As Kim points out, the same is found in 4Q364 (1994: 57); see DJD 13.209–11.

Excursus D: Was the μόνον-Collation Ever Supplied for Hexaplaric Genesis? | 519

5) Gen 42.16‫( א‬Joseph’s brothers plead that Benjamin cannot leave his father336): Gen’s second longest “Samaritan” exclusive is similarly missing from JGen 42 (fols. 86‫–ܒ‬87‫)ܐ‬. Again, Jacob should have included this had his source transmitted it. 6) Gen 50.5+ (SP adds ‫)כאשר השביעני‬: Also not present in JGen (fol. 101‫)ܐ‬. The Greek reading(s) corresponding to SP’s ‫( לפני מותו‬see AppI: MSS A, 29-58O, 346΄y, et al) is similarly not provided by Jacob. Presumably, his G MS(S) lacked it. Conclusions These gaps in the data suggest that (syro)hexaplaric Gen MSS never transmitted any μόνον-passages. This, in combination with the fact that there is no mention of SP in the complete SH Gen colophon (as in SHV), leads to the conclusion that the SH producers either could not find or had not yet thought to search out for GGen MSS with Samaritan passages. Further, it must be observed that none of the above-mentioned eligible readings are found in any other GGen MSS, unlike the cases of MSS 58 (Exod and Num), 767 (Exod, Num, and Deut), 15 (Num and Deut), or 343 (Num). This supports the surprising notion that Eusebius never applied(?) his own Samaritan collation to the hexaplaric Gen MS(S) he edited. As to why this is so, one can only speculate. Nevertheless, it is a striking omission, whether purposeful or not, given the place of Gen in early Christian biblical scholarship and theological reflection. Lastly, it would appear337 that the SP data transmitted by Eusebius in his Chronicon were never integrated into the tradition at any point.338 Why this was || 336 In what can only be described as odd, A. Tal, the editor of BHQ Gen, did not register SP’s reading here. 337 Compare the discussion by J. Tannous (2010: 138–40). After citing a letter by George, Bishop of the Arabs (d. 724 CE), to a hermit named Joshua, in which he mentioned the divergent Jewish, Septuagintal, and Samaritan dates of the postdiluvian patriarchs, Tannous concludes: “It does not require a particularly difficult stretch of the historical imagination to suppose he had access to a Syro-Hexaplaric manuscript which contained all these variant[s …]” (p. 140). Though Tannous’ supposition is reasonable, all the extant SH MS evidence contradicts it. Eusebius’ Chron. is a much more likely source for George. 338 The only mention of Eusebius’ Chronicon in SH MSS known to me is that at the end of Gen in SHV. There the scribe produced the following (fol. 19a, after the colophon):

‫ܐܕ‬

‫ܘ ܓ‬

‫ ܐ‬.‫̈ ܐ‬

‫̈ܪ ܐ‬

‫ܒ ܘܬܐ ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܬܗ ܕ‬ ‫ܒ ܪܕ‬ (mg: χρονογραφια) ‫ܐ ܕܐܘ ܒ ܣ‬

After the death of Joseph, the Hebrews served the Egyptians for 140 years, according to the Chronographia of Eusebius of Caesarea.

520 | The Samaritan Pentateuch in the (Syro)hexapla of Deuteronomy

never done, even by much later scribal editors (Greek or Syriac), is unknown. Nonetheless, as the MS evidence stands, it would seem that Eusebius never bothered to add his own Samaritan collation efforts to the hexaplaric ἔκδοσις of Gen bearing his name and editorial authorization.

|| It may be that this bit was tacked-on by an individual scribe. Had Eusebius added information from his Chronicon to the hexaplaric ἔκδοσις, surely more than this small note would have been provided, such as the genealogical variations in chh 5 and 11. (The SHL MS evinces no such note, although the colophon was cut off due to folio loss → APPENDIX.) Compare the chronological tables in Barhebraeus’ Scholia (after Deut) providing variants for the ante- and postdiluvian patriarchs, which mention the Hebrew, Seventy, and Syriac, but nothing about SP.

5 Later Hexaplaric Transmission: The Witness to and Implications of μόνον-Integration In the foregoing chapters a number of integrated μόνον-passages, principally found in later hexaplaric MSS, have featured. The readings therein largely served to reconstruct the extent of the original collation and, at times, the readings themselves (or as close as can reasonably be surmised). In this chapter, however, the aim is to examine these witnesses for their own sakes in order to delineate the perceived importance or utility these unique passages may have borne in the minds of those scribes responsible for their integration. In particular, the present chapter seeks to ascertain any possible motive(s) which may have led to their inclusion in an effort to clarify the place of the μόνον-data within the wider, post-Eusebian hexaplaric tradition.

5.1 Later Hexaplaric Integration: A Survey of Sources Before examining select sources bearing integrated Samaritan passages, it is first useful to outline the extant evidence more broadly flagging up any general observations: Table 5.1: Attestation to μόνον-Integration

Date1

MS

JPent 767

O, n

d. 708 CE th

th

13 –14 cent. CE

Locale

Exod

Num

Deut

Syria2

12x

12x

3x (or 4x?3)

Athos

23.19‫ א‬10.10‫ג–א‬ 32.10‫א‬

2.7‫ג–א‬ 10.6–6‫–א‬7–7‫–א‬6

|| 1 For MS groups, the date and respective provenance listed is from the oldest extant exemplar. 2 According to the JRec colophons, Jacob’s undertook his edition of the OT while resident at the Great Monastery of Tell ʿAda (‫ܬ ܐ‬, also spelled Tell ʿAde in some literature → §5.2.1) located approximately 30 miles S of Aleppo (see J. Loopstra’s “Tell ʿAda, Monastery of,” GEDSH; with map II, B2). According to Jacob’s ancient biographers, he traveled to a number of prominent places in the Syriac world, including Alexandria before becoming bishop of Edessa. These travels may have some bearing on his sources, though Jacob’s μόνον-readings from SH could have resulted either from his travels or the quality of Tell ʿAda’s library (→ §5.2.2). 3 Four times only if JDeut 11.30mg can be interpreted as representing a μόνον-reading in SH Deut, which seems improbable even if it had originally existed in the collation (→ §4.3.3). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110760798-005

522 | Later Hexaplaric Transmission

MS

58

O

Date1

Locale

th

Exod

Num 21.24+

Deut

11 cent. CE

Italy/Paris?

4x

707oII

10th–11th cent. CE

Sinai

27.19‫– א‬

15oI

10th cent. CE4

Egypt

–

56f

1096 CE

Paris?

27.19‫ א‬31.20‫( א‬f-129)

–

527y

14th cent. CE

Athos

27.19‫– א‬

–

318y

1021 CE

Athos

32.10‫– א‬

–

343s

before 1013 CE5

Athos

–

3x

–

Italy (d t)

–

–

10.6–6‫–א‬7–7‫–א‬6

groups d t

th

1334 CE (d) 11 (t)

21.22‫ב–א‬ 32.1+, 29+

– – 34.1b–1‫–א‬2

A few general observations, reinforcing the foregoing analysis, can be summarized here on the basis of these data in the table. Dispersal The list of locations for these readings is not overly impressive at first glance. However, to these locations, where either the MS was written or found its final home, Caesarea, the original source of the readings, must be added as well as Alexandria where SH was translated. Of particular note is the spread of the locations Italy, Syria, Egypt, and Athos—four important centers in mid-to-late Christian antiquity. Further, this dispersal cuts across both ecclesiastical, i.e., the orthodox, western, eastern, miaphysite (both Syriac and Egyptian), and Church of the East, as well as linguistic barriers, albeit principally worked out via Greek and Syriac venues as opposed to Latin or Coptic.6 Thus, linguistically, institutionally, and jurisdictionally-speaking, μόνον-integrations were widespread. Geographically, it bears mention that the testimony of Ishoʿdad of Merv, bishop of Ḥdatta (SE of Mosul → §2.3.1 at Exod 6.9‫)א‬, represents an appreciation of SP by a native of eastern Mesopotamia. As discussed above, he was willing to reconcile Gerizim with Ebal in Deut 27, claiming there were altars on both

|| 4 See Devreesse’s catalog (1945/2.3). 5 Both Rahlfs (1914: 18) and Swete (1914: 154) list the date as 1013 CE (the former clarifying this was the date of the donation → §5.3.5), whereas Wevers lists 10th cent. in his edition (Num, 11). 6 That the Copts clearly had direct access to and actively used (copies of?) the Greek texts which served as the exemplars for SH, see the above introductory discussion (→ §1.1.1). Note also that one of the MSS of al-Ḥārith’s Arabic translation of SH Pent also integrated these readings (→ §2.1.2, n. 7, and §3.1.1).

Jacob of Edessa’s Recension | 523

mountains (→ §4.3.3).7 Ishoʿdad’s witness is particularly germane for the present discussion as it underscores what innumerable unknown exegetes and scribes whose works no longer survive could have done upon encountering the μόνονcollation through the vehicle of the Caesarean ἔκδοσις, be it in its original Greek or later Syriac translation. It should also be underscored that the μόνον-integrations enjoyed a hearty scribal lifespan. Beginning with the earliest such example, Jacob of Edessa, these passages found homes in the biblical texts of any number of scribes from the 8th–14th cents. CE. Assuming any number of intermediaries—viz., other, hexaplaric uncials beyond those Paul of Tella used—and the obvious scribal crosscollating executed over time, even if their interactions with hexaplaric materials were inconsistent and differed from scribe to scribe (e.g., MS 767 vs. 58), the fact that these readings survived in witnesses covering a course of 600 years is impressive. Add to this the simple fact that the vast majority of textual witnesses to LXX (no matter the language) survive from the second—not the first— millennium, the impression is that the extant MS record cannot possibly reflect the complete historical afterlife of the Caesarean Samaritan collation. Indeed, it is to be expected that further μόνον-bearing MSS lay buried in old libraries still undiscovered. Textual Pedigree Another observation made plain from the above tabulated data is that the hexaplaric, Caesarean ἔκδοσις had a noticeable effect on later, regionally developed texts. Thus, the s and f groups as well as the Byzantine text, families d t, encountered these hexaplaric marginalia in some form. One gets the impression that hexaplaric MSS were used by scribes as control texts, perhaps principally for marginalia (e.g., MS 344 and its congeners → §3.4), against which they collated their own exemplars and running texts.8 This could explain how some of these individual readings were integrated: If the hexaplaric exemplars or ancestors had over time lost the attributions to the marginal μόνον-passages, or if said attributions were contracted or omitted by intervening scribal collating, then || 7 Ishoʿdad’s adoption of two altars perfectly illustrates his exegetical method, as studies by both Salvesen (1997) and ter Haar Romeny (2001) demonstrate. The former identified Ishoʿdad’s approach as that of a compiler more than an exegete; he was thus diplomatic, rarely preferring one reading over another (p. 238). The latter explained Isho‘dad’s as a “documentary approach” underpinned by the belief that “the different versions together ensure the reliability of the biblical text” (pp. 454–55). His adoption of the Samaritan reading is then not a mere concession but a true adoption of SP, even if Gerizim did not displace Ebal completely. 8 For a working out of this process in Josh for MS 344, see de Troyer 2020.

524 | Later Hexaplaric Transmission

these could have later been understood as marginal corrections. Groups d t in Deut 10.6–6‫–א‬7–7‫–א‬6 may be such a case which would explain the blending of both wilderness itineraries (i.e., that of SP Deut and GDeut) as opposed to one having replaced the other like in MS 767 (→ §§4.3.2; 5.3.1). Another case of potential scribal correction, likely against an hexaplaric source, is the reading in MS 318 (→ §2.5.2). MS 15, itself hexaplaric, is another such case in which a scribe (or series of scribes?) added some of these passages as a means of supplementing or expanding their running text resulting in fuller readings. (For further specifics, see the profiles below → §5.3). Yet, while many of the scribes who integrated these passages may have been motivated by ultimately unknown reasons, for which one might reasonably guess “scribal correction,” there are two witnesses whose integration was unequivocally the result of purposeful adoption of the specifically Samaritan passages: MS 343 of the s-group and JPent.

5.2 Jacob of Edessa’s Recension Despite the fact that the sole extant JPent MS (for which, see below) has been in Paris since 1764, it has lamentably garnered very little scholarly attention throughout the subsequent 260 years. Furthermore, of the handful of studies on JRec, only a paltry few proffered any (largely scattered) comments concerning JPent and its integrated Samaritan readings; these studies are briefly outlined in what follows (→ §5.2.1). Thereafter, Jacob’s editorial method, already outlined above (→ §4.3.1), is further discussed (→ §5.2.2) in an effort to provide a more comprehensive understanding of what precisely Jacob was doing when integrating these readings. As examples, a few of the Samaritan passages from JPent are supplied with analysis so as to examine and appreciate them within their own context (→ §5.2.3).9 Since JDeut was discussed at length in the foregoing chapter (→ §4), only three passages from JExod and two from JNum are presented with accompanying analysis, since the proper place for their publication ought to be in forthcoming critical editions of JRec.10 Finally, Jacob’s view of these readings—indeed SP itself, at least as he knew and had access to it—is discussed.

|| 9 On a forthcoming study, which complements the present analysis, see n. 116 below. 10 See n. 14.

Jacob of Edessa’s Recension | 525

5.2.1 Previous Scholarship on JPent Jean-Baptiste Ladvocat (1709–65) J.-B. Ladvocat, sometime librarian of the Sorbonne, later the Professor of Biblical Exegesis, published a somewhat enthusiastically-toned notice for the Journal des Sçavans in 1765, detailing a peculiar MS which had made its way to Paris the year before.11 This witness, presently BnF Syr. 26 (suppl. 17), had been brought to the west by a Syriac priest from Mosul, Joseph Behnam (ca. 1722/23?– d. after 1806),12 who eventually donated the MS in 1788 to the Royal Library where he worked.13 The 8th cent. MS is the sole extant witness to Jacob’s recension of the Pentateuch.14 By way of introduction, Ladvocat outlined the MS laying out the preliminaries, namely, the time period in which it was written as well as the provenance and author of the text. Lastly, he gave a description of various readings and

|| 11 1765: 542–55. This was during his tenure as the librarian. 12 I am approximating Behnam’s lifespan based on French sources. According to l’Ecole’s notices concerning the “chaires de l’Ecole des langues orientales,” Behnam (also spelt “Behenam” in many older writings) was 73 years old (see ed. E. Leroux 1883: 13) when he provisionally filled the chair of Turkish before Jean Michel de Venture de Paradis (1739–99) filled the same post in 1797. Thus Behnam was born, presumably in Mosul, around 1722/23. Another notice published by the Bibliothèque publique de Lyon registered Behnam as a foreign visitor in 1806. It states he travelled back to Mosul when he was 84 years old. See M. Deleandine 1806: 12. 13 Behnam wrote a note of donation in the MS (fol. 405; Eastern script his):

‫ܿ ܿܕܘܘ ܼ ܿ ܣ‬

̄ ‫ܵܐ‬

̇ ‫ܵܗ ܵ ܐ ܵ ܘ ܣ܆ ܒ ܿ ̈ ܗ ܕ ܿ ܕ‬ ܼ ܼ ܸ ܸ

‫ܼ ܿ ܸܒ‬

ܵ ‫ܣ ܸܐ ܵ ܐ ܹܒ‬ .⟨‫ܼ ܿ ⟩ܣ‬

ܼ ̇

‫ܿ ܼ ܿ ܼܒ ܼ ܬ ܼ ܥ‬ ‫ܿ ܼܒ ܼܿ ܐ‬ ܵ ܿ ܵ ‫ܕ ܼ ܿ ܼܿܐ ܸܬܗ ܘ ܐ ܼ ܼ ܸܬܗ ܒ‬

In the year 1788 AD [lit. according to the incarnation of Jesus Christ], I, Behnam, gave to him (the king?) this Pentateuch [Πεντάτευχος]; now (this grant is) in the days of King Louis [in Latin “Ludovīcos”] XVI, who is without equal and without peer in all the land [sc. κλίμα]. Behnam, one of Louis’ “Royal Translators,” became a French citizen in 1776 and was still working for the Library when the French monarchy fell during the Revolution. He was eventually granted a pension of 1,000 francs by the National Assembly (see J. Alger 1902: 68). Notably, Behnam also assisted in the publication of excerpts from JDan, JSus, and JGen by C. Bugati in the latter’s 1788 editio princeps of SH Dan (see Marsh 2019: 69, n. 12). Ceriani later rightly pointed out that these were “unsatisfactorily” excerpted and lacked the Greek marginalia (1863: xi). 14 For a modern cataloging, see H. Zotenberg 1874: 10. Though a cataloging more complete than Zotenberg’s is a desideratum, an exhaustive outline of the MS and the sum of its parts is beyond the scope of the present endeavor and more appropriate to the official publication of JPent planned by the AMSTERDAM PESHITTA INSTITUTE.

526 | Later Hexaplaric Transmission

(what he believed was) its possible text-critical use.15 At the very end, in what might strike modern readers as odd, he proclaimed that the MS was for sale, to be offered “to the highest bidder.”16 As for the preliminaries, Ladvocat relied heavily upon his somewhat oversimplistic reading of the MS’ colophons provided at the end of each biblical book. That at JGen was provided in full, in square script so that “it might be read by the greater part of people”:17

‫שלם כתבא קדמיא דמושׁא דמתקרא בריתא דמתרץ יציפאית מן תרתיהין‬ ‫[ לחסיא יעקוב אפיסקופא‬sic?] ‫משׁלמנותא הי כית דלות יוניא והי דלות סוריא‬ ‫דאורהי שׁנת איה דסלוקוס בדירא רבתא דתלעדא קריתא ׃‬ The first Book of Moses, called Berita, is ended, (that) which has been emended carefully (using) two editions, namely, that of the Greeks and that of the Syrians, by Pious (or: Holy/St.) Jacob of Edessa bishop of Edessa, (in) the year 1015 of Seleucus [= 704 CE18], in the Great Monastery of the city of Tell ʿAda.19

Based upon this notice, Ladvocat held that the MS was quite old, claiming it dated to Jacob’s own lifetime. He held that two further elements confirmed his interpretation: 1) the scribe’S Estrangelo hand is typical for older Syriac MSS; and 2) there are a number of Greek proper names in the margins, written in the same

|| 15 1765: 542–44 (time period), 544–45 (provenance), 545–48 (authorship), 548–50 (potential critical use of the MS), and 550–55 (examples of readings). 16 1765: 555. 17 1765: 542. Based on the black and white photos posted online by the BnF (https:// gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10091189h), themselves higher in resolution than those I possess (also back and white), it is not possible to read this colophon without autopsy, likely due to faded red ink. The transcription Ladvocat provided appears accurate absent seyame. Perhaps, his ‫ סוריא‬is a mistake for the more usual form ‫ ; ̈ܪ ܐ‬there appears to be space for more than one yudh in the photos (see fol. 102‫)ܒ‬. Please note that the date for the MS supplied on the Gallica page is incorrect (see below). 18 The precise conversion from AG to CE is only possible when the month in question is known. As Ladvocat pointed out in his survey (1765: 543), the years provided in the subscriptions for ‫ܬ‬ JExod and JLev are the same, 1015 AG (without month); however, JNum was dated to ‫ܡ‬ “earlier Teshrin,” the first month of the Syriac year, in 1016 AG. (JNum’s colophon, on fol. 339‫ ܒ‬, is legible in my photos and can be confirmed.) This means, as Ladvocat explained, that JNum was completed in Oct 704 CE. For the conversion of dating formulae in Syriac MS, see Coakley’s useful “Appendix D” in his revision of Robinson’s Paradigms and Exercises in Syriac Grammar (2013: 148–49). For historical background to this practice, see M. Debié 2019:11–12. 19 ET mine.

Jacob of Edessa’s Recension | 527

hand and ink of the running text.20 Concerning the dating for the latter, he conferred with the French classicist Jean Capperonnier (1716–75), who maintained that the hand of the Greek in the margins dates no later than 760 CE.21 Thus Ladvocat concluded that the MS was “incontestably” written in 704–05 CE during Jacob’s floruit, though it could not have been Jacob’s own autograph since: (a) there are clearly copyist errors, and (b) Jacob would not have called himself “pious” in the colophons.22 Throughout his article Ladvocat described the MS in a way which emphasized its critical importance for the recovery of a more ancient Hebrew text of the OT. Being a textual critic of some note in his own era, both a contemporary and collaborator23 of Kennicott (→ §1.1.2.1), Ladvocat24 enthusiastically claimed that Jacob had “neglected nothing” in recovering the primitive and original Hebrew text. Throughout this process Jacob … avoit eu recours au Pentateuque Samaritain qu’il cite, aussi-bien qu’aux Hexaples d’Origene, dont il rapporte les diverses leçons dans ses différens écrits, & il s’est servi pour composer ses concordes du Pentateuque & dans autres Livres de l’Ancien-Testament … … had recourse to SP, which he cited, as well as Origen’s Hexapla [Maior?], from which he brought in the diverse readings from the different writings [i.e., the recentiores], which he used to compose his harmonies of the Pentateuch and the other books of the OT.25

This claim, however, like much early scholarship on JRec, was based on inference more than examination of the data. For in his initial survey of readings from JPent, Ladvocat failed to produce any examples whatsoever of the Samaritan or hexaplarically-derived readings he declared were in the MS. Thus his pronouncement on the MS’ importance for these elements rings somewhat hollow. Ladvocat was under the impression that JPent was meant to be “a special kind of harmony of the Greek and Syriac versions” in which some readings had been adopted from one of these sources, often marking in the margin the corre-

|| 20 1765: 544. Is it unclear to me how he came to this conclusion. Nevertheless, he is probably correct; see below. 21 1765: 544. 22 1765: 548; also p. 544 (for “incontestably”). 23 Ladvocat collated Hebrew MSS in Paris for Kennicott’s Editio Maior (see the former’s entry in M’Clintock and Strong 5.193–94). 24 For a short biography (in English), see H. G. Enelow’s rather positive entry in the 1906 Jew. Encycl. (7.593). 25 1765: 550.

528 | Later Hexaplaric Transmission

sponding reading from the other.26 How the Samaritan passages supposedly fit into this putative “harmony”—a term neither Jacob nor the scribal colophons use to describe JPent27—was not something he attempted to elucidate. Antoine-Isaac Silvestre de Sacy (1758–1838) The much lauded, French Semitics scholar A. I. de Sacy28—principally an Arabist who also contributed to Samaritan29 studies—was the first scholar to publish any of the Samaritan passages in JPent. His own survey, however, was far from exhaustive. Rather, for several of these readings he merely provided a FT, noted select words or phrases in square script, flagged up some of the sigla, and supplied a few attribution notes.30 Although he offered little analysis to speak of, two observations from de Sacy’s article merit comment vis-à-vis Jacob’s witness to the μόνον-collation. First concerns his reconstruction of the source of his Samaritan readings, quoted here at length: Il est essential d’observer que dans plusieurs de ces passages, qui ne se trouvent aujourd’hui ni dans l’hébreu ni dans le grec des Septante, & qui du temps de Jaques d’Edesse lui-même ne se lisoient que dans l’exemplaire des Samaritains, il y a cependant quelques variantes marquées sur les marges de notre manuscrit : cela me fait soupçonner que ces passages se li-soient aussi dans l’ancienne version syriaque, dont Jacques d’Edesse avoit entrepris de donner une édition plus correcte, & qu’il les comparoit avec le texte ou la version grecque a l’usage des Samaritains.

|| 26 “Le Manuscrit dont il est ici question est une espèce de concorde de la version Grecque & de l’ancienne version Syriaque du Pentateuque” (1765: 548). Ladvocat’s statement should be corrected, albeit how one does this depends upon how “harmony” is defined. 27 Ladvocat thought that Jacob would have explained his version in some kind of introductory preface, which is presumably missing as the title and first few folios are sadly lacking (1765: 550). His supposition may well be accurate. 28 See his entry in M’Clintock and Strong 9.233. 29 On de Sacy’s accomplishments in Samaritan studies, see G. Firmin’s entry in CSS, 208. 30 As follows: JExod 7.29(8.4)‫( ד–א‬1798–99: 662; FT of passage, select words in square, lemnisci noted, attribution in square with FT); JNum 10.10‫( ג–א‬pp. 663–64; FT of passage; “obèle” mentioned; attribution in square with FT), JNum 13.1‫ ד–א‬and 13.33‫( ו–א‬p. 664; passages mentioned; “obèle” noted; FT for the attribution on the latter); JNum 20.13‫( ט–א‬p. 664; mention only of passage, “obèle,” and attribution). He also supplied the Gerizim scholion from JDeut 27.4 in FT (→ §4.1.2), for which see below.

Jacob of Edessa’s Recension | 529

It is essential to observe that in several of these passages [in JPent], which are today not found in MT or LXX—and which in the time of Jacob of Edessa himself were only read in Samaritans’ exemplar—there are yet, some variants provided in the margins of our MS: That (fact) has made me suspect that these passages were read also in the ancient Syriac version which Jacob of Edessa had undertaken to give a more correct version; and that he compared (such) with the [Hebrew] text or Greek translation the Samaritans used.31

De Sacy’s brief assessment, buried in a footnote (perhaps he was unsure?), was prompted by a few cases in the JPent MS where μόνον-passages are accompanied by marginal readings. These are as follows: Table 5.2.1: Marginal Readings for μόνον-passages in JPent

JExod 7.18‫( ב‬fol. 122‫ܐ )ܒ‬ 11.4 (fol. 132‫)ܒ‬

JNum 2°] ] ‫ܐܠ‬

20.19‫( ג‬fol. 149‫⟩ܘ ܐܐ⟨ ]ܘ ̣ ܐ )ܒ‬

13.1‫( ב‬fol. 281‫ܗܐ ] ܘ )ܒ‬ 13.33‫( ד‬fol. 284‫ܢ )ܐ‬

‫ ܐ‬ind T

20.13‫( א‬fol. 300‫)ܐ‬ 13‫( ו‬fol. 300‫] ܓ )ܒ‬

]‫ܐ ܐ‬

31.20‫( ג‬fol. 326‫ܐ )ܒ‬

‫ܕܕܘ ܐ ]ܕܪ‬

Though de Sacy’s proposal may seem logical at first, it falls short in three respects: (1) it does not correctly assume Jacob’s base text; (2) it does not take into account his editorial methods; and (3) it presumes access to and direct consultation of Samaritan texts themselves. 1ʹ) De Sacy was under the impression that Jacob had essentially revised a version of P which had previously been adjusted towards Greek texts, a kind of pre-SH Syriac mix with G.32 Subsequent scholarship (see the summary below, especially R. Saley) has since demonstrated, however, that Jacob’s base was clearly P. P, as is well known, does not transmit any such “expansionistic” readings as in (pre-)SP (→ §1.1.2.3). Thus, said readings could not possibly have been in Jacob’s base. Rather the text(s) against which he compared his base was his source. 2ʹ) Further, the majority of the marginal readings in question are due, not to correction of the passage against SP or the Samaritan Greek version (i.e., the Samareitikon), but rather they flow from his above-discussed (→ §4.3.1) editorial

|| 31 1798–99: 664, n. f (pre-1835[?] reform of French orthography is original). 32 1798–99: 659–60. In fairness to de Sacy, there is evidence that such versions existed. See further, ter Haar Romeny 2005: 101–02.

530 | Later Hexaplaric Transmission

method.33 Thus, each is otherwise explicable. Of these eight readings, one is a scribal correction (JNum 13.33‫)ד‬, four (though probably six) are the results of his blending method,34 and one stems from his very strong views opposing the (syro)hexaplaric ΠΙΠΙ / (JExod 7.18‫)ב‬.35 36 3ʹ) As for his claim that Jacob had somehow consulted the Hebrew Samaritan text and/or το σαμ΄, research into Jacob’s knowledge of Hebrew (once presumed to equal Jerome’s) has demonstrated he had very little if any facility with Hebrew,37 let alone knowledge of the Samaritan script. As for consultation of το σαμ΄, the present study illustrates that JPent’s witness to Samaritan passages reflect the μόνον-type, specifically derived from SH.38 Jacob’s Samaritan passages reflect those in SH both in scope (i.e., only the passages SH originally transmitted are found in JPent → §5.2.3) and particulars (e.g., septuagintisms, common scribal errors or idiosyncrasies, etc.). Any deviations from SH’s

|| 33 Part of de Sacy’s misunderstanding here is that Jacob set “rejected” readings in the margin (1798–99: 660). This, however, misconstrues the purpose and function of the JRec margin. On which, see Marsh 2019: 203–04 and Marsh, forthcoming. 34 Jacob alternated between his source of the Samaritan passages, SH, and the parallel in PExod/PDeut: JExod 11.4 P] ‫ ܐܠ‬SH | JNum 20.13‫א‬ SH] ‫ ܐ ܐ‬P | 20.13‫ ܓ ו‬P] SH | ‫ ܕܪ‬P] ‫ ܕܕܘ ܐ‬SH. 31.20‫ܐ א‬ Given this tendency, that at JNum 13.1‫ב‬, which at present matches no known parallel, is best seen as a lost P (or perhaps G?) variant. As for JExod 20.19‫ג‬, the reading is missing from the margin, where the MS is damaged, though the ind marker is unambiguously above the word in the running text. JExod in-text equates P’s parallel (peal perf.), thus we can confidently reconstruct SH’s ‫( ܘ ܐܐ‬peal ptc.) for the margin. 35 On which, see EXCURSUS C. 36 Interestingly, similar claims surfaced in a couple of studies subsequent to de Sacy though, as Saley observes, these were not based upon examination of JPent. For references to the literature in question, see Saley 1998: 8, n. 38. 37 See the studies by Salvesen (2001 and 2010) which conclude his was at best indirect; Jacob, assuming he did not base his comments on Greek sources, would make inferences based on P. Note that even recent statements, such as that by J. Loopstra (“[Jacob was] a linguist comfortable in both Syriac and Greek (with some Hebrew, as well)…”; 2019: 301) are somewhat overstated. That Jacob did not consult any Hebrew SP is a further support of Salvesen’s evaluation: Jacob only approached Hebrew indirectly. 38 As above noted (→ §4.1.2), de Sacy stated at the end of his article that JPent’s Samaritan readings were related to those in “hexaplas d’Origène” (p. 668) and could be used to recover, in part, the loss of SHM. How he fit all of these pieces fit together, however, is unclear. Perhaps he reasoned that the Samaritan passages were already in the putative pre-SH version and Paul simply adopted them(?). Again, the SH colophons greatly clarify this issue.

Jacob of Edessa’s Recension | 531

phraseology surely come from his methodology of scriptural “remixing” (→ §§4.3.1; 5.2.2).39 The second of de Sacy’s observations meriting review is his FT of the JDeut scholion at 27.4, explaining Jacob’s replacement of (G)Ebal with Gerizim (→ §4.3.3 for Syriac and ET): Si les bénédictions dont il est ici parlé, devoient être données sur le mont Garizim, & les malédictions prononcées sur le mont Ebal, comment pouvoit - il être convenable d’ordonner d’élever un autel sur le mont Ebal! Ne convenoit - il donc pas beaucoup mieux de l’élever sur le mont Garizim, comme c’etoit la que les bénédictions devoient être prononcées? & c’est ainsi qu’on lit dans l’exemplaire qui est en usage parmi les Samaritains, où il est écrit : Vous dresserez ces pierres sur le mont Garizim, & vous élèverez un autel.40

De Sacy’s testimony is important primarily in that he rendered the Syriac “c’est ainsi qu’on lit dans l’exemplaire qui est en usage parmi les Samaritains.” Based on the translation he provided in the same article for Ladvocat’s square script transcription of the JGen colophon (see above), his phraseology presumably reflects something like ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ;ܒ ܐ ̇ܗܘ ܕ ܬ‬this same wording is indeed found for the version of the scholion as recorded in CatSev at (Ps.-?)Ephrem’s Comm. on Josh (at 8.30; → §4.3.3 at Deut 27.4).41 However, this specific wording cannot fit the spacing of the annotation as written in JDeut, which is admittedly not completely legible in the MS (fol. 389‫)ܒ‬. The phrase in question likely reads ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒܐ ܒ⟩ ܐ⟨ ̇ܗܘ ܕ‬ ‫܆ ܒܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ⟨‫ ⟩ܐ ܐ‬just as it was recordSev ed in Cat at “Ephrem’s” Comm. on Deut (11.29–30). De Sacy’s FT then is certainly not a verbatim representation of the phrasing. Nevertheless, the overall witness to the scholion implies that “‫ ܨ ܐ‬of the Samaritans” was Jacob’s wording; and thus, the same can be assumed in his SH exemplar(s), reflecting “ἀντίγροφον” as used by the Caesarean critic(s). Whatever the case, de Sacy’s suggestion that Jacob used Samaritan exemplars (Hebrew or Greek) is unsustainable. A.M. Ceriani (→ §2.1.1) Ceriani’s critical edition of SH Exod is by far the most significant of all previous studies when considering Jacob’s Samaritan passages. Though his comments

|| 39 For the propriety of applying this terminology to JRec, see Marsh 2019: 82–84; also 2019: 206–08. See further below → §5.2.2, where some of these same arguments are repeated. 40 1798–99: 666 (again spelling original). 41 See de Sacy’s “celle qui est en usage pari les Grecs” (1798–99: 649) for ‫הי כית דלות יוניא‬ (1765: 542).

532 | Later Hexaplaric Transmission

were brief and far from exhaustive, his concise remarks are insightful and, for the most part, still valid. These concern the date of the JPent MS as well as both the source and textual nature of Jacob’s Samaritan passages. Following Ladvocat’s optimistic analysis of the JPent MS’ date, de Sacy strongly disagreed with the former’s claim that the MS was written during Jacob’s lifetime. The latter (correctly) counterclaimed that the dates of the colophons in question apply to the recension not the copying.42 Subsequent to Ladvocat, de Sacy, based on his analysis of the Syriac script, believed that the MS’ copying was “not much older than 1000 CE.”43 Later on, Ceriani’s view was that while there were two recognizable hands in the MS, the older part “hardly [dates] later than the 8th cent. CE ….”44 While paleographic analysis of both the Syriac and Greek await a more modern treatment, Ceriani’s opinion of the former, authoritative in and of itself, ought be to upheld.45 Ceriani’s use of JPent in his SH Exod edition was very selective, and he only provided a small number of excerpts.46 With respect to the μόνον-passages, he limited his usage to a handful of Jacob’s Samaritan readings. Thus, he provided Jacob’s Syriac in full for JExod 6.9‫א‬, 7.18‫ג–א‬, 7.29(8.4)‫ד–א‬, and 18.24‫& ו–א‬ 18.25–25‫ג–א‬.47 Of these, he added at least one comment for each save the last. Additionally, he mentioned the absence of the Samaritan reading at JExod 8.1(5)‫( א‬without proffering a possible cause),48 and also highlighted49 the unique abbreviation at 8.19(23)‫ →( ד–א‬EXCURSUS B) while making no reference to the same at 9.5‫ ה–א‬and 9.19‫ז–א‬. Interestingly when discussing Exod 10.(2)2‫ד–א‬, Ceriani said he did not excerpt the passage from JExod as he had for those else-

|| 42 1798–99: 651. One gets the impression Ladvocat was perhaps influenced by the Crown’s desire to sell the codex. 43 1798–99: 653. Accordingly, he rejected Ladvocat’s evaluation of the Greek hand (confirmed by Capperonnier) while somewhat awkwardly acknowledging his own ignorance of how to estimate the date of Greek scripts. 44 “Pars antiqua codicis majoris est aetatis, quam [de] Sacy statuat, et vix saeculo VIII posteriorem haberem; …” (1863: xi). 45 Key in this issue is the marginal Greek. Textually, these had to have come from Jacob’s autograph; thus the copying of the Greek was coterminous with the Syriac. For the argument, see Marsh 2019: 204, n. 22, and Marsh, “Reading on the Margins,” forthcoming. 46 1863: xi and 154. Naturally the purpose of his edition was to present SH Exod in full, not JExod. 47 1863: 154, 161, 164, and 248–49, respectively. 48 1863: 165. 49 1863: 172–73, with LT.

Jacob of Edessa’s Recension | 533

where and admitted he did not know how it read.50 Given these data, it seems fair to state that Ceriani only paid heed to those passages which were sub ÷ in the JPent MS (cp. Tables 2.3 and 5.2.3.1). Probably, he went through the MS and noted the first three (each sub ÷), observing that those subsequent were either missing (i.e., 8.1[5]‫ )א‬or abbreviated (8.19[23]‫)ד–א‬. Then he perhaps assumed that Jacob omitted or abbreviated the remainder of those found in SH Exod which had no corresponding sigla in the JPent MS. This would explain why he mentioned the two large passages in Exod 18, while the three such passages in JExod 20 were not observed.51 Whatever the case, Jacob most definitely included the Samaritan passages from SH Exod 20 in full as well as bits of those in SH Exod 10 and 11 (→ §5.2.3). Despite the cursory nature of Ceriani’s recording of JExod’s μόνον-passages, the few comments and observations he provided were insightful, even prescient. At the first such passage, JExod 6.9‫א‬, after providing the passage in Syriac, he did not bother to translate since the passage “hardly differs from [that] in SH.” Nevertheless, his introductory remarks bear repeating: Cum vero aliquot Samaritani lectiones excerpserim ex Recensione Pentateuchi Jacobi Edesseni, apponam, ut mutua relatio utriusque textus Jacobi et Syro-Hexaplaris pateat. Non enim a Graecis libris, quos assumserat, quique Lucianeam referebant recensionem, ut alibi demonstrabo, puto Jacobum sumsisse has lectiones, sed ex Syro-Hexaplari, lingua hic illic retractata, ut Syrae proprietati magis responderet; quantum ex locorum collatione mihi videtur. However, since I have excerpted some of the Samaritan readings from JPent, I shall provide (them), so that the mutual relationship between the two, JPent and SH, might be seen. Now I do not think Jacob took these readings from Greek codices he had obtained, which (instead) go back to the Lucianic recension (as I will demonstrate elsewhere), but from the SH, the language having been reworked here and there [by Jacob], so that it might better correspond to the quality of (native) Syriac; thus it seems to me (based on) these passages in the collation.52

Further comments were briefer. At JExod 7.18‫ג–א‬, he described Jacob as having “reshaped” the passage excerpted from SH.53 The reading from the plague of

|| 50 “…; Jacobum Edessenum, ut etiam alibi, hic non excerpsi, ejusque conditionem ignoro” (1863: 185). 51 This would make sense if he had limited time with (or access to) the MS in Paris. According to his own comments, he did not recheck his excerpts and warned that there could be errors in his transcriptions (1863: 154). 52 1863: 154. 53 1863: 161.

534 | Later Hexaplaric Transmission

frogs, JExod 7.29(8.4)‫ד–א‬, occasioned another studied remark. There he held that Jacob had accurately reproduced the passage but also had “constructed” “alternative expressions” from either G or P MSS at the parallel. As an example, he hypothesized that Jacob’s ‫“ ܐ̈ܪ‬your nobles” at 7.29‫ד‬, which does not ̈ ad loc or (exactly) P’s ̈ ‫( ܒ‬in the parallel), was likely equate SH’s ‫ܐ‬ Jacob’s own rendering of θεραποντες from the G parallel.54 While this specific case could be explained otherwise (→ §5.2.3), the idea that Jacob used the parallels to revise the Samaritan passages from SH was on the right track. Certainly Ceriani’s brief assessment is correct in general even if the specifics upon which they are based are imprecise. For instance, Ceriani’s argument that Jacob took these passages from SH since the latter used Lucianic G MSS (nearly a truism in modern JRec research, see below) is a nonstarter: There is no evidence for a specifically Lucianic recension in the Pent.55 Nevertheless, analysis of the μόνον-passages in JPent reveals that, when Jacob’s editorial procedures are taken into account, the source of these readings was clearly SH. As a result, Ceriani was correct but for the wrong reason. Brief Summary of Relevant Later Scholarship After Ceriani, studies on JPent were few and far between. Furthermore, none of the research published on JRec, most of which concerned JSam and JDan, included any analysis of his witness to the μόνον-passages.56 Nevertheless, several of these studies came to conclusions regarding JRec which bear import for the present research. These include examinations of Jacob’s editorial method, his putative MS sources, knowledge of Hebrew (or rather lack thereof), as well as the overall purpose in constructing JRec. Richard Saley’s Study of JSam Saley’s 1998 monograph, along with its companion article from 2008,57 is the only published monograph-length treatment to date for any substantial section of JRec. For this, he statistically analyzed a broad representative sampling from

|| 54 1863: 164. 55 See the studies by Wevers listed in Fernández Marcos (2000: 228–29, with much further literature). 56 Thus omitted from this summary is the 2008 article by ter Haar Romeny on JGen as well as Y. Moss’ 2020 article also including comments on JGen. Since there are no μόνον-data for Gen (→ EXCURSUS D), neither is directly germane to the present study. 57 Both his original monograph and later article, the latter being a condensed version of the former, are referenced in this summary.

Jacob of Edessa’s Recension | 535

JSam in comparison with the collations available from Brooke-McLeanThackeray. Since SH is fragmentary in 1–2 Sam, known principally from excerpts in lectionary MSS and citations in Syriac commentaries, he was sure to focus his study on those passages where SH survives.58 Saley’s statistical analysis came to commanding conclusions which subsequent work has mostly confirmed. Insofar as the present topic is concerned they are as follows: 1) In editing the biblical text, while Jacob’s method was inconsistent and unpredictable,59 his textual base was clearly P itself. 2) Although agreement with SH is found, most often said influence cannot be attributed to (or proven to exclusively derive from) SH alone.60 3) In discerning the use of particular G recensions, both hexaplaric and Lucianic strands emerge, the latter in substantially greater amounts than the former.61 4) A number of readings are found in JSam which cannot be accounted for by extant MSS of P, SH, or G. Saley was uncertain as to whether such should be explained as Jacob’s own “ad sensum” additions or readings taken from other sources unknown today.62 In ending his study on JSam, Saley wisely cautioned against misapplication of his findings: Still, it needs to be stressed again that the findings made [for JSam] … are valid only for the particular mix of passages studied. Certainly, it would be a mistake to expect these findings to be duplicated with exacting precision in [those parts of the JSam MS] not treated, let alone in the other passages of [JRec].63

|| 58 1998: 14–15; 2008: 113–14. 59 Saley: “In [JSam] alternate readings are often laid side by side, though more often one is chosen to the exclusion of the other. At points there is an attempt to interweave alternate readings without combining them; at other times a single text is followed consistently” (1998: 6). This same description could be said of any part of JRec. 60 “Whereas clear readings from SH are likewise present, they occur in much smaller quantity, and more often than not, suspected cases of SH influence are clouded by ambiguity” (1998: 121; similarly, 2008: 121). 61 “Unmistakably clear Lucianic readings are present in substantial number” (1998: 121). Also: “The conclusion to be drawn from the data, then, is that Jacob utilized manuscripts from the Lucianic tradition which, along with the older base, contained Hexaplaric revisions” (2008: 121). 62 1998: 111–15. Saley does, however, seem to favor these as coming from a textual source of some sort. 63 1998: 121–22; also 2008: 125.

536 | Later Hexaplaric Transmission

Saley’s sagacious warning certainly has merit as the textual circumstances of Jacob’s sources would of course have varied from book to book. Lastly, Saley considered the Jacob’s purpose in constructing JRec: While all the intentions of Jacob in compiling his text of the OT might not be obvious, it is, at least, certain that he sought to assemble a masoretic text for theological and liturgical use which incorporated the major strands known in the Syriac Monophysite church, while giving space—in text or margin—for such other variants collected as seemed worthy of note. It is tempting to speculate that he intended this to be a new “authorized” version, aimed at settling controversy within the ecclesiastical community, but one cannot be certain of this.64

Later Saley would walk back his suggestion of a new “authorized” version, accepting Salvesen’s recommendation that Jacob’s purpose was to clarify the text as it existed in both Syriac and Greek.65 While Saley’s original suggestion might well be modified, the notion of “giving space” to textual traditions ought to be underscored especially in regard to those many μόνον-passages in JExod, JNum, and JDeut. Alison Salvesen’s Studies Further considered here are a collection of studies on JRec by A. Salvesen which also merit summary. These have collectively centered on Jacob’s MS sources, the role (or lack thereof) of Hebrew in his recension, his adoption of Graecized proper names, and the purpose of JRec. In a number of articles and studies Salvesen analyzed isolated passages and commented on his MS sources.66 She concurred with Saley that P was clearly his base which he revised using “various Greek” sources.67 Important to this description are the attendant colophons found in extant JRec MSS. That for JSam reads as follows (after 1 Sam; BL ADD. 14429, dated 719 CE,68 fol. 90a):69

̇ ̈ ‫ܐܕ‬ : ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ ̇ ܓ‬.‫ܐ ܗܘܬ‬ ‫ ܐ ܕ‬:‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ܐܬܬܪܨ ܒܐ ܗ ܐ‬ . ̈ ̈ ̇ ̈ ‫ܐ܆‬ ‫ܕ ܬ ̈ܪ ܐ ܘ ܗ ܕ ܬ‬ ‫ܗܝ‬ :‫ܐ‬ ‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ ̈ ܐ ܐܘ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ ܒ‬:‫ܐ ܕܐܘܪܗܝ‬ ‫ܒܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒܐ ̈ ܝ‬ ̇ ‫ܐ ܕܬ ܐ ܒ ܐ ܪܒ ܐ ܕܬ ܐ ܀‬ ‫ ܐ‬:‫ܐ‬ ‫ܣ‬ ‫ܕ‬ || 64 1998: 122. Saley’s abbreviation “J” for “Jacob” has been expanded. 65 2008: 124, n. 19. 66 See the Salvesen section in the BIBLIOGRAPHY. 67 1998: 14 (emphasis original). 68 See Wright, CSMBM 1.38. Salvesen rightly states that the JSam, JDan, and the SHL Exod MSS were written by the same scribe named Lazarus (2015: 336, n. 39). 69 The text and ET are taken from Salvesen 1999: 90 (text) and 67 (ET).

Jacob of Edessa’s Recension | 537

This First Book of Kingdoms was corrected as far as possible and with much difficulty from the different traditions—from that of the Syrians and from those of the Greeks—by the holy Jacob bishop of Edessa, in the 1016th year of the calendar of the Greeks, or rather of King Seleucus, the third indiction, in the great monastery of Tel ʿAdda.

Salvesen points out that this description comports well with the results of Saley’s study:70 “The resulting text for Samuel was an amalgam, a Peshitta text patched and embroidered with Greek readings and traditions.”71 Of particular interest was the role of SH. Salvesen interprets the JSam colophon’s specifying ̈ ‫ܗ ܕ ܬ‬, as meant to include SH amongst plural Greek traditions, i.e., ‫ܐ‬ his diverse G MS sources.72 Yet, after analyzing segments of JExod 1 and 28, she also posits that perhaps Jacob generally eschewed the phraseology of SH in preference to directly rendering the Greek.73 Indeed, she suggests that JRec was, in part, an attempt to de-syrohexaplaricize SH in an effort to connect his readers with Greek exegesis while amplifying P in the process.74 A second relevant subject relating to Jacob’s editorial process concerns his supposed knowledge/utility of Hebrew. Jacob, from time to time, discussed or made reference to Hebrew words in his letters and scholia as any other learned Church Father. Salvesen, having examined many such cases, holds that closer scrutiny of his remarks on Hebrew words or interpretations reveal, at best, an indirect knowledge of the language, perhaps derived from attentiveness to the recentiores or simply following Greek commentators who had done the same.75 Nevertheless, Jacob used this knowledge judiciously and creatively in attempting to explain what he believed was the language of creation.76 However, his reverence for Hebrew did not motivate him to learn the language (→ §6.3). Indeed, Hebrew had no discernable place in JRec.77 Clearly, Jacob understood that both G and P were translated from Hebrew (→ §5.2.2), and thus “[i]t is theoretically possible that he believed a combination of [G and P] would achieve some-

|| 70 While Saley does mention the JSam colophon in the introduction to his own monograph (1998: 6, citing Salvesen’s ET), his analysis hardly depends upon it. 71 1998: 14. 72 1999: ix; also 2005: §3. 73 2005: §18. 74 2005: §18; similarly her 1998: 244–45. 75 2001: 467. Salvesen also acknowledges that Jacob, in his extant works, never actually claimed to know Hebrew but only “interpretations of it.” This is an important point, especially vis-à-vis the same claims from the likes of Jerome. 76 2010: passim. 77 Salvesen: “… Jacob had no concept of hebraica veritas …” (1998: 15).

538 | Later Hexaplaric Transmission

thing that reflected the original Hebrew biblical text. However, there is no indication … that he was guided by the notion of a Hebrew Vorlage in creating his own version.”78 By extension, these conclusions should be extended to any imagined use of the Hebrew SP (pace de Sacy). A third topic germane to the μόνον-passages in JPent is Jacob’s use of Greek forms of proper names in JRec. In Salvesen’s critical edition of the JSam MS, she helpfully provided lists of all proper names, both personal and geographic, extant in JSam with the corresponding forms in P and G MSS.79 JSam’s names often directly reveal his use of G MS sources, clearly aligning with both Lucianic and other wider G MS groups.80 In light of these lists, the same textually-inspired orthographic tendencies seen above in his rendition of the Samaritan Wilderness Itinerary (→ §4.3.2 at Deut 10.6–6‫–א‬7–7‫–א‬6) are unsurprising even if they deviate from those in SH, his source for the Samaritan passages. Lastly considered are Salvesen’s views on the purpose of JRec. At first, she briefly considered and then rejected Saley’s suggestion that Jacob sought to create a new authorized text. Instead, her view is that Jacob sought to clarify the meaning—although certainly not the exact wording81—of Scripture “as it existed in Syriac and Greek.”82 Yet more recently, Salvesen, having reflected more extensively on Jacob’s purposes from the perspective of his overall life and oeuvre, concludes that JRec was composed for specifically pedagogical reasons, as an aid to teaching the Bible in both Greek and Syriac forms.83 This, she suggests, can account for the relatively unpredictable, conflate text which appears to have no underlying methodology (or at least not a consistent one). Thus she concludes that JRec, as a teaching tool, was “a work of reconciliation between the Peshitta and Greek traditions.”84 His work ably “supplements [P] with readings from the LXX, either in the main text or as alternatives in the margin. … Jacob [thus] demonstrates that the versions are complementary, not opposed.”85

|| 78 2015: 332. 79 1999: xxvi–xli (EXCURSUS II, using Br.-M. for the latter). 80 See especially those under the category “J = G ≠ P” (1999: xxxi–xxv [personal] and xxxix–xl [geographic]). Salvesen: “Place names and personal names show a good deal of influence from the Lucianic/Antiochene Greek text” (1998: 15). 81 1998: 244–45. 82 1999: xv. 83 2015: 336. 84 2015: 340 (emphasis original). 85 2015: 340.

Jacob of Edessa’s Recension | 539

Bradley Marsh’s Studies on JNum and JDan Last considered here are a handful of studies I have undertaken on both JNum and JDan. Beginning with a master’s thesis in 2010, I textually examined a selection of JNum, specifically chh 11–12 and 16–17. It was throughout this process that I first encountered the μόνον-passages in JPent, eventually leading to the present study.86 Around this period, while I suspected (independently of Ceriani, see n. 52) that the SP passages came from SHmg, I did not yet fully recognize the editorial method by which Jacob would blend these passages with the parallel from P. Upon realizing this, it became fairly apparent that his process in incorporating the μόνον-data was the same as that for his usual blend of G and P, something well illustrated above in the JDeut readings (→ §4), as well as the marginal readings appended to these passages (→ Table 5.2.1). This exact technique is made very clear in the below representative samples. More often than not, when extant G MSS preserve a μόνον-passage which reads differently than SH, or if the latter transmits an error or peculiar reading, Jacob’s witness most often confirms SH, as the cases surveyed above for the s-group and MSS 15 and 767 well illustrate. It also bears repeating that Jacob only preserves those readings from SH’s side of the tradition (→ §§2.5; 3.3.2) and when attributions are supplied, Jacob’s own attributions reflect the information and phraseology transmitted by SH (see below). All the same, the observations made in Saley and Salvesen’s larger studies were confirmed for non-μόνον portions of JNum, in both his sources, techniques (e.g., use of Greek forms for lesser common names), and editorial methodology.87 As for the latter, I adopted the (somewhat clunky) descriptor “complementary extra-exegesis” as a kind of guiding principle of his “rampant extraexegetical textual blending.”88 Unfortunately, however, while his editorial method(s) may be discernible, insofar as GPent MS traditions are concerned, Saley’s demonstration of Jacob’s adoption of Lucianic Greek cannot apply.89 Further, outside of remarkable readings, such as the μόνον-passages, it cannot be determined if a given reading in JPent was taken from SH or a G source unless his text expressly disagrees with the former. Thus, I suggested that tracing the Greek-based proper names in JPent, where JPent = G MS(S) ≠ SH, was per-

|| 86 See Marsh 2010. 87 See Marsh 2011: 9–13 (method) and 13–20 (names). 88 2011: 9ff. 89 2011: 13.

540 | Later Hexaplaric Transmission

haps the most effective means of delineating Jacob’s GPent MSS, particularly in a book like Num which contains so many proper names.90 My most thoroughgoing work on JRec thus far, beyond JPent’s μόνονpassages analyzed here, has been on JDan. Unlike the situation for JPent, where G recensional development is limited, and for JSam, where SH survives in fragments, the textual circumstances for Daniel more easily permit firmer textual analysis due to the recensional development of G MSS, i.e., two different Greek versions, the OG/LXX and “Theodotion,” as well as SH’s having survived wholly intact. Furthermore, Lucianic MSS transmit the “Theodotion” version found the in the vast majority of GDan MSS. After collating the JDan MS against all known G and P witnesses, I confirmed each of the findings previously noted by Saley and Salvesen in their work on JSam: P was Jacob’s base; Lucianic readings are easily found;91 his blending method shows no real predictable pattern;92 and lesser known proper names are often Greek-based.93 Moreover, PDan was not only blended with Theod. Dan, the overwhelmingly best attested Greek version, but Jacob also utilized OG Dan, known from very few witnesses, one of which is SH. Additionally, two of Jacob’s known Danielic scholia indicate that he used more than one MS for both the OG94 and Theod.95 versions, a fact bore out by textual analysis. In particular, I argued JDan may be used for reconstructing lost G variants from both Theodotion96 and the OG97 MS traditions. The scholion concerning the latter is crucial as it implies that Jacob actively used at least one further OG Dan MS—in Greek—in addition to SH itself.98 These investigations into JRec, especially the conclusion that Jacob intentionally employed multiple, diverse textual traditions which at times disagree with each other, naturally leads to the question of Jacob’s purpose. Why did he do this, and what was his objective? While Saley’s suggestion of a new “authorized” version is improbable, his notion of “giving space” is worth further reflec-

|| 90 2011: 20 and 24. 91 2019: 210–15. 92 2019: 71–73; 2019: 200–01. 93 2019: 88, n. 73; 2019: 204 (with n. 22), 211, 214. 94 2019: 74. 95 2019: 202. 96 2019: 205–10; 212–15 (specifically Luc.). 97 2019: 82–103 (including chapter order). 98 See the scholion (2019: 74) where an exclusively OG reading is described as ‫ܒ ̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫̈ܐ‬ “in some exemplars.” Note also that of all readings where JDanmg = OG reproduce SH verbatim (see pp. 76–77), save one exceptional case I argue reflects a lost, variant OG tradition. This, in addition to the μόνον-passages, confirms that Jacob actively used SH in JRec.

Jacob of Edessa’s Recension | 541

tion. Simply put, Jacob, whether through annotated Greek MSS (hexaplaric or not) or SH, had access to a cacophony of various readings (i.e., the recentiores) which he could have added to his edited P base. However, the vast majority of these were not utilized.99 Furthermore, outside of the exceptional (and very inconsistent) application of text-critical sigla to the Samaritan readings, Jacob very rarely labeled his sources.100 Yet, in light of the sigla familiar to the Syriac Orthodox world via SH and Hark, he certainly could have labeled his sources. But, assuming the MSS we have represent his final product,101 his text is almost entirely unmarked. And even those attribution scholia attached to the Samaritan passages (again inconsistently) could be variously interpreted. Perhaps these portions were labeled and thus differentiated only as a way of clarifying that he had not interpolated the more familiar collective reading(s) of P and G without textual authorization—in other words, the attributions confirmed to the reader that these edits were not his own whole cloth creation but based on a reliable text whose authority he (and they?) accepted—in other words, they explained rather than excused them. Taken “as is,” the condition of JRec suggests that Jacob wanted his version to be read as a unified whole without readers constantly wondering from where a given reading had come. When I first studied JNum, discerning what Jacob was trying to accomplish with JRec proved most difficult. I posited that Jacob’s Bible was “an exegetically guided tour of both P and G readings.”102 This view comports very well with Saley’s notion of “giving [textual] space” and Salvesen’s dual emphasis on pedagogy and the reconciling of traditions. However, it must be emphasized that in light of all the diversity of versions then available to him, the fact that he selected some but not others should always be kept in mind. There must have been a reason behind these decisions. In my study of the OG readings in JDan, I hypothesized that Jacob’s incorporation of OG traditions was specifically motived by historical concerns. Viz., the OG tradition supplied details of realia historica for the stories unattested in the other sources he used; thus, in light of the overall historical presentation of JDan (i.e., the MS is supplied with many historically-themed scholia), he must have believed that these readings were “accurate.”103 I would posit that all of JRec may be read in this way: Adoption of a

|| 99 Rightly emphasized by Salvesen (2015: 338, n. 45). 100 Marsh 2019: 82, n. 55; Salvesen 2015: 337, n. 41. 101 Salvesen suggests that perhaps Jacob’s autograph is not completely represented by the extant MSS (2015: 338). Ultimately, we can only examine what we have. 102 2010: 49. 103 2019: 103.

542 | Later Hexaplaric Transmission

given reading in JRec implies approval, marginal readings included. Thus, JRec represents Jacob’s own “guided tour” of the many, diverse textual traditions which were flooding the Syriac Orthodox world after Paul of Tella’s translation made so many such readings available to his co-religionists, especially for those who did not know Greek. In this sense, Jacob only “gave space” (à la Saley) to those readings he believed were acceptable for the teaching of Scripture (Salvesen). If this theory of JRec’s purpose is satisfactory, then one may very well be able to infer Jacob’s opinion of a given reading if he did not adopt it, assuming it can be established that it is likely he encountered said reading.104 Clearly, such an interpretation of Jacob’s purpose is highly suggestive for his adoption of so many Samaritan passages.

5.2.2 Jacob’s Editorial Method and View of the μόνον-Readings In light of the forgoing, when discussing Jacob’s editorial methodology vis-à-vis his recension’s witness to the μόνον-collation, it is appropriate to discuss first the pertinent colophons for JExod, JNum, and JDeut. That for JNum is the most legible (fol. 339‫)ܒ‬:

‫̇ܗܝ‬ ‫ܐ‬

‫̈ܪ ܐ ܘ‬ ‫ܕ ܬ‬ ‫̇ܗܝ‬ ‫ܬܐ܇‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕܐܘܪܗܝ܇‬ .‫ܡ܇ ܒ ܐ ܪܒ ܐ ܕܬ ܐ‬

̈

‫ܬ̈ܪܬ‬ ‫ܪܨ ܕ‬ ... ‫ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ ܬ ̈ ܐ܇‬ ‫ܣ ̇ ܐ ܕ ̈ ܐ܇ ܒ ܚ ܬ‬ ‫ܕ‬

[The Book of Numbers is ended … 105]; now it was emended (based on) two εκδοσεις, namely, that of the Syrians [= P] and that of the Greeks [= G], by Pious (or: Holy) Jacob bishop of Edessa, (in) the year 1016 of Seleucus king of the Greeks, in the month (of) Earlier Teshrin [= Oct 704 CE] in the Great Monastery of Tell ʿAda.

|| 104 For example, as it is clear that Luc. readings were employed in both JSam and JDan, one could then easily argue that he used Luc. MSS for 1–2 Kgs. What would Jacob have done with the reading και ηνδρισατο επι το παιδαριον at 2 Kgs 4.35 in MSS boc2e2 (see Br.-M. ad loc)? (For the obscene sense, see LSJ s.v., III, 1; cp. BrillDAG, s.v., 2, where the reference in Dio Cassius is somewhat masked.) Would he have adopted, and perhaps rationalized, the reading based on the authority of “Lucian,” or would Jacob have utterly rejected it, passing it over in light of any perceived sexual impropriety? 105 The subscription was written after the scribal “The Book of Numbers is ended” notice, of which only bits are visible. After the subscription, a few lines further down, there are the remains of the Gloria Patri: . ‫ ܐ‬... ‫ܐ ܗ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ ܘ ܐ‬.... Similar doxologies are legible after the JGen (fol. 102‫ )ܒ‬and JLev (fol. 248‫ )ܒ‬subscriptions.

Jacob of Edessa’s Recension | 543

Insofar as can be surmised from the extant, relevant colophons, the same basic message is communicated: Jacob edited his text from two sources, specifically P, his base, and the Greek Bible—no mention is made of SP whatsoever.106 However, the sheer number of integrated passages in JPent, 27 or 28 depending on how one counts them (→ Table 5.2.3.1), might well lead to the assumption that a scribe might observe this in at least one of the subscriptions. This expectation could even be reinforced based on the JSam colophon’s (→ §5.2.1, Salvesen) ̈ reference to the “different εκδοσεις,” viz. ‫ܐ‬ ‫̈ ܬܐ‬ , specifying ̈ 107 more than one Greek tradition, i.e., ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܗ ܕ ܬ‬. On the other hand, the colophon to JDan (BnF 27B, fol. 148a) defies this expectation, reading like those in JPent:

‫̇ܗܝ ܕ ܬ‬

‫̈ ̇ܐ ܘ‬

‫ܕ ܬ‬

݀ ‫ܗܝ‬

̣ :‫̣ ܬܐ‬

̈

‫ܬ̈ܪܬ‬

‫̣ ܪܨ ܕ‬ ... ‫̈ܪ ̇ܐ‬

Now [JDan] was emended (using) two εκδοσεις, namely, that of the Greeks, and that of the Syrians …

As outlined above, preliminary textual analysis on JDan’s textual character reveals that Jacob consciously used not only the most common Greek version, the so-called θ΄-Dan, but also the much scarcer (in terms of the MSS) LXX/OGDan, to which SH belongs—these being two clearly differentiated versions of the book, even in Antiquity.108 Furthermore, Jacob likely used more than one MS of each—in addition to SH—in the process of his revision.109 Nevertheless, the JDan subscription gives no indication of the use of such varied sources. One should not then expect a detailed description of Jacob’s diverse sources in the JRec subscriptions. Accordingly, nothing can or should be inferred from the colophons’ ostensible “failure” to mention his use of SP (even if via SH) as a source. The other element worth underscoring vis-à-vis JPent’s witness to the hexaplaric, Samaritan passages is that Jacob integrated these into his recensional amalgam using the same technique he employed with his other sources. That he

|| 106 This is evident from that here and what I can read from the subscriptions for JExod (fol. 188‫ )ܒ‬and JDeut (fol. 403‫ )ܒ‬in my black and white photos. JDeut’s, which is the more legible of the two, only indicates a single source each for the Greeks and Syrians (in that order). As there was no μόνον-collation for Lev (→ §1.3.2.2) and, apparently, none extant for Gen (→ EXCURSUS D), the colophons for JGen and JLev can hardly be expected to mention this. 107 See above discussion. 108 Note, e.g., the well-known comments by Origen, Jerome, etc, in any critical, historical commentary. 109 See above review for literature.

544 | Later Hexaplaric Transmission

“revised” or “mixed” SP (via SH) with the relevant P parallels then does not indicate he believed the text was “wrong” somehow or in need of improvement—he did the exact same thing with P and G throughout all of JRec. As such, one might arrive at more secure conclusions as to his view of SP by comparison. In fact, the sometime Edessene bishop had a rather high view of both P and G. For the former, later Syriac tradition states that Jacob held the view that P was a product of the post-Ascension, Apostolic mission in King Abgar’s Edessa.110 As for the latter, direct testimony from Jacob’s own Scholion on the Divine Name (→ EXCURSUS C) indicates that he held to the Aristeas Legend, though apparently not the version in which the Hebrew wise men were divinely inspired.111 It is beyond doubt that Jacob held both in very high regard. That these two principle sources served as the legs upon which JRec stood itself suggests he held them in high esteem. Therefore, his purposeful addition of still yet another ἔκδοσις of Scripture—at times acknowledged by name—speaks to his view of this source. The number of passages he included and the effort he expended in their integration leads one to the conclusion that this was a precious source—perhaps even being “on par” with the others (with text-canonical implications?), at least in terms of a “guided tour” interpretation of his recension’s aim. Based on the amount he included from what was available to him (via SH), his view of SP’s value should not be underestimated. In light of the high view Jacob had of SP, and the textual emendation he enacted at JDeut 27.4 (→ §4.3.3), one might briefly speculate how JJosh 8.30–35 read.112 In the review of evidence for Jacob’s Gerizim scholion cited above, two slightly different scholia were supplied from CatSev, one at (Ps.-)Ephrem’s Comm. on Deut and the other at (Ps.-)Ephrem’s Comm. on Josh. The latter is clearly presented with PJosh 8 in view, whereas the former scholion makes no mention of Joshua whatsoever being written from the perspective of Deut. This subtle dis-

|| 110 For a review and historical analysis of the Abgar legend, which oddly does not mention the translation of the OT into Syriac, at least in the Syriac Teaching of Addai, see D. Taylor’s survey of scholarship (2019: 72–79, 83). See also the relevant articles in GEDSH. 111 For references to the evidence, see Marsh 2019: 207, with notes. On the various forms of this legend, at least as old as Philo (d. ca. 50 CE; Moses 2.36–37), and later propounded by many Christians such as Irenaeus and Epiphanius (the latter of whom was popular in Syriac circles), see literature mentioned below (→ §6.2.3). For the wider currency of this view in Jewish circles, see the work by A. Wasserstein and D. Wasserstein 2006. 112 Though there is no MS evidence for JJosh, it surely existed. After all, Jacob bothered to edit JWis, even when he expressly denied its canonicity. (On which, see Van Rompay’s forthcoming survey.) That he would have expended energy on Wis but not Josh, while the latter’s place in the Syriac canon was unquestioned, defies logic.

Jacob of Edessa’s Recension | 545

tinction could imply that perhaps JJosh had been emended to read in agreement with SP, and that perhaps Jacob supplied an explanation to such a radical emendation in JJosh as he had in JDeut.113 If this reconstruction is correct, then Jacob would have emended his text three times in favor of Gerizim as the place the altar was to be built, namely JExod 20.17‫ג‬, JDeut 27.4, and JJosh 8.30, each based principally on the authority of SP.114 Whether the argument concerning JJosh is accepted or not,115 it is clear that Jacob of Edessa had a high view of SP and its textual value. It is then unsurprising that so many of these passages were adopted into his recension. In light of Jacob’s above-elaborated editorial intent (“guided tour” → §5.2.1), he obviously approved of these Samaritan passages. And the scholion at JDeut 27.4 clearly communicates a belief that the Samaritan exemplar could at times read more accurately than others.

|| 113 Jacob appears to have changed his mind vis-à-vis Josh, as a note in the Comm. on Josh attributed to him in the CatSev ad loc (fol. 66a) suggests:

‫ܐ‬

‫ܕ‬

‫ܪܐ ܕܓܒ ܆ ܐ ܘܗܝ ܨ ܐ ܕ‬

‫ܒ ܐ ܒ‬

‫̈ܐ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܥ‬ ‫ܒܐ ܕ ܐ ܀‬

‫ܓܐ ܕ ܒ‬ ‫ܒ ܪܐܙ ܐ‬

‫ܕ‬

“The copy which Joshua wrote upon the stones of the altar on Mt. Gebal is that copy (or: book) of the Law of the Lord which is mystically written upon an innocent heart.” Mystical interpretation notwithstanding, here he adhered to PJosh in reading (G)Ebal. Note that JRec was created but a few years before Jacob died in 708 CE. 114 I say “principally” in that his scholion at JDeut also cites the internal logic of having the altar on Gerizim where the blessings were said. However, as the scholia from Ishoʿdad and Barhebraeus indicate, this “logic” could be construed differently (→ §4.3.3). 115 One could argue that JJosh retained (G)Ebal, to which Jacob added a note explaining that “Gerizim” was nonetheless the correct reading. By way of analogy, Jacob appended a note to JDan 1.21 correcting (or contradicting?) the text in question (BnF 27B, fol. 96b):

‫ ܀‬.‫ܐ‬

‫ܐܕ‬

̇ ‫ܐ ܕ ܪܫ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܘܗܘܐ ܕ ܐ ܆‬ ̣

[lemma] And Daniel continued until the first year of Cyrus, king of the Persians.

‫ܬܐ܆ ܐ ̣ܐ ܐܦ‬

‫ܒܒ‬

‫ ܓ ܘ ̈ ܗܝ ܕܕ ܐ‬.‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ܀‬ ‫ܐ ܕܐ̈ܪܒ ܐ ܕ‬

‫ܐܕ‬ ̇ ‫܇‬

̇ ‫ܐ ܒ ܐ ܕ ܪܫ‬ ‫ܒ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ ܒ ܐ ܕܕܐܪ ܫ ܒ ܐܘ‬

[scholion in mg] Daniel’s life in the palace continued not only up to the time of King Cyrus of the Persians but further on during the time of Darius, son of Vishtaspa, the fourth king of the Persians. For discussion, see Marsh 2019: 96–97.

546 | Later Hexaplaric Transmission

5.2.3 The μόνον-data in JPent: A Selection of Materials While the whole of the μόνον-data from JDeut has already been presented and analyzed in full above (→ §§4.3.1–4.3.3), this section is less exhaustive, reviewing a smaller, representative selection. The present specimens116 from JExod and JNum serve to support the present analysis in addition to the comments included in the examination of SH Exod and Num. Adoption and Attribution Observe the following table detailing the data from both JExod and JNum (cp. also Tables 2.3 and 3.3): Table 5.2.3.1: μόνον-Passages in JExod and JNum

μόνον-Passage

JExod

Notes

μόνον-Passage

JNum

Notes

Exod 6.9‫א‬

fol. 119‫ܒ–ܐ‬+

sub ÷

Num 10.10‫ג–א‬

fol. 276‫ܐ‬+

sub ÷

Exod 7.18‫ג–א‬

122‫ܒ‬

sub ÷

Num 13.1‫ד–א‬

281‫–ܒ‬282‫ܐ‬+ sub ÷

Ex 7.29(8.4)‫ד–א‬

123‫–ܒ‬124‫ܐ‬+ sub ÷

Num 13.33‫ו–א‬

284‫ܒ–ܐ‬+

sub ÷

Exod 8.1(5)‫א‬

>

intent. om. Num 14.40‫א‬

>

lac.

Exod 8.5(9)‫א‬

>

intent. om. Num 14.45‫א‬

>

lac.

Ex 8.19(23)‫ד–א‬

125‫*ܒ‬

txt abbr.

Num 20.13‫ט–א‬

300‫–ܐ‬301‫ܐ‬+ sub ÷

Exod 9.5‫ה–א‬

126‫*ܒ‬

txt abbr.

Num 21.11‫א‬

303‫*ܐ‬

Exod 9.19‫ז–א‬

128‫*ܐ‬

txt abbr.

Num 21.12‫–ג–א‬13a

303‫*ܒ–ܐ‬

sub ÷

Exod 10.(2)2‫ד–א‬

129‫*ܐ‬

trace only

Num 21.20‫ב–א‬

304‫ܐ‬+

sub ÷

Ex 11.3–3‫–א‬4‫–א‬4 132‫*ܒ‬

trace only

Num 21.(22+)22‫ב–א‬

304‫ܒ–ܐ‬+

sub ÷

Num 21.23‫א‬

304‫*ܒ‬

sub ÷

304‫*ܒ‬

sub ÷

>

?

326‫*ܒ–ܐ‬

sub ÷

+

Exod 18.24‫ו–א‬ Ex 18.25–25‫ג–א‬

145‫–ܒ‬146‫ *ܐ‬sub ÷

Exod 20.17‫ו–א‬

149‫*ܐ‬

s nom s sig Num 21.24+

Exod 20.19‫ד–א‬

149‫*ܒ‬

s nom s sig Num 27.23‫ב–א‬

Exod 20.21‫ט–א‬

149‫–ܒ‬150‫ *ܒ‬s nom s sig Num 31.20‫ד–א‬

sub ÷

N.B.: + = explicitly attributed; * = lack attrib.; bold > JPent; all readings in-text)

The data summarized in Table 5.2.3.1 prompts a number of comments:

|| 116 For a couple more such specimens not reviewed here, see my forthcoming “The ‘Afterlife’ of Hexaplaric Samaritan Readings.”

Jacob of Edessa’s Recension | 547

First, disregarding cases of lacuna (i.e., those in Num 14), each μόνονreading transmitted by SH Exod and Num is also represented (in some form) in JExod and JNum, save Exod 8.1(5)‫א‬, 8.5(9)‫א‬, and Num 27.23‫ב–א‬. The first two of these were presumably omitted due to their very brief, repetitive nature in combination with the close proximity of the parallel to the reading in question.117 The abbreviated representations Jacob composed for the three readings following (→ EXCURSUS B) tend towards this as is a probable explanation as do the trace readings found for both Exod 10.(2)2‫ ד–א‬and 11.3–3‫–א‬4‫–א‬4 (see below presentation and analysis). What led to the omission of Num 27.23‫ ב–א‬is unknown. In light of his otherwise assiduous inclusion of even the smallest μόνον-datum in Num (e.g., JNum 21.24+), one could suggest that it was missing from his exemplar(s) of SH Num. Second, Jacob made no effort to label or otherwise signal every passage. The uneven way in which these readings were designated, however, should not militate against their profile or source. As the above analysis of μόνον-data in SH Num shows, he clearly had taken these from SH; and while his own attributions are far from verbatim representations, he did make an effort to transmit at least the relevant information transmitted therein (e.g. → §3.3.3 at Num 13.1‫ד–א‬, attribution). The extant JExod/JNum attributions, save that shared by Num 21.20‫ ב–א‬and 21.(22+)22‫( ב–א‬examined below) are as follows: Table 5.2.3.2: μόνον-attributions in Jacob and SH (Exod and Num only)

JExod / JNum

‫ܐܒ ܕ‬ ‫ ܗ ܒ ̇ ܝ ܕ‬Exod 6.9 ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܐܦ ̣ܗܘ‬ ‫̈ ܬ‬ : ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܐܕ‬ ‫ܒ ܪ‬ ̇‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ ܗܘܐ ܗܕܐ‬. ‫ܐ ܗ ܐ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ̇ : ‫ܒ ܪ‬ ‫ܢ ̇ܗܝ ܕܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫̈ܪ ܆‬ ‫ܚ‬ ‫ܕ ܒ ܩ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܐܦ ܗ ܒ ̇ ܝ ܕ‬Exod 7.18 ̈ ‫ܒ ܕ‬ . .. ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܐܦ ܗ ܒ ̇ ܝ ܕ‬Exod 7.29 ̈ ‫ܒ ܕ‬ : ‫ܐ ̇ܗܘ‬ ‫ ܗ ܒ‬Num 10.10 ‫⟩ ⟨ܕ‬ ‫̈ܒ ܆‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬

SH Exod / SH Num

‫ܒ ܕܒ̇ܝܕ‬ ‫̈ ܬ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐܒ ܪ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ‫ ܐ‬. ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܐ ̇ܗܝ‬ ‫̇ ܗܘܬ‬ ‫ܗܘܐ ܗܕܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܩ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܬܟ ܒ ܪ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ ܘܗ ܕ ܐ ܀‬. ̈ ‫ܐܒ ܕ‬ ‫ܗ ܒ̇ܝܕ‬ .‫ܐ‬

̈ ‫ܬ‬

. ‫ܐ‬

‫ܕ‬

‫ܐܒ‬

‫ܐ ܐܬܬ‬ ‫ܕ‬

‫ܒ ܝܕ‬

‫܀ܗ‬

‫ܨ ܐܕ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ̈ ‫]ܐܬܬ‬ .[

|| 117 This argument is particularly meaningful for that at 8.5(9)‫ א‬since Jacob’s regular blend of P and G makes the reading mostly redundant.

548 | Later Hexaplaric Transmission

JExod / JNum

.‫ܐ‬

SH Exod / SH Num ⟨ ⟩‫ܕ‬

‫ܐܒ‬

‫ܘ‬

‫ ⟩ܘ ̈ܐܦ ⟨ ܗ‬Num 13.1 (→ §3.3.3) ⟨ ‫ܒ‬ ⟩‫ܕ‬ ‫ܐ⟨ ܒ‬ ‫ܒ ̇ ܘ ⟩ܕ‬

118

‫ܐ‬

‫ܒ̇ܘܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬

‫ ܘ ܐܦ ܗ‬Num ̈ 13.33 ‫ܒ ܘ ܐܦ ܒ‬ ‫ܒ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬

‫ ܘ ܐܦ‬Num 20.13 = 21.20 & 21.22119 ̈ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܐܒ ܕ‬ ‫ܗ ܆ܒ ̇ܘ ܕ‬

‫ܢ‬

‫ܕܐ‬

̇

‫ܐܐ‬

‫ܒ‬ ‫ܐ܀‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫܀ ܘܗ ̇ ܒ ܕ ܒ ܒ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ ܐܦ‬ . ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ ܕܗܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܐ ܢ܀‬ ̈ . ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܗ ܒ ܕ ܒ ̇ ܘ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ܆ ܒ‬ ‫ܕ ܕ ܐܦ‬ ‫ܐ܀‬ ‫ܕܬ‬ ̈ ̇ . ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܗ ܒ ܕܒ ܝܕ‬ ‫ܐ܀‬ ‫ܐܒ ܪ‬ ‫ܕ‬

Leaving aside the matter of punctuation and word order, the combined testimony of Jacob’s attributions make it clear that those in SH served as his models. In addition to the relative semantic nearness, the consistency in alterations spring from the same mind. The majority of changes (set in boxes) are affected ( ‫ ܒ ܪ‬:: ‫)ܒ ܪ‬, basically meaningless (-‫ ܒ‬:: ), explicative (+ ‫ ܘܐܦ‬and + ‫)ܗ ܐ‬, ̈ ̈ :: implied (‫ܢ‬ :: ‫ܐ‬ ), or fundamentally synonymous ( ‫ܬ‬ | ‫̈ܒ‬ ‫⟩ ⟨ ܕ‬ :: ‫ܕ | ܐܬܬ‬ :: ‫ܕ‬ ). In other words, the variations of JPent’s attributions in comparison with their source are textually meaningless and ought not be to be used to establish variants to extant SH MSS.120 Third, since the sole surviving MS of JPent is not the autograph, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions about the inconsistency of readings being either attributed or marked with the lemniscus ÷ or not.121 Presumably, he had marked || 118 Reconstructed based on the fuller, identical attribution at JNum 20.13‫ט–א‬. Space permits the reconstruction; some letters are visible though faint. 119 The attributions for the Samaritan passages at JNum 20.13‫ט–א‬, 21.20‫ב–א‬, and 21.(22+)22‫ ב–א‬read exactly the same. However, while that at 20.13 compares to SH as above, the latter two (which appear to share one attribution written in the margin near both; see below) cannot compare philologically due to the shortened attribution at SH Num 21.20‫§ →( ב–א‬3.3.1). 120 The only reading in Jacob’s attributions of textual value is his citation of the people’s putative words in Exod 14.12 found cited in the attribution to Exod 6.9‫א‬. Jacob of course recognized this and formulated his text according to his usual procedure, blending his source with PExod 14.12. Compare those elements blocked in grey with PExod ad loc:

‫̈ܪ ܐ‬

‫ܚ‬

‫ܕ‬

‫ܕ ܒ‬. ‫ܪ‬

‫ܒ‬

‫ܢ ܗܘ‬

‫ܓ ܐ ܕܐ‬

‫ܐ ܗܘܐ ܗ ܐ‬

‫ ܕܐ‬8b1 9l6 ‫ > ]ܗܘ‬5b1 ‫ܚ‬ ‫ܚ ]ܕ‬ 7a1. P variants: ‫]ܕܐ ܢ‬ 121 Jacob’s use of the lemniscus should not be interpreted as complying with its common, hexaplaric usage—unless of course, it was meant to indicate he had taken this from a “Greek(based)” source, i.e., SH. However, any such markings, which are themselves absent from some

Jacob of Edessa’s Recension | 549

(and attributed?) each of these readings in full, as most of his readers could hardly be assumed to know their source. Still, JRec throughout is almost entirely free of source-critical sigla, and Jacob made little to no effort to designate his sources,122 aside from a very few marginal scholia which do label them,123 one of which is found at JDeut 27.4. Ultimately firm conclusions are difficult to draw absent an explanation from his own hand. Fourth, as noted above, the sheer number of passages Jacob integrated indicates he held these readings in high regard (→ §5.2.2). When compared with later witnesses and MS sources which integrated these readings, JPent unquestionably preserved the most; so much so, that his witness can reliably be used to reconstruct, as above, the μόνον-collation for (SH) Deut which unfortunately suffered a great deal in transmission (→ §4). Select Readings with Analysis Here, a representative sample of μόνον-passages from JExod and JNum are given with annotated124 ETs and analysis. Those chosen are JExod 7.29(8.4)‫ד–א‬, 10.(2)3–6, 11.3–7, JNum 21.20‫ב–א‬, and 21.22+, 22‫ב–א‬. JExod 7.29(8.4)‫ד–א‬: Text and translation BnF Syr. 26 (fols. 123‫ – ܒ‬124‫ ܐ‬integrated, sub ÷)

‫ܐ܇ ̇ ܪ‬ ‫ ܗ ܐ ܐ‬. ‫ܢ ܘܐ ̣ ܘ‬ ‫ܐ ܘܐܗܪܘܢ ܬ‬ ‫ܐܙ‬ ̣ ‫ ܘ‬29‫א‬ ‫ܪܘ܆ ܗܐ ܐ ܐ ̇ ܐ ̈ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ̇ܨܒܐ ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬29‫ ב‬. ‫ܕ‬ ̣ ‫ ̈ܘ ̣ ܒ ܟ ܘ ̈ܘ ܐ‬. ̈ ̣ ‫ ܘ ̈ܓ ̣ ܐ ܪܐ ܐܘ̈ܪܕ ܐ܆ ܘ‬29‫ ג‬.‫ܒܐܘ̈ܪܕ ܐ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ̈ ‫ ܘ ܒ ܐ ܕ ܒ‬.‫ܟ‬ ̈ 29‫ ד‬. ‫ܘܒ‬ ‫܆ ܘܒ ̈ܪ‬ ‫ܘܕ‬ ‫̈ ̣ ܘ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ̣ ̈ ‫ܐ̈ܪ ܘ ܒ‬ ‫̇ ܐܘ̈ܪܕ ܐ ܀‬ ‫ܘ‬. ‫̇ ܘ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ̣ ̈ ‫ ܒ ܕ‬.. ‫ܐ‬ : ‫ ܘܐܦ ܗ ܒ ̇ ܝ ܕ‬Attrib. SH (→ §2.3.1)

‫ܪ‬

.

‫ܐ‬

‫ ܗ‬.‫ܬܗ‬

‫ܢܘ‬

‫ܬ‬

‫ܐ ܘܐܗܪܘܢ‬

‫ ܘ‬29‫א‬

|| of the more substantial readings (e.g., JExod 20) are not duplicated for any other readings which come from G MSS. They should then probably be interpreted as a “nota bene” indicating something unexpected or otherwise special has been adopted. 122 Jacob could have done so, as Thomas of Harkel did for his NT. On Harkel’s adaptation of the hexaplaric sigla for his own purposes, see Juckel, “Ḥarqlean Version,” GEDSH. 123 On this issue, see n. 100 above, and Marsh, “Margins,” forthcoming. 124 These are based on my above-supplied ETs of the passages in SH. Of those regular alterations Jacob made to his SH base (→ §4.3.1), the conversions of - ‫ ܕ‬to the simple, suffixed proto ‫ܐ‬ are also unshaded. nominal are unmarked. Similarly conversion of

550 | Later Hexaplaric Transmission

‫ ܗܐ ܐ ܐ‬.‫ܪܘ‬ ‫ ܐܢ ܕ ܐ ܒ ܐ ܐ‬29‫ ב‬. ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܐ ܐܕ‬. ‫ܐܕ‬ .‫ ܘ ܓ ܐ ܗܘ ܪܐ ̈ ܐܘ̈ܪܕ ܐ‬29‫ ג‬.‫ܒܐܘ̈ܪܕ ܐ‬ ‫ܘܢ ܬ ̈ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܐܐܐ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܘܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܐܕ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܘ ̈ܘ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܒ ܐܕ‬ . ‫ܘ‬ ̈ ‫ܐܕ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ ܘ‬29‫ד‬ ‫ܘܒ ̈ܪ ܘܒ ̈ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܘܕ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ̈ ↘ .‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐܘ̈ܪܕ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ̈ . ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܐܒ ܕ‬ ‫ ܀ ܗ ܒ ܝ ܕ‬Attrib. ‫ܪܘ‬

]+

̈ SHV ‫ܘܘ ܐ ]ܘ ̈ܘ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ‬SHV

‫ܐܕ‬

PExod 7.26–29

‫ܪ‬

.‫ܐ‬

‫ܗ ܐܐ‬. ‫ܢ ܘܐ‬ ‫ ܙܠ ܬ‬.‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܐܐܐ‬ ‫ ܗܐ‬.‫ܪܘ‬ ‫ ܘܐ ܐ ܨܒܐ ܐ‬27 . ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܘܒ‬. ‫ ܘ ̈ ܘ ̈ ̈ ܒ ܟ ܘ‬.‫ܪܐ ܐܘ̈ܪܕ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ‬28 .‫ܒܐܘ̈ܪܕ ܐ‬ ̈ ‫ ܘܒ‬29 .‫ܘܒܐܨܘܬܟ‬ ‫ ܘܒ ܐܘ‬. ‫ܘܒ‬ ‫̈ܒ‬ ‫ ܘܒܒ‬.‫ܟ‬ ‫ܒ ܘ‬ ‫ܘܒ‬ .‫̈ ܐܘ̈ܪܕ ܐ‬ ‫ܬ‬

29‫ א‬And a-they went, Moses and Aaron,-a to Pharaoh, and they saidb to[l-]c him: “Thus [hknʾ]d says the Lorde: ‘Send away my people that they[sg.]f might worship [l-]me. 29‫ ב‬Yet if you are not wantingg to send (them) away; behold I myself will strike all your boarderh with frogs. 29‫ ג‬And the river shall puke out frogs. And ithey will go up andi they will enter your houses, and your innermost-rooms, and upon your beds, and [l-]in the houses [d-]of your servantsj, and of your people, and in your baking ovens, and in your dough (lumps). 29‫ ד‬And the frogs shall come up upon you and upon your people, kand upon your nobles,k and (upon) your servantsj.’ ” Attribution: And also this is only extant in the [edition] of the Samaritans. a–a SH: Moses entered, and Aaron, b SH: spoke c SH: lwt- d SH: these (hlyn) e SH: ΠΙΠΙ f SH: pl. g SH: (un)willing h SH: pl. i–i SH: going up, (they will enter) j SH: attendants/servants (mnyḥnyk; see note) k–k > SH Attribution: And also: > SH extant: transmitted SH

JExod 7.29(8.4)‫ד–א‬: As can be seen from the marked transcriptions and annotated ET, Jacob took the SH passage and blended it, both terminologically and grammatically, with the P parallel. Those bits of text blocked in grey are taken specifically from P, with the corresponding text similarly blocked. Those parts of the passage blocked white on black are specifically taken from SH and cannot have been taken from the P parallel. Those parts in the ET in bold are from SH, while the same in italics are from P. The more complicated editorial interferences are underlined. The special boxed portions, marking parts where Jacob either took liberties with his source(s) or reflects something no longer extant, are discussed below. Given the septuagintism of the μόνον-translation, Ceriani’s

Jacob of Edessa’s Recension | 551

suggestion that Jacob could have at least looked at the G parallel,125 which he had just used in constructing JExod 7.26–29, is plausible. However, in light of the overall witness of his Samaritan passages, the G parallel had at most a secondary influence, if any at all. JExod 7.29‫א‬: JExod’s ‫ܘܐܗܪܘܢ‬, much like SH, shows that the reading is truly Samaritan as it is missing from the P and G parallels. JExod 7.29‫–א‬29‫ג‬: Jacob’s passage reflects a regular mixture of the SH passage and the P parallel. For the former, see above (→ §2.3.1). Of note is Jacob’s adoption of ‫“ ܘ ܓ ܐ‬And the river shall puke out frogs,” something he adopted (though there via GExod) at his own parallel in JExod 7.28 combined with P: ‫“ ܘ ܓ ܐ ܘ‬and (the river) shall puke out and shall swarm…” (fol. 123‫)ܒ‬. Note also that Jacob preferred SH’s ‫“ ܬ ܪܐ‬oven” and ‫ܐ‬ “dough (lumps)” while the corresponding terms in P read, ‫“ ܬܐܘ ܐ‬inner room” and ‫ܐܨܘܬܐ‬ “kneading-trough”/“dough,” respectively. Perhaps Jacob appreciated the coupling of “oven” and “dough,” or felt P was somehow mistaken here. Note that at his own parallel, the list of frog-infested areas read as here, although he added ̈ on the end: ... ... “… and in your kneading-troughs and in ‫ܘܒܐܨܘܬܟ ܘܒܐܘܨ̈ܪ‬ your store(house)s … ,” thus adding the P element missing from the “Samaritan” listing, as well as supplying a G variant found in many MSS και εν τοις φρεασιν σου, specifically where it is located in CODEX A.126 ̈ ‫ܐ̈ܪ ܘ ܒ‬ JExod 7.29‫ד‬: The only complication in this verse is Jacob’s ̣ “(upon) your nobles and your servants.” As Ceriani pointed out, in JExod 7.29 ̈‫ܒ‬ proper it reads ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ …“ ܘ‬and upon you and upon your people and upon your servants,” the final phrase of which is missing from P and thus from G’s και επι τους θεραποντας (but JExod ≠ ‫̈ ܐܕ‬ SH).127 Ceriani held that ‫ ܐ̈ܪ‬was Jacob’s own terminological correction of SH’s ‫̈ ܐ‬ to which he also added his earlier rendering of θεραποντας (still SH’s underlying Greek) in v 29, resulting in a double translation.128 While this is a tempting resolution to his ostensibly anomalous ‫ ܐ̈ܪ‬, the word ‫ ܐ̈ܪ‬does not really mean

|| 125 1863: 164. 126 See Wevers’ AppI (at 8.3); note that the C tradition as well as CODEX Mmg also supply the reading. Clearly it had greater currency at some point. One might well argue, however, that its reflection in JExod does not necessarily say anything about its specific location in his source. Viz., it could easily have been marginal, and thus he was not really sure where to put it so he tacked it to the end of the verse. 127 Note JExod’s concord with the majority tradition’s transposition (see AppI ad loc). in nostra tantum versione occurentis, … pro 128 “… est correctio ex elegantia vocis ‫̈ ܐ‬ ̈ ‫ ܘ ܒ‬ex superiori textu [v. 29] retenta est, duplici θεραποντες, altera vero idem indicans inveta versione, ut alibi …” (1863: 164).

552 | Later Hexaplaric Transmission

‘servants’ or ‘attendants’, but specifically ‘nobles’ or ‘freeborn (persons of rank)’. Rather, based on how Jacob translated θεραποντας in v. 29, it is more ̈ ‫ ܘ ܒ‬here is Jacob’s blend, comprising of his own -‫ ܘ‬plus a conlikely that ̣ ̈ version of SH’s ‫̈ ܐ‬ to ‫ ܒ‬.129 As for ‫ ܐ̈ܪ‬, it should be remembered that PExod translated the Hebrew ‫ עבדיו‬from 7.10 as ‫“ ܐ̈ܪܘܗܝ‬his nobles.” Since the SP parallel here is meant to enumerate that the frogs will plague all Pharaoh’s retinue, it is reasonable to suppose that Jacob included PExod’s idiosyncratic translation from 7.10130 making ‫ ܐ̈ܪ‬here “from P” even if somewhat dislocated; most likely, this edit resulted from having read SH’s 7.29‫ ד‬through the lens of the P parallel at 7.29 reading ‫“ ܘܒ‬and against all of your people” including his “nobles.” While such textual relocations are not common in JRec, they do occur even if very infrequently.131 Attribution: For notes, see the discussion accompanying Table 5.2.3.2. JExod 10.(2)3–6: Text and translation BnF Syr. 26 (fols. 129‫ – ܒ‬130‫ ܐ‬integrated and unmarked)

‫ܐ‬

‫ܐܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬

̇ ‫ ܐ‬.‫ܢ܆ ܗ ܐ‬ ‫܆ܐ‬ ‫ ̇ ̣ܪ‬.

‫ܘ‬

‫ܬ‬

‫ ܘܐ‬3 ‫ ܀‬.‫ܢ‬ ‫ ܘܬܕ ܢ ܕܐ ܐ ܐ‬... ̇ ̣ ‫ܨܒܐ ܐ‬ ̇ ‫ܐ ܐ ܝ ܐ‬ .‫ܕ ܒ ܐ‬

|| 129 Note Jacob’s rendering of θεραποντας in v 29 supports this reconstruction. ... 130 It is further possible that Jacob’s P MSS read ‫ ܐ̈ܪ‬in 7.20, as JExod reads: ‫ܢ‬ ... ‫ܐ̈ܪܘܗܝ܆‬ ‫( ܘ‬fol. 123‫)ܐ‬. Of course, such an hypothesis is at this point a mere suggestion as complete critical work on JExod and its textual affiliations—both Greek and Syriac—can only be clarified with a complete study and proper edition. 131 One such example of a parallel textual “relocation” in JRec is found in JBel-Drag vv 22–23 reading (BnF 27B, fol. 137b):

‫ܕ ܐ‬ ̣

‫ܒ ܪ ܕ‬

̇ ‫ܘܗܘܐ‬ [23] [mg: ‫ܐ‬

] ‫ ܀ ܀‬.

... ̣ ̣ ‫ܘܬܒ ܗ ܕ ܐ ܆ ܘܗ‬ ... ‫ܒ ܆‬

And Daniel broke him (or: it) [sc. Bel/the idol] and overthrew his temple. [mg: CH. 11] [JBelDrag 23] And it happened after Daniel overthrew Bel … The example is instructive for Jacob’s editorial techniques. The first verb for the destruction of the idol was taken from καταστρεψε(ν) θ΄-OG-SH at v 22 itself. However, the second , though specifically coming from PBel 22, forms what is clearly a new section of text. Thus, Jacob selected the one verb ad loc and “moved” the other to different section, marked off by both a double påsôqå and a marginally signaled chapter division. He could have just as easily used both verbs in JBel 22 proper (thereby emphasizing the story’s anti-idolatry theme) but for whatever reason chose not to. Admittedly, I have not found many examples where Jacob uses this method of blending. However, the strength of both SHL and SHV at Exod 7.29‫ ד‬suggests that Jacob’s discernable techniques best explain the variation.

Jacob of Edessa’s Recension | 553

̇ ̇ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐܐܐ‬ ‫܆ ܗܐ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܪܘ‬ ‫ܨܒܐ ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬4 . ‫ܕ ̣ ܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܬ‬ ̇ ̈ ̇ ̇ ‫ ܘ ܐ ܐ‬5 ‫܆‬ ‫ܐ‬ ̣ ‫ܕܐܪ ܐ܆ ܘ ܐ ܬܬ ܐ‬ ̇ ̇ ‫ܢ ܒ ܕܐ܆ ܘ ܐ ܠ‬ ‫ܐ ܗܘ ܕ ̣ܒ‬ ‫ ܘ ܐ ܠ‬. ‫ܓ ܐܘܬܗ‬ ‫ܐܪ ܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܢ‬ ‫̈ ܐ ܕܐܪ ̈ ܐ ܘ‬ ̣ ‫ܘܢ ܐ ܐ ̈ ܕ ܐ̈ܪܐ ܗ ܕ‬ ̣ ‫ ܘ‬6 .‫ܢ ܒ ܐ‬ ̈ ‫܆‬ ‫ ܘ ܐܒ‬.‫ܘܡ‬ ‫ ܗܘ ܐ ܕ ܐ‬.‫܇ ܘܒ ܐ ܕ ܒ ܆ ܘ ܒ ܐ ܕ ̈ܪ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ̇ ‫ܐ ̇ܗܘ ܕܗܘܘ ܒ‬ .‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐܪ ܐ܇ ܘ‬ ‫ܘܐ ܐ ܐܒ ̈ ܐ ܕܐܒ ̈ ܇‬ . .‫ܢ‬ ‫ܡ‬ ̣ ‫ܘ‬ ̣ ‫܀ ܘܗ‬ ̇

SHL (→ §2.3.1)

.‫ܐ ܐ ܕ ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ ܗ ܐ‬.‫ܢ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ‫ ܘܬܐ‬2‫ א‬.‫ܢ‬ ‫ ܐ ܐ ܕ‬... 2 . ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܐܕ ܐ ܐܕ‬ ‫ ܪ‬. ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ ܝ ܐܒ ܐܐ‬ ‫ܐܐܐ‬ ‫ ܗܐ ܐ ܐ‬. ‫ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܪܘ‬ ‫ ܐܢ ܕ ܐ ܨܒܐ ܐ‬2‫ב‬ ‫ ܘ ܐ ܬܬ ܐ‬.‫ܕܐܪ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ ܐ ̈ܐ‬2‫ג‬ ‫ܬܘ ̈ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫̈ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ ܐ ܠ‬.‫ܢ ܒ ܕܐ‬ ‫ ܗܘ ܕ ܒ‬. ‫ܐ ܕܐ ܒ‬ ‫ ܘ ܐ ܠ‬.‫ܐܪ ܐ‬ ‫ܢܒ ܐܕ‬ ‫ ܘ‬2‫ ד‬.‫ܐܬܪܐ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܐܪܐ ܕ ܐ ܗܘ ܕ ܚ‬ ‫ܕܐܪ ܐ ܘ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܘܡ ܘ‬ ‫ܐܒ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܘ ܒ ܐ ܕ ̈ܪ ܐ ܗܘ ܐ ܕ ܐ‬ ‫̈ ܐܕ‬ ‫ܘܒ ܐ ܕ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܐܗܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐܪ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܗܘ ܕܗܘܘ‬ ‫ܘ ܐ ܐܒ ܐ ܕܐܒ ܐ ܕ‬ PExod 10.(2)3–6

.

‫ܘ‬

‫ܢ ܘܐ‬

‫ܐ ܘܐܗܪܘܢ ܬ‬ ‫ ܘܐܬܘ‬3 .‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܬܕ ܢ ܕܐ ܐ ܐ ܐ‬... ‫ܐ ܐ ܝ ܐ ܨܒܐ ܐ‬ .‫ܐ ܐ ܐ ܕ ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܗ ܐܐ‬. ‫ܐܐܐ‬ ‫ܗܐ‬ ‫ܪܘ‬ ‫ ܘܐ ܐ ܨܒܐ ܐ‬4 . ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܒ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ ܐ‬.‫ܕܐܪ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ ܐ‬5 . ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܢ ܐ ̈ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ ܐ ܠ‬.‫ܢ ̈ܒ ܕܐ‬ ‫ܐܕ‬ ‫ ܘ ܐ ܠ‬.‫ܐܪ ܐ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܕ ܒ‬ ‫ܘܢ ܕ ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܘܒ‬. ‫ܘܢ ܕ ̈ܒ‬ ‫ܘܒ‬ ‫ܢܒ‬ ‫ ܘ‬6 .‫ܢ ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ̈ ‫ܘܐܒ ܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܐܪ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕܗܘܘ‬ .‫ܗ ܐ‬ ‫ܕܐܒ‬ ‫ ܕ ܐ ܘ ̈ܐܒ‬.‫̈ܪ ܐ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܡ‬ ‫ ܘܗ‬.‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘ‬

‫( ܘܐ ܘ‬3)] ‫ܐ‬ 9l6

‫ ܘܐ‬8a1 ‫ܕ ܒ‬ ‫( ܕ‬5)] ‫ܒ‬ ‫ ܕ‬9l6 ‫ܡ ]ܕ‬ ] ‫ ܘ‬5b1 8a1c 10b1.2 12a1fam 12b1.2 ‫ܡ‬

‫ ܕ‬12b1 ‫ܐ‬ ‫( ܘ‬6)] ]‫ܬ‬ 7h13 9l6

2 … your God. 3/2‫ א‬And he (sc. Moses) said to Pharaoh: “Thusa says the Lordb the God of the Hebrews: ‘How long will you be unwilling [lʾ ṣbʾ]c to show me reverence! Send away my people so that [d-]they might worship [l-]me. 4/2‫ב‬ Yet if you refuse to send away my people, behold I myself will bring [l]tomorrow locust(s) upon your boarders. 5/2‫ ג‬And (they) shall cover the face of the land. And you will not be able to see the land dfrom their multitude.d And (they) shall eat all that remnant which the hail left behind to you. And (they) will eat eevery plante of the land and fall the fruit trees, thosef which sproutg for you in the field. 6/2‫ ד‬And they shall be filled, your houses and the houses of your servants [dʿbryk]h and iall the housesi of the Egyptians, (the likes of) which your fathers never saw nor your fathers’ fathers from the day they were din itd on the land and until this day.’” And they turned away and they went out from before Pharaoh. a

SH: these (lit.) b SH: ΠΙΠΙ c SH: lʾ bʿʾ d–d > SH e–e SH: all the plants (sic → §2.3.1 ad loc) f–f SH: every fruit of a tree g SH: sprouts (šwḥ) h SH: your attendants/servants (mnyḥnyk) i–i SH: every house

554 | Later Hexaplaric Transmission

JExod 10.(2)3–6: The passage in question is in fact a part of the regular P–G blend which comprises the whole of JRec. As such, it is neither marked with any sigla nor supplied with an attribution. Given the septuagintism of the original Caesarean translator(s), it is not always possible to differentiate which parts of the passage are from Jacob’s independent use of the GExod parallel as opposed to SH’s Samaritan passage. (Those parts where Jacob clearly rendered the former differently than the latter are blocked white on grey. In the ET bold represents SH/G, whether from the Samaritan passage or not.) Nevertheless, as the above marked transcriptions and annotated ET show, a number of undeniably Samaritan elements from the μόνον-excerpt in SH pepper Jacob’s scriptural ̈ amalgam (e.g., ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܐ‬, ‫ܘܐ‬, ‫ܐ ܕܐܪ ܐ‬ , ‫ܕ ܐ̈ܪܐ‬, and ‫ܒ ܐ‬ ‫)ܘ‬ which make it clear that he consciously integrated those parts which were distinctively—“only”—from SP. Lastly, there are a few readings, boxed above, apparently unique to JExod. JExod 10.(2)3: Both ‫ܢ‬ ‫ ܐ‬and ‫)ܘ(ܐ‬, come, via SHmg, from SP, the latter being an adaptation whereby Jacob takes the Lord’s instruction in SH ‫“ ܘܬܐ‬and you (sg.) shall say” and actualizes said command in the narrative “and he said” (against P which reads the plural “they said”). Then ‫ ܗ ܐ‬and ‫ ܨܒܐ‬represent retention of PExod whereas the phrasing ‫ܢ‬ ‫ ܐ ܐ ܕ‬reflects GExod, SH (at the parallel), and the μόνον-passage itself. As such it is not possible to determine which source Jacob consciously followed, although he was doubtlessly attracted to their concord. As was pointed out above (→ §2.3.1 ad loc) ‫ܘ‬ disagrees with the parallel Syriac phrasing within SH itself (there ‫)ܕܬܬ‬. This suggests that Jacob was at least guided by SH’s Syriac phrasing for the SP passage as opposed to the running text. A similar interpretation could be applied to in v 4. JExod 10.5: Of this passage in JExod, v 5 is most crucial displaying distinctively Samaritan elements yet integrated in such a way as to display Jacob’s ̈ and ‫ ܬܬ ܐ‬agree editorial prowess in combining sources. As such both ̇ ‫ܐ‬ with the GExod parallel as well as SH here; the former was obviously adhered to when producing ‫ܐ ̇ܗܘ‬ for πᾶν τὸ περισσὸν τὸ. Shortly before, howev̇ er, JExod reads ‫ܓ ܐܘܬܗ‬ “from their multitude.” No known source reads thus, and it is unclear how it came about. Certainly, it could have been an unthinking addition, whether by Jacob or the scribe, as a kind of stock phrase. (In the μόνον-readings, such language only occurs in Exod 18.24‫ב‬.) A PExod variant is not impossible even if unlikely. Where Jacob showed true editorial command ̈ is with ‫ܐ ܕܐܪ ܐ ܘ‬ ‫ܘ ܐ ܠ‬. Here he ̣ ‫ܘܢ ܐ ܐ ܕ ܐ̈ܪܐ ܗ ܕ‬ deftly combined the Samaritan ‫ܐ ܗܘ‬ ‫ܐܪܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ ܕܐܪ ܐ ܘ‬ with P’s ‫ ܘܢ ܐ ̈ ܐ ܐ‬. Thus, the “and every fruit of a tree” was melded to “all

Jacob of Edessa’s Recension | 555

the (sprouting) trees,” with the grammatical number of the latter prevailing ‫ܘܢ ̈ܐ ܐ ܕ ܐ̈ܪܐ ܗ‬ ‫“ ܘ‬and all the fruit[pl.] trees, those which ̣‫ܕ‬ (sprout)….” Elegant blends such as this are found regularly throughout JRec, and the editorial negotiation enacted vis-à-vis his sources could be called a hallmark of his recension. Overall the verse shows both ingenuity and creativity. JExod 10.6: Again Jacob negotiated his sources well. In particular, for ‫ܘ‬ ̈ ‫ ܒ ܐ ܕ ̈ܪ ܐ‬he altered P’s word order and clearly adhered to SH’s μόνονpassage since the GExod parallel reads differently, specifying “all houses in all the land of Egypt/the Egyptians.”132 Thus, JExod reflects the “relocated ‫ ”כל‬as in the reading in SH at Exod 10.4‫§ →( ד‬2.3.1 ad loc). Stricter adherence to the GExod parallel ironically would have better equated SP. Nevertheless, ‫ܘܐ ܐ‬ later in the same verse shows an eye was kept on G’s οὐδὲ. The sequence ‫ܕܗܘܘ‬ ̇ ‫ ܒ‬reads oddly; it is tempting to view ̇ ‫ ܒ‬as a mistake. ‫ܐܪ ܐ‬ (Omitted) Attribution: While both sigla and attributions occur in the JPent MS inconsistently—and thus it is hazardous to construe the cause(s) of their absence—one might justly assume that Jacob may not have even marked the present “trace” reading (→ Table 5.2.3.1). In this case, even if he had, but a few lines would have been marked. JExod 11.3–7: Text and translation BnF Syr. 26 (fol. 132‫ ܒ–ܐ‬integrated and unmarked) → PLATE VIII

. ‫ ܘܐ ܐ‬.‫̈ ܘܢ ܕ ̈ܪ ܐ‬ ‫݅ܐܒ ݅ܐܒ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ ̣ ܒ ܐ ܢ‬3a ̈ ‫ ܘܐܦ ܒ‬. ‫܆ ܘܪܒ ܗܘܐ ܒܐܪ ܐ ܕ ̣ܪ‬ ‫ܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܐܦ ܗܘ ܓܒ ܐ‬ ̣ ̈ ̈ ‫ ܘܐܦ ܒ‬.̣‫ܢ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫̣ܒ ̈ ܘܗܝ܆ ܘܐܦ ܒ‬ ̣ ‫ ̇ܘܐ‬4‫ ܀ א‬.‫ܐ‬ ̇ ‫ܢ܆ ܗ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܪ ܒܝ‬ ‫ ܘܐ ܬ‬. ‫ ܒ ܝ ܒ ܝ ܐ ܘܗܝ ܐ ܐ‬.‫ܐ‬ ̇ 4 ‫ ܀‬.‫ܟ‬ ‫ܐܐ ܒ ܟܒ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܗܐ ܐ ܐ‬.‫ܪܘܬܗ‬ ‫ܨܒ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ̣ ‫ܚ ܆ܘܐ‬ ̇ ‫ܓ ܕ ܐܐܐ‬ ̇ ‫ ܗ ܐ ܐ‬.‫ܐ‬ . ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܒܓ‬ ‫ ̈ܐ‬.‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ ̣ ̇ ‫ܐ ̇ܐ‬. ‫ܢ ܗܘ ܕ ܒ‬ ‫ܒ ܗܕ‬ . ‫ܘܢ ܒ ̈ ܐ ܕܐܪ ܐ ܕ ܪ‬ ‫ܬܘܢ‬ ‫ ܘ‬5 .‫̇ܐ ̇ܗܝ ܕܐ ܒ ܪ ܐ܆ ܘ ܘܢ ܒ ܐ ܕܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܒ ܐ ܕܐ‬ ‫ܘ‬: ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܗܘܬ‬ ‫ܐ ܪܒ ܐ ܒ‬ ‫ ܘܬܗܘܐ‬6 ̣ ‫[ ܕ ܪ ̇ܗܝ ̇ ܕܐ ܬܗ܇ ܐ‬sic] ̈ ‫ܐ̈ܪ ܐ‬ . ‫ ܘ ܒ ܐ ܐ ܐ ܪ ܐܦ ܐ ܒܐ ܒ‬7 .‫ܘܐ ܬܗ܇ ܐ ܬܘܒ ܬܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܬܗܪܐ ܘ ̣ ܫ ܒ‬ ‫ܕܬܕ ܢ ܕ ̣ܒ‬ .‫ܘܐܦ ܐ ܒ ̈ ܐ ܘܐ ܐ ܒ ܐ‬ . ‫̈ܪ ܐ ܒ ̈ ܐ ܐ‬

3b ‫ܐ ܢ‬

(4)] ‫ܐܠ‬

|| 132 Cp. AppI: ἐν πάσῃ γῇ] επι παση (-σι*) γη 130mx; om πάσῃ Aeth BoA; > 125d 619x. That so few omit the lemma suggests that Jacob’s GExod MSS certainly had the reading.

556 | Later Hexaplaric Transmission

SHL Exod 11.3b–3‫–א‬4‫–א‬4 (→ §2.3.1)

‫ܐ܆ ܪܒܐ ܗܘܐ ̇ ܓ ܒܐܪ ܐ ܕ ܪ ܒ ̈ ܐ ܕ ̈ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܒ ܐ‬°‫ ܘ‬3b ̈ ̇ ‫ ܗ ܐ‬.‫ܢ‬ ‫ܒ ܐܕ‬°‫ܒܐ‬. ‫ܐ‬ ̣ ‫ ܘܐ‬4‫ א‬.‫ܘܒ ܐ ܕ ̇ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ ܐ ܨܒ‬. ‫ܚ‬ ‫ ܘܐ ܬ ܬܟ܆ ܪ ܒ ܐ ܕ ܐ ܐ ܕ‬. ‫ܐ ܐ‬ ̇ ‫ ̣ ܗ ܐ‬.‫ܐ‬ ̇ ‫ܒܐܕ‬ ‫ ܗܐ‬.‫ܪܘܬܗ‬ ̣ ‫ ܘܐ‬4a .° ‫ܒ ̇ ܐ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ‫̇ ܐܪ ܐ ܕ ܪ ܆ ܘ‬ ‫ܓ ܕ ܐ܆ ܐ ܐ ܐܠ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ ̈ܐ‬° 3‫ א‬. ‫ܪ ܐܕ ܆‬ ‫ܢ ̇ܗܘ ܕ ܒ‬ ‫ܒ ܗܕ‬ . ‫ܒ ܐ ܒܐܪ ܐ ܕ ܪ‬ .‫ܒ ܐ ܕܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ̇ܗܝ ܕ ܬ ܪ ܐ ܘ‬ ‫ܐ ܒ ܐܕ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ̇ ̇ ‫ܬܗ ܐ ܗܘܬ܆ ܘܐ ܬܗ ܐ ܬܘܒ‬ ‫̇ܐ ܪܒ ܐ ܒ ܪ ܆ ̇ܗܝ ܕܐ‬ ‫ܘܬܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܒ ܘܢ ܒ ̈ ܐ ܕܐ ܐ ܐ ̣ ܐ ܒܐ ܒ ܐ ܕ ܇‬. ‫ܬܬܘ‬ ‫̈ܪ ܐ ܘܒ‬ ‫܇ܒ‬ ‫ ܐ ܐ ܕܬܕܥ ܗ ܕ‬.‫ܐ ܒ ܐ‬ ° ‫܀‬. ‫ܐ ܐ‬

‫ܢ܆‬

PExod 11.3; 4.22–23; 11.4–7

‫ ܘܐܦ ܓܒ ܐ‬.‫ܐ ܒ ̈ ܘܢ ܕ ̈ܪ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ ܒ ܐ ܢ‬11.3 ̈ ‫ܢ ܘܒ‬ ̈ ‫ ܒ‬. ‫ܒܐܪ ܐ ܕ ܪ‬ 4.22 .‫ܐ‬ ‫̈ܒ ܘܗܝ ܕ‬ ‫ܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܕܬ ܪ‬ ‫ ܐ ܬ‬23 . ‫ ܒ ܝ ܒ ܝ ܐ‬.‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܗ ܐ ܐ‬.‫ܢ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ 11.4 .‫ܟ‬ ‫ܐܐ ܒ ܟܒ‬ ‫ ܗܐ‬.‫ܪܘ ܒ ܝ‬ ‫ ܘܐ ܐ ܨܒܐ ܐ‬. ‫ܒܝܘ‬ 5. ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ ܒܓ‬ ‫ ܒ ܓ ܕ ܐ‬.‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐܗ ܐܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ . ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܢܕ ܒ‬ ‫ܒ ܗܕ‬ . ‫ܘܢ ܒ ܐ ܕܐܪ ܐ ܕ ܪ‬ ‫ܬܘܢ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ ܘܬܗܘܐ‬6 .‫ ܘ ܘܢ ܒ ܐ ܕܒ ܐ‬.‫ܐ ܒ ܐ ܕܐ ܐ ܕܐ ܒ ܪ ܐ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ ܘ‬7 .‫ ܕܐ ܬܗ ܐ ܗܘܬ ܘܐ ܬܗ ܐ ܬܗܘܐ‬. ‫ܐ ܪܒ ܐ ܒܐܪ ܐ ܕ ܪ‬ .‫ ܐܦ ܐ ܒ ܐ‬.‫ ܐܦ ܐ ܒ ̈ ܐ ܐ‬. ‫ ܐܦ ܐ ܒܐ ܒ‬.‫ܐ ܪ‬ ‫ܕܒ ܐ‬ . ‫̈ܪ ܐ ܒ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܐܒ‬ ‫ܕܬܕ ܢ ܕ ܫ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫( ܘܐܦ‬11.3)] ‫ ܕܐܦ‬9b1* : ‫ ܐܦ‬8a1 10b1.2 10j1 12a1fam 12b1 ‫( ܕܬ ܪ‬4.23)] ‫ ܕ ܪ‬5b1 ‫]ܘ‬ 5b1 ‫ܪܘ‬ ] ‫ ܕܬ ܪ‬12a1fam ‫ ܒ ܝ‬2°] > 5b1 ‫( ܕܐܪ ܐ‬11.5)] ‫ ܕܒܐܪ ܐ‬7a1 ‫ܐ‬ (11.7)] ‫ ܐ ܐ‬9l6

… 3b And also the man Moses was very honored and ⸂was great⸃133 in the land of Egypt, and also in the eyes of Pharaoh and also in the eyes of his servants and also (= GExod) in the eyes of ⸂all⸃134 the people. 4‫ א‬And Moses said to Pharaoh: “Thusa says the Lordb: ‘Myc son! My firstborn isd Israel! And I said to you: «Send away my son that he may worship [l-]me.” And you were not willing to send him away. Behold Ie the Lord Ic am slaying your son, your firstborn!’ ” 4 And Moses said: “Thus says the Lord: (3‫‘ )א‬About135 the middle of the night, I myself am going out [mg: entering] into the midst of Egypt, ...

|| 133 Presumably Jacob’s independent rendering of GExod’s adj. μεγας. 134 AppI II: fin] + (※ SH; ÷ Armmss) και εν οφθαλμοις (+ παντος 527 Ald) του λαου (+ αυτων 376*; + αυτου 376cvid) O-15 392-527y 128′z Latcod 101 Arm Pal SH = Ald; αʹ θʹ + καὶ ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς τοῦ λαοῦ SHtxt. Obviously Jacob’s GExod MSS read παντος. It is improbable that he would have moved παντων from before θεραποντων where it is in most G MSS. ̈ for περι. 135 See Perkins (1980: 91) on the rendering ‫ܐ‬

Jacob of Edessa’s Recension | 557

a

SH: these (lit.) b SH: ΠΙΠΙ ἐγὼ (ἀποκτενῶ)?; > SH

c

> SH

d

εστιν Or Aeth (see AppI); > SH

e

ex GExod 4.23

JExod 11.3–7: As in the previous Samaritan passage, Jacob more or less employed the same editorial strategy in that he integrated only those items which were unique to the passage, specifically v 4‫א‬. Sequencing (3a–3b–4‫)…א‬: Much like SH, Jacob’s testimony to the passage, reflects a disordered sequencing vis-à-vis SP. As hypothesized above, the jumbled order was the likely result of the Caesarean collator’(s) incomplete collating, failing to account for the Lord’s first person speech in SP Exod 11.3a (→ §2.3.1). Whatever the case of the confusion, Jacob’s placement of vv 3b–4‫ א‬before any mention of the slaying of the firstborn foretold to Moses (v 3‫)א‬, firmly suggests his SH MSS read as SHL. Integration: Be that as it may, Jacob used his SH source intelligently melding it with P, and GExod in the course of his usual procedure, in an attempt to resolve the ambiguities the μόνον-passage bears in SH. Namely, he addressed the major incumbent imprecision of the speech in v 4‫א‬, viz., which words specifically represent the quoted speech of the Lord? SP Exod 11 seems to indicate that Moses relates some measure of indirect speech (i.e., Behold ‫ יהוה‬is slaying your firstborn son) in v 4‫א‬. However, Jacob, by mixing the parallel at 4.23 from both P and G resolved any such tension, making it clear that the whole reported speech ̇ ‫ܐ‬ was directly quoted from the Lord: ‫ܟ‬ ‫ܐܐ ܒ ܟ ܒ‬ ‫…“ ܗܐ ܐ ܐ‬ Behold, I, the Lord, I am slaying your son, your firstborn!” Thus Jacob’s reading communicates a most emphatic sense. Nevertheless, the ultimate source for the verse, for both its language and position, was SH. Again “the Lord” can only have come from the Samaritan reading, even though Jacob “corrected” SH’s to ‫ܐ‬ (→ EXCURSUS C). ̈ ‫ܒ‬, Jacob blended SH’s Samaritan ̈ ‫ ܒ‬with JExod 11.3b: For ‫ܢ‬ the parallel in GExod, specifically εναντιον φαραω, replacing εναντιον with “in the eyes of.” ̈ and ‫( ܐܠ‬mg) could also have derived JExod 11.4(/3‫)א‬: While both ‫ܐ‬ from the GExod parallel itself, the above-mentioned sequencing favors the influence of the μόνον-passage as in SH. This is particularly probable in light of other such cases, where a marginal reading attached to an integrated Samaritan passage was derived from either the reading as in SH or the P parallel. For other cases, see above Table 5.2.1 (with n. 34), especially at JNum 20.13‫ ו‬and 31.20‫א‬. (Omitted) Attribution: See note above at JExod 10.(2)3–6.

558 | Later Hexaplaric Transmission

Before concluding a few more samples from JNum provide a broader representation of Jacob’s witness to the μόνον-data. JNum 21.20‫ב–א‬: Text and translation BnF Syr. 26 (fol. 304‫ ܐ‬integrated, sub ÷, attributed) → PLATE IX

‫ ܗܐ ̇ܐ‬.‫ܐ ̣ ܘ ̣ܒ ܘ ܐ ܕܐܪ ܢ‬ ‫ܐ܆‬ ‫ܐ‬ ̣ ‫ ܘܐ‬20̈ ‫א‬ ‫ܒ ܘܬܗ ܘ ܐܪܬ‬ ‫ ̣ ܐ‬. ‫ܢ ̇ ܐ ܕ ܒ ܢ ܐ ܪ ܐ ܘ ܐܪ‬ ‫ܒܐ‬ ̇ ‫ܠܕ ܟ‬ ‫ܐ ܗ ܐ ̇ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ ܒ‬20‫ ב‬.‫ܒܐ‬ ‫ܐܬܓ ܐ‬ . ‫ܐܪ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ ̇ܗ ܢ ܕ‬.‫ܐ‬ ° ‫̈ ܐ ̇ܗ ܢ ܕܬ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ̈‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܙܘ ܟ‬ ‫܁‬-‫ ܁‬. ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܘ ܘ ܢ܆ ܘ‬ ‫ܐܒ ܕ ̈ ܒ‬ ‫ ܘ ܐܦ ܗ ܆ ܒ ̇ ܘ ܕ‬Attrib. SH Num 21.20‫§ →( ב–א‬3.3.1) ‫ ܗܐ‬.‫ܐ ܕܐܪ ܢ‬ ‫ܘܐ ̣ ܘ ̣ܒ ܘ‬ .‫ܐ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ‫ ܘܐ‬20‫א‬ ̈ ̣ ‫̇ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬. ‫ܢ ̇ ܐ ܕ ܒ ܢ ܕܐ ̈ܪ ܐ܇ ܘ ܐܪ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܒܐ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ ܐ ܬ ܬܗ‬.‫ܐ ܗ ܐ ܐ ܐܪܬ‬ ‫ ܒ‬20‫ ܐ ܬ ܬܗ ܒܐ܆ ב‬.‫ܐܪܬ‬ ‫ܨܘ ܐ ܕ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܟ܇‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܐܕ‬ ‫ܠ‬ ‫ܐܗܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܒܐ܆ ܒ‬ ‫ܐܕ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܕܐܢ‬ ‫ ̇ܗ ܢ ܐ‬. ‫ܐ‬ ‫̈ ܐ ̇ܗ ܢ ܕܬ‬ . ‫ܨܘ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫̇ܓ ܢ܆ ܘ ̈ܒ ܐ ̣ ܢ‬ ‫ܐ܀‬ ‫ ܘܗ ܒ ܕ ܒ‬Attrib. (20‫ܐ ])א‬ ‫ ܕ‬SHV

SHV ‫ܒܐ‬

—‫ܐ‬

‫( ܒ‬20‫ > ])ב‬SHV

‫ܐ‬

SHV ‫]ܕܐܢ‬

]‫ܐ‬

PDeut 2.24–25

‫ܐ‬

‫ܐ‬

̈ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܒܐ‬ ‫ ܝ ܕܐ‬.‫ܘ ܒ ܘ ܐ ܕܐܪ ܢ‬ 25 .‫ܒܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܘܬܗ ܘܐܬܓ ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬. ‫ܕ ܒ ܢ ܐ ܪ ܐ ܘ ܐܪ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ ܕ‬.‫ܐ‬ ‫̈ ܐ ܕܬ‬ ‫̈ܐ‬ ‫ܠ ܕ ܟ ܘܙܘ ܟ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ ܘ‬.‫ܘ ܘ ܢ‬

] > 6b1 6h6 8b1 9a1fam 10b1 11b1 12a1fam 12b1.2 l.n. 9b1 ‫ܐ‬

]‫ܐ‬

7a1

20‫ א‬And the Lord said [l-]to Moses: “Rise, break camp (afel), and cross over the Wadi Arnon. Behold I have delivered over into your hands Sihon, King of Heshbon dthe Amorited, and his land. Begin eto destroy him ande to take possession (of) fhis landf. gContend with him (l-)in battle!g 20‫ ב‬In this day hI will beginh to give your fear and your terror upon the face of (or: before)i all the peoples, those who are underl heaven—those who, should they hear your jreportj, [and] they kwill tremble and be afraidk beforei you.” a

b

c

a

SHL: ΠΙΠΙ b SH: lwt c SH: + and d–d SH: of the Amorites e–e PDeut + and; > SH f > SH (see discussion) g–g SH: Join against(lwt) him (in) battle h–h SH: begin (impv) i SH: prṣwpʾ j SH: name (or: fame) k–k SH: will be troubled, and (labor) pains they will develop l SH: + all

Attribution: And also this is only written in the [exemplar = ‫ܐ‬ maritans.

‫ ]?ܨ‬of the Sa-

Jacob of Edessa’s Recension | 559

JNum 21.20‫ב–א‬: Jacob’s blend between SH’s SP passage and the PDeut parallel is quite regular and fairly representative of those found in his recension from JExod 18 onward. As such, a fairly evenhanded blend obtains with minimal, independent editorial interference. JNum 21.20‫א‬: The preposition for ‫ܐ‬ is “from P” however, it is not found at the P parallel proper but the beginning of that section of dialogue at PDeut 2.17 ( ‫ܐ ܘܐ‬ , Moses speaking), the ensuing parenthetical discussing the Rephaim (vv 20–23) thus elided. The above-marked sections in the JNum passage are mostly straightforward. Notable are two “unique” bits, the combining -‫ ܘ‬in ‫ܒ ܘܬܗ ܘ ܐܪܬ‬ by which Jacob united the two interpretations for Hebrew ‫רש‬, the first from PDeut while the second coming from the Caesarean translator’(s) septuagintism. To this Jacob added an explicatory ‫( ܐܪ‬as opposed to “cities”?) not textually representative of any source. It is of interest for these passages that though SH translated συναπτω with the verbal ‫ ܬ‬+ ‫ ܒܐ‬meaning ‘to enjoin in battle’ (→ §3.3.3 at Num 21.11‫)א‬, Jacob clearly did not prefer this phraseology, as he adopted P’s parallel phrasing each time (i.e., Num 20.13‫ח‬, 21.11‫א‬, 21.12‫ג‬, and here). Perhaps he found the use of √‫ ܬ‬improperly vague for battle contexts.136 JNum 21.20‫ב‬: The verse is well balanced as Jacob more or less alternated between his sources: SH-P-P-P-SH-SH-SH-P-P-P-P (thus the unique elements). Unfortunately, JNum cannot arbitrate between the variations in MSS L and V, ‫ܐ‬ :: ‫ܐ‬ and ‫ ܕܐܢ‬:: ‫ܕ‬, as he adhered to P in both cases. Furthermore, it cannot be determined if his SH exemplar(s) contained the long dittography in L. Had he seen it, he would have recognized the glaring error and ignored it accordingly. Furthermore, SH’s Graecized ‫ ܨܘ ܐ‬was twice avoided ̈ and for the more elegant, or precise, phrasing in P, ‫ܐ‬ respectively. Attribution: For general notes on the SP attributions in JPent vis-à-vis SH, see above Table 5.2.3.2. For additional comments on this specific case, see JNum 21.22+, 22‫ ב–א‬immediately below. JNum 21.22+, 22‫ב–א‬: Text and translation BnF Syr. 26 (fol. 304‫ ܒ–ܐ‬integrated, sub ÷, attributed) → PLATE IX

‫̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܕܐ ̈ܪ ܐ ܒ ̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ܁ ܘ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ ܐ‬.‫ܐ ܐܙܠ‬ .

̇ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ ܘ ̇ ܪ ܐ ܐ ܐ ̈ܓ ܐ ܬ‬21 ‫ ܒܐܘܪ ܐ‬22+ . ‫ ̇ ܒ ܒܐܪ‬22a ‫ܐ ̇ ܆‬

|| 136 Cp. SH Deut 2.5, 9, 19, and 24, where the translator again uses ‫ܬ‬ same in JDeut, Jacob again did not follow SH in this phrasing.

verbally + ‫ ܒܐ‬. For the

560 | Later Hexaplaric Transmission . ‫ ܘ ̈ ܐ‬.‫ܘ ̇ܐ ܠ‬ ‫ܐ ܬ ̇ܙܒ‬ ‫̈ܐ ܐ܁ ܒ‬ 22‫܁ א‬-‫ܐ ܁‬ ‫ܐܘܐ‬ ̈ ‫ ܐ ܐ ܕ ̣ܒ ܘ ܒ‬22‫ ܒ ܕ܁ ܒ ܓ ̇ ܒ ܆ ב‬.‫ܘ ̇ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܐ ܬ ̇ܙ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ̇ ̇ ̈ ̇ ‫ ܐ‬22a ‫܁‬-‫ ܁‬. ‫܇ ܘ ܐܒ ܐ ܗ ܢ ܕ ܒ ܒ ܘ‬ ‫ܐܘ ̇ܗ ܢ ܕ ܒ ܒ‬ ‫ ܒܐܘܪ ܐ‬22b .‫̈ ܐ ܕܓ ̈ܒ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ܆ ܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܒ ܐ ܐܘ ܒ‬ ̈ ‫ܐ ܕ ̣ܒ ܬ‬ ‫ ܁‬-‫܁‬ ‫ܐ ܐܙܠ܆‬ L SH Num 21.22+, 22‫§ →( ב–א‬3.3.2) .‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܐܘܐ‬ ‫ܟ‬ ‫ܐ ܐܙܠ ܐ‬ ‫ ܒܐܘܪ ܐ‬22+ ‫܀‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܒ ܕ ܒ‬Attrib. ‫ ܒ ܡ‬.‫ ܘܐ ܐ‬. ‫ܐ ܬܙܒ‬ ‫ ܘ ̈ ܐ ܒ‬.‫ ܘܐ ܠ‬. ‫ܐ ܬܙܒ‬ ‫̈ܐ ܐ ܒ‬ 22‫א‬ ̇ ̈ . ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܗ ܢܕ‬ ‫ ܐ ܐ ܕ ܒ ܘ ܒ ܐ ܕ‬22‫ ב‬. ‫ܐ ܒ ܒ ܓ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫܀‬ ‫ܒ ܘ‬ ‫̈ܐܒ ܐ ̇ܗ ܢ ܕ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܐ܀‬ ‫ ܘܗ ܒ ܕ ܒ‬Attrib.

PDeut 2.(27)28–29

‫ ܒ ܪܐ‬28 .‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐܘ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ ܐ‬.‫ ܒܐܘܪ ܐ ܐܘܪ ܐ ܐܙܠ‬. ‫ܒ ܒܐܪ‬ 29 . ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܘ ܐܒ ܕܒܓ‬ ‫ܐ ܙܒ‬ ‫ ܘ ̈ ܐ ܒ‬.‫ܘ ܐ ܠ‬ ‫ܐ ܙܒ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ̈‫ܐ ܕ ܒܘ ܒ‬ ̈ ‫ܐܕ ܒ‬ ‫ ܘ ܐܒ ܐ ܕ ܒ ܒ‬. ‫ܕ ܒ ܒ‬ .‫ܐ ܐ ܢ‬ ‫ܪܕ ܐܪ ܐ ܕ ܒ‬ ‫( ܒ‬27)] ‫ ܕ ܒ‬9a1fam ‫ ܪܕ‬9a1fam

‫( ܙܒ‬28, 1°–2°)] ‫ ܙܒ‬8b1

(29, 1°)] > 12b1

‫ܪܕ‬

(29)]

22+ In the royal road we will go. aAnd we will not turn asidea neither [lit. andb not] to the right nor [lit. and not] to the left. 22‫ א‬You shall sell me food stuffs for silver, and I will eat; also for silver you shall sell me water, and I will drink. c Only we will cross [sc. your land] on our feetc; 22‫ ב‬just as the sons of Esau, those residingd in Seir, dealt with use, and the Moabites, those residingd in Eroeir. a–-a

SH: we will (not) turn (nhpwk) b > SH c–-c SH: But I will cross [sc. your land] on foot [lit. my feet] d SH: dwelling (or: living; ʿmryn) e SH: me

JNum 21.22+, 22‫ב–א‬: The passage well exemplifies Jacob’s balanced editorial mixture as well as his thoughtful adaptation of the μόνον-data. Order: For discussion on the implications of Jacob’s having joined the Samaritan text to the whole of v 22, i.e., JNum 21.22a–22+–22‫–ב–א‬22a–22b without replacement of any part of v 22 itself, see above (→ §3.3.2). JNum 21.22+: Despite the brevity of the partial verse, Jacob alternated his sources, prefixing (‫( ܘ) ܐ‬1°) presumably for the sake of style: neither … nor. His sourcing, clearly marked above, is straightforward. As explained earlier (§3.3.2 at Num 21.22+) he followed PDeut with ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ ܐ‬instead of SH’s ‫ܟ‬ ‫ ܐ‬. It was not that SH’s ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬was relocated—rather he recognized the end-marker function ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬served in SH at this point. Nevertheless, he adopted a sort of double negative ‫ ܘ ܐ‬... ‫ ܐ‬based on SH against the PDeut parallel.

Jacob of Edessa’s Recension | 561

JNum 21.22‫ב–א‬: Again the elements were artfully crafted. Notably, SH was followed in v 22‫א‬a while PDeut (word order) obtained in 22‫א‬b. Verse 22‫ ב‬continues this switching between differing elements: SH-P-SH-P-SH-P-SH (with corrected place name). Aside from the continued use of the personal plural ( ) and the location name of the Moabites, the variations are arbitrary. Such is increased when it is considered that his blending pattern differs so starkly from v 22‫א‬. The only bit of note is the “corrected” form ‫ ܘ‬. While Jacob ostensibly corrected the erroneous ‫ ܘ‬in SH (‫ ܪ‬/ ‫ ܕ‬confusion → §3.3.2 at Num 21.22‫;ב‬ §3.3.3. at 21.12‫ )ב‬based on G MSS, this does not mean that he had access to G MSS bearing these passages. Rather, it is well known that Jacob preferred and often used Greek, septuagintal name forms (→ §5.2.1) throughout the whole of JRec. Thus, this case need not require use of a G MS ad loc. Simply, Jacob used his GNum MSS for ch 21 to change every occurrence of the place name in Num 21, contra PNum’s (also erroneous for ‫ ער‬via ‫ ܪ‬/ ‫ ܕ‬confusion). Thus JNum reads ‫ ܘ‬in 21.12‫( ב‬plene ‫) ܐܪܘ‬, 22‫ב‬, 26, and 28. The latter case was then supplied with αροηρ’ in the margin (fol. 305‫)ܐ‬. This accords with his typical practice and shows that his determination of proper names need not necessarily come from a given MS ad loc for proper names occurring more than once in Scripture (→ §4.3.2, especially at JDeut 10.6–6‫–א‬7–7‫–א‬6). Attribution: Strictly speaking, there is only a single attribution on fol. 304‫ܐ‬, following JNum 21.20‫ ב–א‬immediately to the right of v 21 after which 21.22a–22+, 22‫ ב–א‬follows (as above). It seems clear then, that both (22+ being practically combined with 22‫ )ב–א‬integrated sub ÷ passages are meant to share this attribution. Such is concomitant with the inconsistency with which these passages were attributed or even marked with any kind of sigla. Such unevenness need not be interpreted as reflecting any sort of valuation (positive or negative) of the passages or SP generally. As explained above, Jacob rarely delineated his sources, at least in the exemplars of JRec now extant. Thus, this irregularity is “regular” insofar as JRec is concerned. As his above-described and examined editorial method demonstrates, he treated the μόνον-passages just as his other primary sources, each of which he held in high esteem.

5.2.4 Conclusions As the foregoing makes clear, the μόνον-passages had a special place in the biblical recension fashioned by Jacob of Edessa. The sometime Syriac Orthodox bishop and polymath clearly had a high view of SP. Such is manifested not only by the large number of passages he integrated into his own edited Bible (→ Ta-

562 | Later Hexaplaric Transmission

bles 4.3 and 5.2.3.1), but also the manner in which he integrated them, at times rather creatively. That Jacob combined these passages with the relevant parallel in P is telling—for this was the exact manner in which he integrated readings from G throughout the whole of his text. Though his extant writings say nothing about SP, these two indicators reinforce the notion that he believed the Samaritan text bore inherent value, significance, and authority. In light of Jacob’s above-hypothesized “guided tour” editorial policy (→ §5.2.1), one cannot help but conclude that at some level he believed SP to be specially accurate. This would explain the passages’ promotion to the running text of his version, their extensive integration with P (his textual base), and his willingness to use them in his edition while ignoring the many other versions and recensions (e.g., the Three) he had at his disposal, whether via SH or other G MSS. These passages, though excerpted from SH, were fully integrated into his recension, just as readings from the venerable version of the Seventy. Therefore, one may conclude that SP was, in Jacob’s eyes, for the passages it is included, on equal footing with the Septuagint. By extension, one can confidently posit that Jacob believed SP was authoritative or ought to be regarded as “Scripture,” or at least have the potential to be so regarded. For when Jacob gave his own “tour” of the Pentateuch’s textual traditions, he was sure to feature those examples of Samaritan Holy Writ at his disposal. One can only wonder what he would have done had he had more access to SP beyond those passages available in the margins of SH.

5.3 Greek Manuscripts Bearing Integrated μόνον-Passages In order to better comprehend the scribal contexts of the above-surveyed integrations, brief profiles for some of the more significant μόνον-bearing Greek MSS are supplied in the following, after which the potential motives for scribal integration are considered (→ §5.4).

Greek Manuscripts Bearing Integrated μόνον-Passages | 563

5.3.1

MS 767: A Brief Profile

767O later n (Athos, Λαυρα, 603) is an intriguing witness dated to the 13th–14th cent. CE. Despite suffering significant lacunae in Exod,137 Lev, and Deut, Num is relatively intact.138 767 and the μόνον-passages: As already stated, 767’s import for the present study is its inclusion of several μόνον-readings, each of which were integrated into its running text. Yet, whereas in Exod, 767—despite being extant for only the latter half the book—attested two such readings (Exod 23.19‫ א‬and 32.10‫§ → א‬2.5), in Num the MS retained only one (10.10‫§ → ג–א‬3.3.2). Differently still in Deut, 767 again preserves two such readings (Deut 2.7‫ ג–א‬and 10.6–6‫–א‬ 7–7‫–א‬6, → §4.3.2), making it the only extant Greek language witness to preserve μόνον-data in Exod, Num, and Deut—something paralleled by only SH and JPent. It bears observation that the first half of Exod is missing. This leaves open the possibility that the passages still extant in the SH/JExod side of the tradition could have originally been integrated in 767’s running text. It is thus most unfortunate that the witness is fragmentary. 767’s relationship with the O group: Interestingly in Lev, the MS shifts from attesting the O text to one which reflects the n-group. This was observed by Wevers in his work on Exod. He found that in Exod 35–40 “[767] is clearly hex[aplaric], but prior to this its loyalties seem divided between [groups] O and n.”139 When detailing the MS-groups’ placements relative to the hexaplaric recension in Num, Wevers again observed the unusual role of 767 within the tradition: MS

Within the n group MS 767 is often aberrant. When its text differs from the n group it shows hexaplaric influence. In the above lists [i.e., his lists 1–3] n-767 has the hex[aplaric] reading only twice, whereas 767 supports the hex[aplaric] reading over against n 59 times. It is, however, an n text in its major allegiance.140

Wevers’ assessment of 767 fits neatly within the presently argued hexaplaric origin of the μόνον-passages, insofar as these are a special indication of hexaplaric influence. Clearly, the scribe, or much more likely the ancestor scribal(s)

|| 137 Rahlfs listed the contents as “Lev 187—Ios.” (1914: 19; Rahlfs and Fraenkel 2004 do not supplement this information). However, as noted earlier (→ §2.5.1 at Exod 23.19‫)א‬, the MS survives for the latter half of Exod as well (see Wevers, Exod, 14). 138 For specifics, see Lev, 12, Deut, 13, and Num, 14. 139 THGE, 26. 140 THGN, 59.

564 | Later Hexaplaric Transmission

of 767, purposefully and persistently used hexaplaric MSS in the shaping of the running text. Context of integration: While it is not possible to determine the precise date of 767’s integration, the scribal provenance on Athos (→ §3.4) may serve as a useful clue.141 Certainly, 767’s hexaplaric heritage shows that its Samaritan passages ultimately go back to the Caesarean ἔκδοσις; notably, three of its five readings, i.e., those in Num and Deut, parallel the same preserved in SH/JDeut. Curious in this respect is the case in Num. Other Athos MSS, specifically the sgroup, transmitted several such passages in Num; however, 767 and the s-group differ on which passages were preserved. Further, when the dates of the MSS are compared (→ Table 3.4.3) disparities surface. For example, MS 344, most likely the progenitor of the μόνον-bearing s-group MSS, is a 10th cent. MS transmitting six such passages—all marginal—in Num. If the above-enunciated Athos hypothesis is correct, and the scribal center(s) at Athos served as the locale from which said readings disseminated, how is it that a much later 14th cent. MS like 767 integrated only the one such passage and at Num 10.10‫ ג–א‬a reading to which the s-group MSS do not attest? The historical tension implicit in this discord is heightened when one considers that 767 is mostly intact in Num, suggesting that 767 and the s-group had different source material vis-à-vis the Samaritan readings. No doubt we have too many gaps in the MS history preventing firm explanations as to how such a discrepancy occurred.

5.3.2

MS 58: A Brief Profile

58O (Vat., Regin. gr. 10; Br.-M.: “k”) is an entirely hexaplaric witness dated to the 11th cent. CE.142 The MS is nearly complete for Exod (lac. 39:40 τα 3°—40:17 σκηνην) and represents the O text for Exod 36–39.143 For Num, the witness is complete.144 In Exod, it exhibits not a few readings from the recentiores, though by no means the most when compared to other MSS of the hexaplaric tradition; in Num, of those witnesses to the O-text/group,145 it is second only to SH which transmits far more (146 and 49, respectively).146 MS

|| 141 Compare MS 527y above (→ §2.5.2 at Exod 32.10‫)א‬, also from Athos. 142 Rahlfs 1914: 246. 143 Exod, 51–52. 144 Num, 9. 145 As Wevers pointed out, MS 344s by far outweighs all others with 489 readings (Num, 35; → §3.4). 146 Exod, 47; Num, 34.

Greek Manuscripts Bearing Integrated μόνον-Passages | 565

58’s post-hexaplaric activity: While 58 exhibits a thoroughly hexaplaric text, the MS itself, or rather its ancestor MS(S), was subject to an intense level of post-hexaplaric activity. This activity resulted in the deletion of words and passage segments from the MS’s running text which were originally transmitted sub ※ or ⨪ / ÷. Wevers discovered abundant evidence for such practices in 58 in the collations for Exod, Lev,147 Num,148 and Deut,149 and believed that this probably stemmed from a lack of understanding as to what the hexaplaric symbols meant.150 This scribal abridgement makes it all the more remarkable that vestiges of μόνον-texts survived in 58 (or better, its ancestor → §2.5.1) given the likelihood they too were originally transmitted sub ※ even if marginally (→ §4.4.2). 58 and the μόνον-data: Of those Greek MSS attesting the Caesarean Samaritan collation, 58 stands alone in bearing four in Exod. Clearly 58’s source material differed from the tradition represented by SH(/JExod), though perhaps less so, at least in Exod, from 767. However, one cannot help but point out that its readings both pre- and proceed (in terms of canonical order) the body of passages transmitted by the former. Perhaps the above-described scribal idiosyncrasy evidenced by post-hexaplaric activity is responsible. Additionally, the nature of those extant integrated passages clearly bear a different interest than those throughout SH’s side of the tradition (→ §2.6.3). For while Exod 3.22+ and Num 21.24+, stripped of attribution, could be interpreted as marginal corrections supplying accidentally omitted information, Exod 23.19‫א‬, 27.19‫א‬, and (probably?) 32.10‫ א‬would merit different explanations. Certainly, due to the scribal errors found in 58’s passages (e.g., the haplography in 23.19‫א‬, cp. also the more developed form of 27.19‫)א‬, the scribe responsible for 58 itself most likely should not be credited with their integration. And indeed, the MS itself records these passages without special markers or annotations.151

|| 147 THGL, 27. 148 THGN, 65. 149 In Deut, Wevers only documented the evidence for omissions sub obelo in 58 as asterisked plusses are common for O-58oII (THGD, 31–35 and 46). He does not comment on how or why the practice found in Exod—Num had changed in Deut (p. 43). 150 THGE, 39. Perhaps in light of the findings of this study, such an explanation is overly facil. 151 See the MS now posted online: https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Reg.gr.10. The readings are found as follows: Exod 3.22+ (fol. 22b, 2 lns from bottom); 23.19‫( א‬fol. 38a, 10 lns from top); 27.19‫( א‬fol. 41b, end of the 9th ln from top; init. with και; the following Π is red and larger in the margin); 32.10‫( א‬fol. 45b, LH side, 4 lns from bottom); and Num 21.24+ (fol. 94a, bottom 2 lns).

566 | Later Hexaplaric Transmission

5.3.3

MS 15: A Brief Profile

MS 15oI (BnF, Coisl. 2; Br.-M.: “a”) is a nearly complete hexaplaric Octateuch from

the 10th cent. CE, apparently of Egyptian provenance.152 Like MS 58 and the fgroup, it transmits at least one passage in two books, Num and Deut. MS 15 and its μόνον-texts: For whatever reason, despite the availability of the MS’s collation through the 1798 edition of Holmes (and Parsons), Field did not record 15’s integrated reading at Num 21.22‫§ →( ב–א‬3.3.2).153 Yet he was inconsistent in this respect given his use of the same MS for part of his retroversion for SHM at Deut 34.(1b–)1‫–א‬2 (→ §4.3.2),154 as well as his reference to 15’s integrated “and to the half of the tribe of Manasseh” at Num 32.29+ but, oddly not at 32.1+.155 His presentation contrasts with Montfaucon’s earlier treatment. The latter indeed explicitly pointed out the concord between MS 15 and SP at Num 21.22, by analogy of the s-group MS 85. He further mentioned, without reference to SP, the “half tribe of Manasseh” readings in ch 32. Nothing is said at all of that in Deut 34; however, unlike Field, Montfaucon apparently knew nothing of SHM (cp. → §1.2.1.1, Hody).156 MS 15’s relationship with the O group: Amongst the O group MSS, 15 is not particularly special.157 Wevers does not single the witness out for special comment, other than to point out its support of hexaplaric plusses in Lev.158 The MS does not preserve hexaplaric sigla of note, nor any of the recentiores. However, it cannot be ignored that 15 preserved three159 separate μόνον-passages, two in Num and one in Deut. Two of these three (i.e., Num 21.22‫ ב–א‬and Deut 34.1b– 1‫–א‬2) parallel the same in SH.160 And while the other (i.e., Num 32.1+ and 29+)

|| 152 For specifics, see Wevers’ Einleitungen and Rahlfs 1914: 184. 153 See the comment in H-P ad loc. In fairness to Field, H-P stopped short of identifying 15’s as specifically Samaritan. 154 1.237, n. 3. 155 Presumably this inconsistency is due to attraction of the catena witness at Num 32.33. 156 See his Bibliotheca Coisliniana (1715: 32–38, see p. 36 for Num 21.22). Note that this work was published two years after his edition of hexaplaric remains. Norton, at the end of his ET of Field’s Prolegomena (2005: 194), does not list Bibliotheca Coisliniana as part of Field’s bibliography. Presumably he did not avail himself to this work. 157 According to Wevers’ sub-groups, 15’s allegiance is as follows: O in Gen; oII in Exod; oI in Lev–Deut. 158 THGL, 11 and 20. 159 Or four if Num 32.1+ and 29+ are reckoned separately. 160 Perhaps Field labelled SH’s Deut 34.1b–1‫–א‬2 as “σαμ΄” due to 15’s witness. He probably gradually came to see 15 as a possible source for σαμ΄ given the connection between 15’s “the half of the tribe of Manasseh” readings and the same in the catena.

Greek Manuscripts Bearing Integrated μόνον-Passages | 567

seems somehow related to the sub σαμ΄ readings preserved in catena sources in Num 32, these too are really from the Caesarean SP collation (→ §3.3.2 at Num 32.1+ and 29+). Thus, while it is unknown at what point these readings were integrated into 15’s running text or for what reason only they were selected, what cannot be denied is the hexaplaric pedigree of the MS itself and—most crucially—most, if not all,161 of 15’s integrated passages have extant, external, first-tier hexaplaric corroboration. Thus, while it is odd a scribe would have integrated the reading at Num 21.22‫ ב–א‬and not that from v 22+, there is no reason to doubt the (ultimately) hexaplaric provenance of 15’s Samaritan excerpts. As in MS 58, each of the readings was integrated without comment or marking of any kind.162

5.3.4

MS 56: A Brief Profile

56 (BnF, Gr. 3) is a f-group MS dated 1096 CE. It has only two μόνον-readings, Exod 27.19‫§ →( א‬2.5.2) and Num 31.20‫§ →( א‬3.3.3). Wevers did not much describe the MS, other than to mention it transmitted catena fragments,163 and that there is some sort of relationship (even if indirect) with Fb readings.164 MS 56’s attestation to the μόνον-data in the f-group: In addition to being the oldest f-group MS,165 56’s witness to these passages is fairly straightforward. Clearly, 56, at least of those f MSS extant, is the foremost witness to both passages, a claim that can be established codicologically and textually. For Exod 27.19‫א‬, the reading was recorded in the margin, ostensibly by the original scribe.166 As this is the only witness in the group which retains the marginal placement of the reading, and since it is correctly indexed to the running text— which could not necessarily have been guessed in light of the surrounding conMS

|| 161 Even the catena’s witness at this point should, via Procopius, be considered ultimately hexaplarically derived. 162 The BnF posted the MS: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b105494378. The readings are found as follows: Num 21.22‫( ב–א‬fol. 208a, 9 lns from bottom), 32.1+ (fol. 225a, 7 lns from top), 29+ (fol. 226a, 5–6 lns from bottom), Deut 34.1b.1‫–א‬2 (fol. 280b, 13–15 lns from the bottom). 163 Exod, 9. 164 Exod, 47. 165 This assumes MS 129 tends more towards the 12th than 11th cent. As Wevers’ Einleitungen point out, 129 often departs from the remainder of the f-group (e.g., Exod, 42). Compare the following discussion. 166 See the MS: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b107221885, fol. 66, RH mg, nearest to the bottom, with ind marker .

568 | Later Hexaplaric Transmission

text—the scribe must have had access to the Caesarean collation in some shape, possibly even from an hexaplaric source. (One can only then guess at the status of the attribution at this point.) Whatever the case, given the textual divergence between the passage’s versions in 58 and that in 707 et al (→ §2.5.2), it is clear that the verse’s textual reshaping had taken place before MS 56’s scribe encountered the reading. As for the latter at Num 31.20‫א‬, transmitted by f-129, 56 again clearly has the more archaic form amongst the f-group. This is supported not only by the age of its witness but also by 56’s longer reading, including τουτο το δικαιωμα του νομου ο συνεταξε κ̅ς̅ τω μωυση. This segment, as it turns out, comprises an entire line of text in the MS, suggesting that subsequent f-group MSS could have suffered a simple line skip in transmission.167 As for 129’s omission of the passage, this too could be explained by parablepsis. In MS 56 both this passage and that following, at v 21, are begun with Και, the initials of which jut out slightly into the LH margin. Probably 129’s scribe simply skipped from one to the other. As for the f-group’s intersection with the μόνον-collation, Wevers previously expressed exasperation as to how this occurred: “It is complete obscure how this [SP] text found its way into the f tradition.”168 In light of the comparative data surveyed in this study, both in the wider hexaplaric tradition and, in Num, the s-group, it seems fairly plain what occurred. At some point, the f-group encountered the Caesarean SP collation, most likely in a marginal context of some sort (at least for Exod 27.19‫)א‬. That the f-group’s witness to these passages is fragmentary is no surprise at all, as many such witnesses, whose relationship with the hexaplaric tradition is more straightforward, also demonstrated a similar such fragmentary witness (e.g., 767, 58, 15, et al). As such, an hypothetical connection between this tradition, in whatever state, and the f-group is hardly a leap in logic or an abuse of probability. For further comments relevant to the editorial decisions and style of integration in MS 56, and thus the whole of the f-group, see the respective discussions for each of the passages above.

|| 167 See the MS, on fol. 140a, top three lines. The text omitted by the remainder of the group is found on the third line. 168 NGTE, 441.

Greek Manuscripts Bearing Integrated μόνον-Passages | 569

5.3.5

MS 343: A Brief Profile

343s (Athos, Λαύρα, 352) was written before 1013 CE and subsequently donated by a certain Michael, a monk (or solitary) and teacher.169 343’s witness, despite its place as a s-group outlier, is, from the perspective of the material philology of the readings examined here, second only to 344, the latter of which is one of the most remarkable hexaplaric witnesses of those extant for the Octateuch (→ §3.4). MS 343 and the wider hexaplaric tradition: As an Athos-based, s-group MS, 343 must have had some access to the wider hexaplaric tradition. While 343 is not much cited in AppII in Num, other s-group MSS far outweighing its attestation to non-LXX readings,170 in light of its in-text Samaritan passages, there may very well be many and varied readings from the recentiores which the scribe similarly integrated, shedding any attendant attributions and/or sigla from its source.171 A number of readings from the Three in 343mg were recorded absent any such attributions when compared with other MS sources, as several in Num alone show. This same attribution stripping can be found in the remainder of the Pent,172 suggesting that 343’s scribal interference was not the result of the vicissitudes and uncertainties of the MS tradition alone but instead included conscious and purposeful action on the part of whoever was responsible not only for 343’s running text but also its margins. It further bears pointing out that MS

|| 169 Rahlfs: “[343] 1013 von ‹Μιχαὴλ μοναχοῦ καὶ μαΐστορος› … der Lavra gestiftet” (1914: 18). 170 See Num, 34–35. 171 See, for instance, the cases where 343 integrated readings that other s-group MSS transmit as marginal which arguably have some sort of hexaplaric origins: Num 2.33 (343 pr εν τοις υιοις ισραηλ), 3.51 (+ το αργυριον), 7.86 (+ [※ 85-344-730] δεκα δεκα η (οι 343) θυισκη (-κοι 343) εν τω σικλω τω αγιω; note the asterisks are missing in 343), 21.3 (ἐπεκάλεσεν), 21.12 (ζαρεθ in the verse proper; cp. discussion above → §3.3.3 ad loc), 22.18 (τοῦ θεοῦ μου), 25.12 (διαθηκην μου), 26.62 (ἐν τοῖς υἱοῖς), 31.22 (μολίβου in v proper, but based on the SP reading → §3.3.3 ad loc), 31.30 (+ και απο των κτηνων; ≠ MT, but cp. the s-group mg), 32.31 (σου), 33.14 (ωστε πιειν), 34.2 (+ [※ 85] η γη [+ ※ 344] ητις, note the omitted asterisks). There are, of course, cases where the opposite obtains, e.g., Num 26.50. 172 Searching “343 (s nom)” in AppII for the Pent returned the following results: Gen (11x): 1.27; 3.1, 7; 6.16; 8.1, 2; 18.12, 30; 48.22; 49.33 (2x) Exod: (10x): 9.32; 12.29 (2x), 42; 25.10, 11, 28, 30; 26.1, 17 Lev: (8x): 2.14; 3.1; 8.8, 9 (2x); 19.7, 27, 28 Num: (3x): 11.8; 25.7, 8; cp. at 26.3 Though no results returned in Deut, see 1.15 where the scribe originally left the attribution out. Note that many of these readings are attributed to Aquila by other sources.

570 | Later Hexaplaric Transmission

343 is closely connected with 344,173 which is similar in age and transmits—by far—the most non-LXX data in the group. These data together leave no room for doubt as to the 343 scribe’s policy towards the non-LXX data: he did not care from where these readings came but meant to present those he selected as equal in value. Perhaps for him, the attributions served as a distraction (to his prospective readers?) or by his time bore associations he felt best left unarticulated. MS 343 and the μόνον-data: When the above conclusion with respect to 343’s treatment of the non-LXX readings attributions is kept in view, his handling of the μόνον-passages comes into sharper focus. 343 is clearly one of the more remarkable MSS for the present study in this respect. For unlike MSS 15, 58, or 767 (et al → §2.5), where it is not really possible to compare integrated readings with their originally marginal context, and thus attempt to determine the responsible scribe’(s) valuation of the reading in question, the assimilation process 343’s scribe enacted can be analyzed from source to final product.174 One can only wonder why 343’s scribe would affect his source for these passages so profoundly in this way. However, the extant data cannot support an hypothesis whereby 343’s Samaritan passages had lost their attributions. Were this so, one could infer he understood them as marginal corrections. Rather the evidence points towards the scribe’s deliberate effort to take a “non-Jewish” and/or “non-Christian” biblical tradition, strip it of its attribution, and weave it directly into his Bible. In so doing, the scribe in question clearly bestowed favor upon such readings, not only by the very nature of his selecting them but also by presenting them as authorized, unencumbered by whatever his prospective readers may, or may not, have believed about their putative origins or the theological Tendenz of their originators, Samaritan or Jewish or otherwise. In this sense, 343’s view of SP may very well have corresponded to, at least in part, that of Jacob of Edessa’s.

5.4 Conclusions: Potential Motives Underlying Scribal Integration The above-considered data ultimately lead to one question: What did the scribes responsible for promoting attributed Samaritan passages from the margins of their sources to their own running texts think about SP? Unfortunately, beyond

|| 173 As indicated by the s sub-group 343′ (= 343 + 344) found in Exod, Lev, Num, and Deut. In Gen, the s MSS sub-divide as follows: 30′ = 30 + 730 | 343′ = 343 + 130 | 344′ = 344 + 127 (Gen, 58). 174 Of course this process may be observed in the case of Jacob of Edessa (→ §5.2).

Conclusions: Potential Motives Underlying Scribal Integration | 571

Jacob of Edessa and probably the scribe of MS 343, the intentions and opinions of the responsible parties in each respective case can only be deduced from a close reading of the surviving data. The majority of passages, as μόνον-type, are supplemental. One wonders then if there was a simple dictate of “more information is better” (or some version thereof) at work.175 Nevertheless, there is an implied value to these readings because they were promoted from the margins of their respective Vorlage(n) to the running text. (They could just have easily been transmitted marginally.) It follows then that the scribes in question must have thought highly of these passages, as they were willing to adopt them— shedding any attributions or sigla which might, as could be deduced in the case of 343, have given future readers or copyists pause. Yet, where scribes most reveal their true feelings about SP is in those few places where a μόνον-reading represents a variant which is not only quantitative but also qualitative. These few cases produce a conflict where integration requires that a decision be made: Which is to be preferred? The venerable version of the Seventy? Or the reading from a “non-Jewish” and/or “non-Christian” source? Interestingly enough, there is evidence that, at least in some cases, certain scribes selected the Samaritan passage either in exclusion to or by adaptation towards the traditional reading of the Seventy. Namely, both Jacob of Edessa and the scribe(s) responsible for MS 767 chose to replace certain parts of their respective texts when forced to do so. Jacob selected “Gerizim” for his reading at Deut 27.4 (→ §4.3.3), producing a scholion explaining his decision was based not merely on the passage’s internal logic (which could be variously construed) but also specifically the textual authority of SP. His treatment of the Samaritan Itinerary was more measured; he kept both alongside one another, within his running text (→ §4.3.2). MS 767, on the other hand, was more radical: The Samaritan Itinerary was wholly adopted, a scribal decision which, among other things, “changes” where Aaron dies in Deut. Still other scribes exhibited a high opinion of these readings by reconciling those differing Samaritan parts as much as possible to G. Namely, MS groups d t blended the Samaritan Itinerary with GDeut 6.6–7, creating a conflated, greatly bloated passage.176 Something

|| 175 This, of course, does not work for MS 58 (see above). 176 Groups d t went to some lengths to retain GDeut (e.g., v 6‫)א‬. Note that while GDeut 10.7 is differently represented, group d only accidentally “replaced” v 7 with 7‫§ →( א‬4.3.2 ad loc). With 767, the d t scribes adopted the “Samaritan” location for Aaron’s death in Deut.

572 | Later Hexaplaric Transmission

similar can be said, to a lesser extent, for MS 15 at Deut 34.1b–1‫–א‬2 (→ §4.3.2) where the two reckonings of the Promised Land’s boarders were merged.177 While the explicit editorial Tendenz of each of these cases is not possible to discover vis-à-vis a given scribe’s overall purposes, one prominent exception to the rule is the earliest witness to the phenomenon—Jacob of Edessa. According to his recension’s colophons (→ §5.2.2), Jacob’s expressed purpose and editorial policy is clear: The Syriac Peshitta was revised by use of the Seventy. This deceptively simple praxis is almost never interrupted, save for those places where Jacob integrated the μόνον-passages directly into his own running text (→ Tables 2.3, 3.3, and 4.3). The methods whereby this is achieved have been briefly examined above and bear further study. However, the regard with which Jacob held the Seventy, and his own native Peshitta, must be kept in view when considering SP’s place in his textual hierarchy: That he would have altered his recension to include and, indeed, prefer Samaritan readings is truly remarkable and demonstrates an appreciation of the textual value of SP not realized until modern times. The sweeping volume of the Samaritan passages integrated into Jacob’s recension itself suggests he held a view of SP in which this non-Jewish, non-Christian text held innate authority (→ §5.2.4). While it would be inappropriate to assign Jacob’s view to all the other scribes who integrated Samaritan readings, when the list of integrated passages is considered one cannot help but wonder: What purpose lay behind the integration of Exod 3.22+ (→ §2.5.1) in MS 58? The addition is indifferent and has no real exegetical value. Was the snippet included as if a correction? Or did the scribe have an opinion of SP similar to Jacob’s or even the scribe of MS 343? Surely, those MSS with four or more integrations (i.e., 58, 343, 767, JPent) suggests a motive beyond mere “scribal correction.”178 For these cases, something else must have served as the motive. It is of course possible that scribes simply believed that these marginal passages were another means to better reflect the/a Hebrew tradition and either were unaware of the difference between SP and MT in this regard or did not care one way or the other.179 In this sense, per-

|| 177 Whether or not the scribe knew how different SP and G/MT were at this point depends upon the precise wording of the attribution/collation note in his source. 178 Even for MS 343, whose valuation of SP can be deduced from his treatment of the passages in question, one wonders what the purpose of the scribe’s integrations was: Was he seeking to correct his text or merely supply as much textual information as he had? If the latter, why were not more of the recentiores (as in MS 344mg) also included? 179 If the scribal assumption was that the marginal passages sub ※ bore the same value as those in the running text, this ignored the chief μόνον-characteristic so often pointed out in the

Conclusions: Potential Motives Underlying Scribal Integration | 573

haps it was the source language which was seminal and not necessarily the religious community which transmitted it (cp. Eusebius in his Chronicon → §6.2.1). Whatever the motives for these peculiar scribal interventions may have been, it cannot be denied that the results are remarkable, even if infrequently attested and reflect an implied value beyond mere academic curiosity.

|| attributions. Of course, if the attribution dropped out but the sigla remained (e.g., the non-SH witness to Num 31.20‫)ד–א‬, this may have provided for such a view.

6 The Origin of the μόνον-Collation: An Historical Reconstruction and its Implications for Early Christian Studies Now that the μόνον-data from hexaplaric sources in Exod, Num, and Deut have been analyzed in full—focusing on both the nature of the translation and the translator’(s)-collator’(s) methods—it is appropriate to place these readings more precisely within the hexaplaric story, particularly with respect to the Hexapla Maior as well as the individual(s) responsible for their insertion into the hexaplaric stream.

6.1 Was There Ever a Samaritan Column in the Hexapla Maior? Beginning with Voss, most scholars have presumed that it was Origen who added readings from SP to the hexaplaric tradition.1 He proposed (→ §1.2.1.1), based on an exceptionally eisegetical interpretation of Eusebius’ H.E. 6.16, that the Alexandrian-turned-Caesarean Father included SP readings in his Hexapla Maior, and that such were marked with the traditional hexaplaric sigla. Much later, based on Field’s collected data, Kohn more carefully proposed that such were included „unter dem Striche,” as a kind of addendum (→ §1.2.3.1). Whether or not the Samaritan readings were placed within an aligned column or under all the columns, the notion that Origen added SP, even if via the Samareitikon, into the Hexapla Maior has indeed influenced subsequent scholarship as even recent works illustrate.2

|| 1 E.g., among many others, Dines 2004: 91 and 98. Some Septuagint handbooks are more carefully worded (e.g., Fernández Marcos 2000: 167). See the above on scholarly views vis-à-vis the Num 13.1‫ ד–א‬scholion (→ §3.3.3, n. 446). 2 For instance, see Grafton and Williams (2006: 89 and 95–96), who flatly claim that the “evidence of [SH] indicates that such a column existed” (p. 95). But this misinterprets the SH data (→ §§2.2; 3.2). Further, their suggestion that perhaps such a column “might have been accessible” (p. 96) to the Syrian translators (via Syriac) is also unlikely. Linguistic presumption aside, there is no evidence that the Syriac translators used the Hexapla Maior. Rather their Vorlagen were copies of the Eusebian-Pamphilan ἔκδοσις (→ §1.1.1). Against this tendency, C. Sant, in his study of the versions of Scripture available to Eusebius via the Hexapla Maior, claimed that the “Samaritan” was not transcribed in any such column (1971: 29) without further comment or discussion. Presumably, in this context, he meant the Samareitikon. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110760798-006

576 | The Origin of the μόνον-Collation

Only Ceriani attempted to articulate how this suggestion relates to the MS evidence (→ §2.4). Essentially, his argument was that because some of the “SP omits” notes in SH Exod mentioned obeli (‫)ܓܐ̈ܪܘ ܐ‬, the obelus had been adapted, in a way similar to the hexaplaric text generally, to mark where “SP < the Hebrew” (and thus G). The use of the asterisk for the μόνον-type plusses was logically added to this line of reasoning.3 Ceriani suggested then that these differences between SP and “the Hebrew” were marked (most likely) by Origen either in the Hebrew column itself or perhaps in Secunda, to which the Samaritan data were affixed.4 However, the total evidence of the μόνον-collation cannot sustain Ceriani’s hypothesis. Most especially, references are made to the “obelus” with respect to readings which are both qualitatively and quantitatively variant to the hexaplaric LXX, not the Hebrew in the first column (or anywhere else). Rather, it is much more probable that mention of these “obeli” do not refer to the function of the same sigla within the edited hexaplaric text (or even the Hexapla Maior), but in fact refer to the adapted use of said sigla within the separate collation materials (→ §§4.4.1–4.4.2). Yet because of the ambiguities of the evidence from SH and the small number of these collation notes—as well as the uncertainty as to which physical artifact “hexapla” precisely refers in the SH colophons (→ §§2.2; 3.2)—it is difficult to prove conclusively, beyond all doubt, how the collation took place and what part the Hexapla Maior played beyond the above-proffered reconstruction (→ §4.4.1). Nevertheless, if one were to presume such a SP column—or, as Kohn, marginalia approaching the significance of a column—existed within the Hexapla Maior, how might the idea of such compare with what can be known about the grand synopsis, and what kind of external evidence supports its existence? In truth, the evidence militates against this supposition. 1) First, one has to consider the role or function such a column might have had in the composition (or basic layer) of the original synopsis. According to discernible hexaplaric practice, the extant MSS reveal that the recentiores, particularly Theodotion, were used to provide for the quantitative variation between “the Hebrew” and the Seventy. Thus, Origen described his use of “the Hebrew” (i.e., the first col|| 3 Ceriani’s entire argument was more or less prompted by the assumption that the Hexapla Maior contained these sigla. However, no material evidence has surfaced thus far which confirms this suspicion, and indeed, scholars are divided over whether or not the Septuagint column was marked (see CH 1, n. 39 above). 4 Again, he was also open to the possibility that these originated in the Eusebian recension; however, his discussion presumed the columned work was more likely, and he expressly favored Origen over Eusebius in any case (→ §2.4.2 at Notation at Exod 8.6–7 [10–11]).

Was There Ever a Samaritan Column in the Hexapla Maior? | 577

umn)5 as the yardstick by which the sigla were applied (καὶ τινὰ μὲν ὠβελίσαμεν ⟨ὡς⟩ ἐν τῷ Ἑβραϊκῷ μὴ κείμενα, etc.).6 In this procedure, Schaper discerns a two-step process: first Origen compared the Seventy with the recentiores; secsecond, he used the Hebrew column “to corroborate—and, if necessary, to correct—the impression he had received from the [recentiores].”7 Thus, in Schaper’s eyes, the Hebrew column itself served as the “ultimate instance of appeal” but not “an ordinary research tool.”8 Certainly, there are examples that such a process had taken place, since only physical use of the Hebrew text (perhaps accessed by means of Aquila?) could serve as arbiter when the recentiores quantitatively disagreed.9 Nevertheless, the consequence of Origen’s “ultimate appeal” to the Hebrew column is clear—his Hebrew κανών was the consonantal, Jewish (proto-)MT.10 Based upon the extant MSS in which the hexaplaric sigla ※ and ⨪ / ÷ survive, it can be asserted that SP did not factor into the hexaplaric endeavor. Otherwise, many sigla would have been

|| 5 The very existence of which has been the subject of no little amount of controversy, due to P. Nautin’s argument against there ever being a Hebrew column in the Hexapla Maior; see Ulrich (1988) 1999: 217–21, for a brief outline and critique of his hypothesis. His theory has been opposed many times (e.g., Ulrich [1988] 1999; Norton 1998: 103–11; Jenkins 1998: 88–90; Gentry 2021: 565, following Jenkins), or simply ignored (J. Schaper 1998), and is not considered here. Nevertheless, if Nautin was correct, there could hardly have been a Samaritan Hebrew column. One might also ask how the μόνον-collator(s) could have possibly aligned SP with the Seventy (→ §4.4.1) without such a column? In passing, it should be mentioned that unless Origen could sight read Hebrew, having any MSS in Hebrew characters would have been utterly pointless without its being keyed to at least Aquila, i.e., without the first half (or first three columns) of the aligned Hexapla Maior. (For this latter point, see Norton 1991.) 6 Origen’s discussion in his Comm. on Matt. 15.14 and Ep. ad Africanum §§3–7, both belong to his later Caesarean period. See also the quotation from Origen’s Hom. in Pss. 77.1.1 above (see above CH 2, n. 103). 7 1998: 5. 8 1998: 5. 9 E.g., Origen’s Ep. ad Africanum (§6[3]) regarding Job 42.17 in which he said “the Hebrew” and Aquila lack a part of the reading, while the Seventy and Theodotion both transmit the missing portion (οὐ κεῖται παρὰ τοῖς Ἑβραίοις· διόπερ οὐδὲ παρὰ τῷ Ἀκύλᾳ· παρὰ δὲ τοῖς Ἑβδομήκοντα καὶ Θεοδοτίωνι τὰ ἰσοδυναμοῦντα ἀλλήλοις; see Ziegler’s AppII for other MSS transmitting a version of this same note; see also the scholia at Gen 4.8 → APPENDIX D). Compare also the collation notes at SH 4 Kgdms 2.24 and SH Exod 22.4(5; → CH 2, n. 572). 10 When Origen acquired his Hebrew text is a great unknown, though certainly such a column existed by his later Caesarean period (Gentry 2021: 565). See Clements’ reconstruction (2000: 321–29), recently seconded by Kantor (2017: 35, 38–39), both of whom also review earlier opinion on the matter.

578 | The Origin of the μόνον-Collation

differently placed (or not placed at all) in the Pentateuch due to the SP = G ≠ MT category. By extension, assuming the first column served as a schematic “matrix”11 for the synopsis, it is difficult to imagine how a SP column would functioned in the work, even secondarily. It is of course possible that the μόνον-data was, for whatever reason, appended to the Hexapla Maior („unter dem Striche“),12 but the Hebrew SP did not contribute to the basic lined structure of the synopsis. This is corroborated by the probable suggestion that the first three columns were prepared for Origen by Jewish—as opposed to Samaritan—scribes.13 More logical (and practical), is the addition of these materials to the margins of the Eusebian ἔκδοσις—by Eusebius—just as the subscriptions recommend: ‫ܐܦ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ̈ ̈ . ̣ ‫ܝ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ ܕ ܒܐ ܼܗܘ ܒ ܒ‬ ‫ܐܕ‬ ‫ …“ ܬܘ‬from which also he [sc. Eusebius] set the (Samaritan) supplements upon the margin of that book [sc. codex] in that very hexapla” (SH Num colophon, ln. 5b, → §3.2). 2) Second, there is the ancient testimony to the composition or shape of the Hexapla Maior.14 Put succinctly, while several Fathers mention “the Hebrew” with respect to the form or contents of the columned Hexapla Maior, no mention of any Hebrew is made other than that with (Jewish) Hebrew characters or Secunda.15 The case is particularly acute in Eusebius, who specified that Origen was sure to acquire Jewish Hebrew MSS (H.E. 6.16.1).16 This is an important consideration: Eusebius knew of (and used!) Samaritan Hebrew. He was aware that || 11 This is Norton’s assessment, for which he has ably argued (1998: 124). 12 Compare the θ΄ readings added to the margins of MS 1098. Based on this evidence, Norton even expressed doubt as to whether or not Theodotion had its own column (1991: 145). Certainly, there is no reason to assume that the number of columns was the same for every biblical book, e.g., ε΄ ς΄ in the Pss (on which, see Marsh 2021a). 13 E.g., Norton 1991: 148; Clements 2000: 327; see Fernández Marcos 2000: 204ff, for earlier literature. Recently, Kantor has argued similarly for the Hebrew and Secunda columns (2017: 45–47). 14 For a summaries, see Kantor 2017: 40–44 and Gentry 2021: 562–67. 15 Besides Eusebius himself, mention of “the Hebrew” in connection with the columned Hexapla Maior is found in Jerome (e.g., Ep. Titus 3.9; Comm. on Ps 1.4 [see Ceulemans 2008: 103], 4.8; cf. De Ill. Vir. 54.6) and Epiphanius (De Men et Pond §19; Panarion 64.3.5–7). While there is doubt as to whether either Father saw the work in person (Schaper 1998: 7; cp. Neuschäfer 1987/1.87, and nn. 14–16, vs. Norton 1998: 106–09, and Gentry 2021: 566–67 [both positively]), neither Epiphanius nor Jerome mentioned another Hebrew column in Samaritan script or a Samaritan Greek column. 16 Something flagged up long ago by Simon (→ §1.2.1.1). Grafton and Williams speciously claim “Eusebius also attests to [the SP column’s] presence,” presumably due to his Chronicon (2006: 95). This entire chapter addresses and denies any such claim: In no way does Chron. or his work in the μόνον-collation support any such assumption.

The μόνον-Collation: An Historical Reconstruction | 579

their textual tradition and script differed (→ §§6.2.1; EXCURSUS A); yet during his panegyric of Origen’s study of the Hebrew Scriptures, he makes no mention of SP. Had he done so Origen’s Hebrew study would have been further elevated, greatly aiding his apologetic aggrandizement of Origen, his adopted intellectual forebear. More particularly, Eusebius was keen to portray Origen as one who sought out and found obscure, lost texts from the dark corners of the world, namely Quinta and Sexta (H.E. 6.16.1–4). It therefore would have been very odd if Eusebius knew Origen had secured a SP MS yet said nothing about it. 3) Third, there is the troubling lack of evidence for Origen’s ever having used, or even caring about, SP (→ §§6.2.1–2). For in addition to the nonuse of SP in the construction of the Hexapla Maior, as well as its absence in the base-text of the hexaplaric ἔκδοσις derived therefrom, his extant works show no awareness, save a single word, that the Samaritans used a textually distinct Hebrew version. Thus, in the end, it is very difficult to support the theory that the Hexapla Maior possessed a Samaritan column or readings „unter dem Striche.” It must be conceded that it is possible that, after the completion of the Hexapla Maior, the passages were put upon the margins of the synoptic work, but this is far from assured and requires unfounded speculation. (Also, why would this have ever happened?) Furthermore, had this occurred one would expect more hexaplaric exemplars to have transmitted this material. Codicologically, these readings, as Samaritan exclusivities, would have been cumbersome in the largely word-forword “matrix.” Would the Hexapla Maior have allowed the space necessary for the Samaritan “column” to be the sole ἔκδοσις reading on and on for passages which, at times, are as long as 7–9 verses? And again: How would readings such as Deut 10.6–6‫–א‬7–7‫–א‬6 and Deut 34.1b–1‫–א‬2 (→ §4.3.2) have been marked in relation to the other columns? These variants would have spanned many folia, making even Kohn’s suggestion untenable. Unless Origen had begun the Hexapla Maior with the intent of incorporating SP—something which is exceedingly unlikely—it would otherwise have proved too cumbrous to tack-on to the work. Rather a separate collation would have been more sensible and much easier to execute.

6.2 The μόνον-Collation: An Historical Reconstruction Before further historically contextualizing the μόνον-collation, one point of interest related to the issue bears further comment, namely ancient Christian

580 | The Origin of the μόνον-Collation

Hebraism. Studies examining knowledge of Hebrew amongst ancient Christians have, with the exception of those on Jerome,17 generally resulted in negative appraisals.18 Unsurprisingly, in connection with the Hebrew columns of the Hexapla Maior, Origen’s Hebrew knowledge has been the subject of special attention and no small disagreement.19 On a much reduced scale, Eusebius’ Hebrew learning has also been disputed.20 Nevertheless, in accordance with the above proposed hypothesis (→ §4.4.1), whereby the great hexaplaric synopsis is used as an analytical lexicon, the problems presented by the general lack of Hebrew knowledge amongst Christians is largely, if not entirely, circumvented. Indeed, the rote, purposeful septuagintism characteristic of the translation suggests that the translator(s) was unlikely to have been a Hebrew speaker yet had a (perhaps rather) basic command of Hebrew—one which was unevenly applied, assuming the MS tradition has not been unduly contaminated. Clearly, he had skill enough to know the difference between ‫ דבר‬/ ‫ אמר‬and when (or if) to add ‫ואהרן‬, ‫מלחמה‬, or ‫מול שכם‬. Certainly, he could differentiate between ‫ יהוה‬and ‫ →( אדני‬EXCURSUS C). One also assumes, that throughout the entire process, a certain facility with more common Hebrew words and phrases (e.g., “And the Lord said to Moses…”) was at-

|| 17 See, e.g., Graves 2007; Gallagher 2012. Note Graves’ recent statement: “In spite of natural imperfections in his knowledge given his time and circumstances, Jerome attained strong competency in Hebrew and represents the high point of Hebrew scholarship in the early church” (2014: 78). Similar is Newman’s: “The overwhelming mass of evidence for Jerome’s Hebrew competence reflects only his passive control of the language, that is to say, his ability to interpret a Hebrew Biblical text and to translated from Hebrew into Latin” (2009: 136). 18 E.g., C. Elliott’s “Hebrew Learning among the Fathers” (DCB 2.851–72). For an extensive, more recent study, see Kantor, forthcoming, B.II.1–15. 19 See the survey provided by Fernández Marcos 2000: 204–06. Perhaps Origen’s knowledge of Hebrew was viewed negatively first by P.D. Huet in his Origeniana (1668; see the reprint in PG 17, at his listed contents): “Scripturae callentissimus fuit Origenes … sed Hebraicae linguae parum consultus, Samaritanae vero penitus ignarus.” More recently on Origen’s putative Hebrew knowledge, see Kantor 2017: 11–29, and his forthcoming, B.II.1.2. 20 E.g., D. Wallace-Hadrill described his as an “inadequate knowledge” (1960: 62, following E. Nestle). Contrasting his view is that expressed by Sant: “… certainly he could read [Hebrew] and understand it with the help of the Aquila translation” (1971: 30). More recently, the view of M. Hollerich has changed. At first he claimed Eusebius “knew virtually no Hebrew” (1992: 593– 94; also 1999: 79, 81–6). However later, after accepting the scholarly consensus refuting Nautin’s denial of the first column’s existence, he admitted: “Possession of a rudimentary knowledge of Hebrew language and grammar cannot … be excluded.” (2013: 647–48). The present reconstruction ably supports Hollerich’s latter view, more or less leaning towards Sant’s inclination that Eusebius used the columns in conjunction with one another to “read” Hebrew (→ §4.4.1).

The μόνον-Collation: An Historical Reconstruction | 581

tained, having been learned inductively. Ultimately, however, the methodology used by the translator(s) masked whatever level of Hebrew proficiency he may have had, which in any case would not have been beyond a passive understanding and probably well inferior to Jerome’s.

6.2.1 Origen, Pamphilus, or Eusebius: Whose Profile Fits Best? The Assumption of Origen In considering the centuries-old, scholarly presumption of Origen’s role in the production of the μόνον-collation specifically, aside from the χολ scholion to be revisited below (Deut 27.26 → §6.2.2), there are four aspects of the data requiring consideration: 1) Masius’ description of SH Deut 34.(1b–)1‫–א‬2, 2) Origen’s wider textual praxis, 3) his comments on Hebrew scripts, and 4) his expressed opinion of the Samaritans’ reception of divine revelation. While his literary remains are admittedly fragmentary, these elements related to Origen and his work serve to further clarify the historical reconstruction of the collation’s origins. 1) Masius’ “in Hexaplo Origenis” at SH Deut 34.(1b–)1‫–א‬2. Perhaps the first, evidence-based assertion that it was Origen who executed the hexaplaric SP collation was Masius’ description of SH Deut 34.1b–1‫–א‬2 (→ §4.3.2). However, closer analysis reveals that his description is itself presumptuous. Masius’ reads: ¶ Και εδειξεν αυτω Κυριος πασαν την γην. Syrum exemplar notat in margine, quod illa verba, quae sequuntur usque dum dicitur, και ειπε Κυριος προς &c. sint [sic] in Hexaplo Origenis notata obelisco, eo quod in Hebraico exemplari quod apud Samaritanos extabat, pro illis fuerant scripta haec, [1b] και εδειξεν αυτω Κυριος πασαν την γην [1‫ ]א‬απο του ποταμου του Αιγυπτου εως του ποταμου μεγαλου, ποταμου ευφρατου, [2] εως της θαλασσης της εσχατης. [4] και ειπε Κυριος &c.21 And the Lord showed to him all the land: SH notes in the margin that the words following, up until it says “And the Lord said to etc [v 4],” are obelized in the Hexapla of Origen, because the Hebrew exemplar [= ‫ ]ܨ ܐ‬extant amongst the Samaritans has written here, in place of [LXX], as follows: And the Lord showed him all the land from the River of Egypt until the Great River, the River Euphrates, until the far Sea. And the Lord said etc.

As mentioned above, Masius unfortunately supplied an imprecise description of marginal note, prompting questions concerning the original as found in SHM

|| 21 CS col. 285; Masius’ use of italics is reproduced though his Greek diacritics and ligatures are not (bold mine).

582 | The Origin of the μόνον-Collation

itself. The most perplexing aspects of Masius’ description are the references to “obeli” and “Origen’s Hexapla.” The collation notes and attributions themselves make reference to obeli a couple of times, but the location in which these are found is not described as in “Origen’s hexapla” but “the Hebrew” (→ §2.4; §4.3.2 at Deut 10.6–6‫–א‬7–7‫–א‬6 [SHV’s attribution], and §§4.4.1–4.4.2). So what did Masius mean? Did he intend to specify that “Origen” was explicitly named in the SH’s margin with reference to SP? Or rather, had Masius generalized, assuming Origen’s authorship of the “hexapla” and its accoutrements (cp. also Montfaucon’s parallel assumption above → §1.2.1.2)? As is clear from the abovesurveyed data, Origen’s name is simply not found in any of the extant μόνονmaterials; certainly Masius was generalizing. As such, Masius’ description, or better Masius’ assumption, should not be used as corroboration of or an argument for Origen’s involvement.22 2) Origen’s Textual Praxis. A further consideration regarding Origen’s potential involvement in the μόνον-collation is his demonstrated textual praxis. Based upon extant MS evidence, it would appear that SP simply had no role whatsoever in the “hexapla,” insofar as it related to the running text, be it the Hexapla Maior or its derived texts (→ §6.1). And again, it follows that if SP had been, in Origen’s eyes, a viable textual authority, itself eligible for critical use in the columned synopsis, the ensuing hexaplaric base-text would have exhibited profoundly different placement of sigla due to the SP = G ≠ MT category.23 One well known example, germane to his classifications, is the case of Cain’s words to Abel at Gen 4.8 (→ EXCURSUS D). However, the evidence outlined above makes it clear that there Origen failed to make reference to the agreement between G and SP (against MT) when the opportunity presented itself (Sel. in

|| 22 Perhaps the only issue with the above argument is to posit that the colophon for SH Deut (→ §4.2), which Masius would have seen, mentioned Origen as the one responsible for the Samaritan collation and simply transferred said attribution onto his description of the reading at Deut 34.(1b–)1‫–א‬2. While this could be supposed, it would have been an odd procedure for Masius to have done so here while not also making mention of Origen at the very place his name was mentioned, viz., (assuming this circumstance) in the colophon. However, if neither place made any mention of the individual responsible, it would have made sense for Masius to have added “Origen” to the locale which mentioned the obeli, one of the sigla associated with Origen specifically in the descriptions of the hexaplaric tradition which would have been known to him at the time. 23 While Tov’s assessment (TCHB3, 136, n. 228, following Kim 1994) that the meaningful agreement between G and SP is less thoroughgoing than has, in general, been historically described, had SP also counted as “the Hebrew” to Origen, some noticeable passages would not have been marked sub ⨪ / ÷ : e.g., Lev 17.4 (sub ⨪ / ÷ in MS GO), Num 4.14 (sub ⨪ / ÷ in GO and SH), most occurrences of “Girgashite(s),” etc. (→ Table 1.3.2.2).

The μόνον-Collation: An Historical Reconstruction | 583

Gen 4.8).24 In contrast to the above-examined case in Deut 27.26, he seems not to have known that in SP Gen 4.8 agreed, quantitatively, with G. Of importance is Origen’s usage of the term αποκρυφος in the Gen 4.8 scholion, particularly in light of his use of the same concept25 in his Ep. ad Africanum. A critical point of the argumentation in Origen’s defense of the Susanna story26 is that the text was likely suppressed (§§13–15[9]; 19[13]) by the Jewish authorities. In other words, he presupposed the text translated by G did have, at some point, a Hebrew base.27 Recently, scholars have been careful to observe that Origen understood (or claimed to have understood) that the Hebrew text of his day had possibly suffered corruption.28 But in actual practice, Origen seems to have made no effort to discover other Hebrew evidence implying or otherwise demonstrating such corruption and/or suppression, save the exceptional reference to (and not necessarily a citation of) SP at Deut 27.26 (→ §§4.3.4; 6.2.2). Certainly, appealing to SP would have conceptually assisted his suppression argument in Ep. ad Africanum. Viz., if the Jews had suppressed texts or parts of texts, surely another Hebrew-speaking, Torah-observing community (cp. Jerome’s comments → §4.3.4), such as the Samaritans, could have transmitted the “apocryphal” portions “unsuppressed.” For instance, earlier in his letter, he listed various textual

|| 24 See further the data (→ EXCURSUS D), esp. Table E.2. Ceulemans’ deliberation as to whether or not οι περι Ακυλαν might include SP is overly speculative (2011: 75). 25 My line of argumentation is not meant to thwart Ceulemans’ understanding of αποκρυφος in the scholion as “midrash.” Rather, my point is that however one might understand “αποκρυφος,” Origen seems to have believed that it had a textual base, and that SP could have served as that base whatever the divisions between Jews and Samaritans in his day. 26 For the present purposes, whether or not Origen’s defense was disingenuous (so de Lange 1985) is immaterial. What is of concern here is what Origen was willing to publically declare or, with respect to the hexaplaric recension, publish for dissemination. 27 For Origen’s use of the suppression argument, see Gallagher 2012: 79–85. With respect to the use of this argument in the Ep. ad Africanum Gallagher concludes: “If [Origen was] trying to disguise his requirement for a Hebrew original [sc. a textual base], he does a very poor job of it” (p. 85). 28 See Law 2008: 12 (citing Sel. in Ps. 3.8; PG 12.1129–30; and Sel. in Ezek 7.27; PG 13.795–96). Gallagher provides a full exposition of both of these passages (2012: 184–85). He prefaces: Therefore, in these cases in which Origen hesitates to revise the LXX toward the Hebrew, the probable reason is that he does not consider the current Hebrew text always the correct text; it cannot be “the final court of appeal,” … . However, he maintains even in these instances that the original LXX faithfully represented the original Hebrew (p. 183, emphasis mine).

584 | The Origin of the μόνον-Collation

differentiations between G and (presumably the proto-)MT (§§3–8), i.e., obelized portions. The list varies widely from the textual situations in Job, to Esther, to Gen, the very difficult situation in Exod, and the like.29 However, unlike his argument for Susanna—the point of his letter—he pleads that these should not be excised from the Church’s Bible, only quoting Prov 22.28 invoking the argument of Providence. Another procedure, however, would have been to introduce his suppression argument much earlier. For instance, he pointed out that in LXX Gen 1.7 the phrase “And God saw that it was good” is not found in “the Hebrew,” leading him, he explained, to obelize many such cases (Ep. ad Africanum §7). Yet, only a few verses later, there is another such quantitative difference between G and MT in which SP supports G (“to give light upon the earth,” Gen 1.14). Did Origen know SP here? Why did Origen not argue that this phrase or that in Gen 4.8 had been suppressed by the Jews, perhaps in order to undermine SP (cp. y. Soṭah 7.3),30 and thus provide physical Hebrew evidence illustrating the logic (or at least the likelihood) of his defense of Susanna? Or, was it Origen’s opinion that SP was ineligible to function even as the “apocrypha” did, ill-suited to grant support to texts sub ⨪ / ÷?31 All of this is of course speculation, and in a way argued from silence. However, when the cases in Deut 27.26 and Gen 4.8 are juxtaposed with both the hexaplaric remains themselves and Origen’s argument for “Jewish suppression” in the Ep. ad Africanum, one cannot help but surmise that either Origen had no knowledge (direct or secondhand) of the Samaritan textual tradition outside of a word or two, or that it was appealed to only in the most dire of circumstances, e.g., when the credibility of the Apostle (as opposed to G text sub ⨪ / ÷) was at stake.32 Whatever the motive may have been behind the χολ scholion, the ostensible standard by which Origen judged which parts of GPent were marked sub ⨪

|| 29 De Lange argues this wide sampling favors a late date for the letter (1985: 242–43; SC 302: 501). 30 N.B., Kamesar: “[Origen] formulates the theory that some passages which at one time were part of the Hebrew Bible may have been excised by the Jews as detrimental to the interests of the Jewish authorities” (1993: 101, emphasis mine). 31 Again, Kamesar: “… it would seem logical to conclude that in his view, when the ‘pluses’ in the Septuagint also appear in apocrypha, they have an extra claim to legitimacy” (1993: 101, on Gen 4.8, specifically). 32 See also Adler 1990: 9–11. Note that in the first example of the alleged Jewish suppression, namely the case of the Martyrdom of Isaiah (Ep. ad Africanum §13), Origen argued that the part in Heb 11.37, which was in Origen’s opinion written by Paul (Eusebius H.E. 6.14.1–4), is known from an apocryphal work (i.e., a text), which had been suppressed.

The μόνον-Collation: An Historical Reconstruction | 585

/ ÷ was undeniably (proto-)MT—SP simply played no part in his textual praxis. This is more easily explained if he never had meaningful, direct interaction with or took possession of SP, be it in Hebrew or Greek. 3) Samaritan Script (→ EXCURSUS A). Another issue is Origen’s failure to mention the distinctive Samaritan script. Surely, if he had encountered this in person, it would have struck him as remarkable, prompting a comment or two. Yet, Origen’s statements on Hebrew scripts say nothing of the Samaritans’ distinct letters. Instead, he only commented briefly on the change in script during Ezra’s period (Sel. in Ps 2.2),33 and that additionally he had been informed by a Hebrew convert that the mark ‫ ָתו‬mentioned in Ezek 9 bore the shape of the cross in old Hebrew script (Sel. in Ezek 9.4).34 These two passages are interesting since Jerome later adapted them for his own discussions,35 adding mention of the Samaritan script to Origen’s previous remarks.36 Even so, Eusebius was the first Father to mention the Samaritans’ distinctive letters (see below). He observed (unfortunately without any meaningful description) that the scripts of the Jews and Samaritans differed, the latter of whose is the older: a fact the former would not deny.37 Yet what is significant about this remark is the context in which Eusebius discussed the scripts; his was a discussion of the various chronologies in Gen 5 and 11 presented by MT, SP, and G—a textual study. It is thus more natural to read Eusebius’ comments as related to a material comparison of the versions, i.e., physical use of SP in a distinctive “Samaritan”38 script—how else would he have known this?39 Contrariwise, one might better interpret Jerome’s comments on Samaritan script as being based, not on actual interaction with a tangible Samaritan exemplar, but rather a re-casting of Origen’s comments, supplemented by the information

|| 33 PG 12.1103–04. De Lange suggests Origen may have learned this from Rabbinic tradition (1976: 55). 34 See the edition with ET in Hooker 2014: 536–37. 35 See Pummer 2002: 190; also PL 25.87–88, nn. ‘a’ and ‘b’. 36 See, respectively, Prolog. in Libro Regum and Comm. on Ezek 3.9 (CCSL 75.106–107, see F. Glorie’s note ad loc). Also compare Epiphanius’ similar comments in De Gemmis (1934:188–189; see Pummer 2002: 140, for discussion; reprinted ET on pp. 178–79). 37 Chronicon (GCS 20.37; see Pummer 2002: 91–93, for a reprint and ET). 38 For the sake of the present argument, it matters little whether Eusebius’ SP was written in the traditional Samaritan uncial or the “paleo-Hebrew” script (→ EXCURSUS A). 39 If one counters that Eusebius observed as much from Samaritan inscriptions in Caesarea, then it would have to be explained why Origen did not similarly refer to this; he too lived in Caesarea for some time. Even so, the evidence for Samaritan uncial better align with Eusebius’ period than Origen’s (→ EXCURSUS A).

586 | The Origin of the μόνον-Collation

provided by Eusebius in his Chronicon, a work Jerome updated and translated into Latin.40 4) Origen’s Thoughts on Samaritan Reception of Revelation. Last considered is Origen’s Comm. on Rom. 2.14 (on Rom 3.2), in which he reflected on both Jewish and Samaritan reception of divine revelation: … we must of course ask whether the oracles of God may be said to have been entrusted first to the Samaritans as well. For it appears that among them as well the law of Moses is preserved. Yet I would say that not even the letter, which is said to kill, has been entrusted to them. [He then quoted G Amos 6.1; cp. recentiores.] By repudiating the prophets, they estrange themselves from the writings of God.41

Origen’s Comm. on Rom. is considered one of his more mature works, believed to have been written during his later Caesarean period, ca. 246 CE.42 Certainly, this strongly worded sentiment, in combination with the absence of SP in his textual works, leaves the impression that he would not have considered SP worth investigating.43 In conclusion, there is simply no convincing evidence that Origen used or was otherwise familiar with SP. Nothing in his extant works supports the long held supposition that SP had a place in his textual researches. However, because his writings have been so sparsely preserved, it is unsafe to be overly dogmatic

|| 40 The same could be said of Epiphanius’ comments (not included above → §4.3.3; see Pummer 2002 ad loc); he need not have actually seen Samaritan letters. Despite Jerome’s claim, the letter Tau (Samaritan Tå̄f) in extant Samaritan scripts do not form a cross: ‫ת‬. And while the Leeds Decalogue inscription exhibits a Tau which could be construed as an angled cross (so Pummer 2002: 190), the other Decalogue inscriptions exhibit shapes typical of Samaritan uncial (see Purvis 1968: Table VI). Note that the Samaritan Decalogue inscriptions are now thought to all date from the Byzantine period, well after Eusebius’ time (→ EXCURSUS A; §7.1.2). Those examples of letters from Jewish ostraca and Qumran MSS (Purvis 1968: Tables II–V), however, better fit Origen’s and Jerome’s comments regarding the cross shape. 41 T. Scheck’s translation (2001: 168–69; cp. the ET in Pummer 2002: [75–]76). Naturally, any inference from this passage presumes Rufinus’ fidelity to Origen’s argument (Pummer 2002: 44–45). 42 See Scheck’s introductory discussion (2001: 8–9). 43 See de Lange 1976: 37, with n. 103. Pummer does not draw further conclusions on this text (2002: 45). Jerome’s opinion was comparable to Origen’s. In addition to the very sparse references to SP, Jerome expressly calls the Samaritans heretics (Pummer 2002: 191): e.g., Ep. 121.5.4, Dial. contra Luc 23, Comm. on Amos 2.4.1 (each provided reprinted with ET by Pummer 2002: 204–5, 207–08). Is this why Jerome did not seem to bother with SP despite his independent researches in Hebrew?

The μόνον-Collation: An Historical Reconstruction | 587

about the matter. Perhaps it could be admitted that it is possible, however remotely, that Origen initiated the μόνον-collation, perhaps at the very end of his life, part of which he spent imprisoned. But based on the above, it is very unlikely this was the case, and ultimately any such suggestion should be rejected. Arguing for Origen’s having put SP in the hexaplaric tradition, in any of its physical manifestations, creates more historical inconsistencies than it resolves and outside of more conclusive proof, insinuations to the contrary are unsustainable. In short, the long-held assumption that Origen added SP to the hexaplaric tradition falls apart when subjected to scrutiny. The Possibility of Pamphilus The second individual considered44 in connection with the μόνον-effort is Eusebius’ Doktorvater45 and Caesarea-based co-worker, the venerable martyr Pamphilus (ca. 240–310 CE). Born to wealth in Beirut,46 he furthered his education at Alexandria47 before coming to Caesarea ca. 285/6 CE.48 There he was ordained a presbyter (M. Pal. 11.2) and took over care of the library (H.E. 6.32.3; Jerome, Ep. 34.1, De Vir. Ill. 3, 96) and “school” (διατριβή, H.E. 7.32.25) previously founded by Origen and his immediate circle.49 Pamphilus was universally praised for both his character and erudition (H.E. 6.32.3; 7.32.25; M. Pal. 11), particularly his efforts to circulate the Scriptures, and is known to have even copied out Origen’s works himself (De Vir. Ill. 75; cp. H.E. 6.32.3). These efforts included the editing of the hexaplaric text for wider circulation, to which many of the extant colophons attest (e.g., 4 Kgdms, Isa, Twelve, Prov, et al → APPENDIX). 1) Pamphilus and the Caesarean Library. Unfortunately, little is certain regarding the library between the death of Origen and the arrival of Pamphilus in Caesarea. It is unknown whether the Decian persecution affected the library’s collections, in part due to the uncertainty of whether or not the volumes were the property of the Caesarean church at the time.50 The status of the library would have been important since, as Carriker points out, while the church, as || 44 This section is much indebted to A. Carriker’s research (2003) into the Caesarean library and Pamphilus’ role therein. 45 This is Carriker’s characterization of their relationship (2003: 18). 46 See M. Pal. 11.1–2 (long recension); also Simeon Metaphrastes’ (fl. ca. 960 CE) testimony in PG 20.1500, n. 72. 47 Under one Pierius (E. Venables, “Pamphilus [1],” DCB 4.178; Photius, Codex 118–19). 48 This is Carriker’s date (2003: 12–13, n. 37, with literature, and p. 37). 49 For the Origenic period of the library, see Carriker 2003: 1–12. 50 Compare, G. Downey who surmised that Origen’s library suffered no deterioration during the persecution whatsoever (1975: 27), with the following notes.

588 | The Origin of the μόνον-Collation

an institution, was not the target of Decius’ efforts,51 Roman judges had the authority to confiscate personal property from those arrested.52 Whatever the case, Pamphilus went on to head both the Caesarean school and library, whatever the institutional status of the latter.53 These two mutually supporting offices of his tenure resulted in the similarly congruent activities of the accumulation and dissemination of sacred texts. The bibliographic activities Pamphilus undertook in the Caesarean library are well attested, both by Eusebius, whose witness was first-hand, and Jerome, whose testimony is secondary though still important, especially since Eusebius’ Life of Pamphilus has not survived intact. Pamphilus is reported to have dedicated great time and effort to collect literature for the library as well as to issue texts, generously, to those who desired them. With respect to the in-gathering of MSS, Eusebius mentioned his teacher had catalogued the library (τῆς συναχθείσης αὐτῷ … βιβλιοθήκης τοὺς πίνακας παρεθέμην), especially the works of Origen and other ecclesiastical writers (H.E. 6.32.3). In one of his many letters to Marcella (Ep. 34.1), Jerome claimed Pamphilus matched Demetrius of Phalerum (345–283 BCE) and Pisistratus (d. 527 BCE)54 in his “zeal for a sacred library and [how he] diligently searched throughout the world for copies of words that are true and eternal monuments [quae vera sunt et aeterna monumenta] ….”55 Pamphilus’ efforts were not limited to works in Greek alone. Jerome made remarks to this effect, crediting Pamphilus with acquiring a copy of the “Hebrew” original of Matthew’s Gospel (De Vir. Ill. 3, sub “Matthew”).56

|| 51 He is of the opinion that had the library been church property, it could have been protected under the Edict of Toleration of Gallienus (son of Valerian) in 260 CE (2003: 21 and notes). 52 On the issue of the library’s status vis-à-vis the Caesarean church, see Carriker (2003: 10–13 and esp. 20–21; cp. also H. Gamble 1995: 159–60). He notes (2003: 10–11, n. 32) that even if personal property had been confiscated, it was possible (as in Cyprian’s case) to regain one’s belongings after the cessation of hostilities. Of course, there is no real way to know what the status of the collections would have been, as the subsequent rewriting of the hexaplaric colophons reveals more about a given scribe’s assumptions than historical reality in this respect. 53 I would like to thank J. Coogan for his guidance on matters related to the institutional status of the Caesarean library. For his own views and notes, see Coogan 2022: 14–15, with nn. 52–53. 54 On Pisistratus’ alleged efforts to collect and have the works of Homer edited, see the discussion C. Tsagalis in his article “Pisistratus” (2020: 193–195). 55 Carriker’s ET (2003: 13, n. 40; Latin from CSEL 54.259–60). The passage goes on to include Origen’s works among those sought after by Pamphilus. 56 Siamake 1992: 160 (Porro ipsum hebraicum habetur usque hodie in Caesariensi bibliotheca, quam Pamphilus martyr studiosissime confecit.). See also Jerome’s Against the Pelagians 3.2 and below n. 63.

The μόνον-Collation: An Historical Reconstruction | 589

Correspondingly, Jerome quoted at length an excerpt from Eusebius’ Life of Pamphilus in which the latter described Pamphilus’ efforts to disseminate the Scriptures (from Adv. Ruf. 2.9): He was also ever ready to distribute copies of Sacred Scriptures not only for reading, but even for private keeping. Not only to men, but even to the women whom he found to be interested in reading them. Thus he prepared many copies [unde et multos codices praeparabat],57 so that he might present them as gifts, when the occasion arose, to those who wanted them.58

Concomitant with this testimony is the witness of the hexaplaric colophons, some of which transmit first-person snippets from the original subscriptions in which Eusebius and Pamphilus described their efforts in “preparing” (as Jerome put it) biblical MSS for dissemination (→ Table 1.1.1.2 and APPENDIX; see Jerome, Prolog. in Libro Paralip. = Adv. Ruf. 2.27). It should be emphasized, however, that it is unlikely that each and every Pamphilan-prepared MS was an academic edition of the hexaplaric biblical text. It is probable that the majority of texts issued were reading (or liturgical?) copies, without the marginal apparatus or any sigla. It is also most probable that perhaps half of these (if not more) were NT MSS, e.g., gospel collections, etc. Jerome’s testimony to Pamphilus’ collecting texts is of importance in determining the latter’s potential role in the hexaplaric μόνον-collation. Is it possible the activities described, however lionized, of searching “the whole world” over for “true and eternal monuments”59 could have included Pamphilus acquiring SP?60 Importantly, Pamphilus was martyred in 310 CE and only one year later, Eusebius completed the first edition of his Chronicon.61 Thus, one might reason that at least SP Gen had come into the possession of the Caesarean library by that time, if not much earlier, since Eusebius provided the Samaritan genealo-

|| 57 Gamble argues this passage plainly implies the presence of a significant scriptorium in the Caesarean library, one he argues went back ultimately to Ambrose of Alexandria’s patronage of Origen (1995: 158 and 301, n. 41 [referencing H.E. 6.28]). Carriker, however, is more cautious (2003: 16–17, with n. 50). 58 J. Hritzu’s ET (1965: 70; CCSL 79.8). 59 L. Levine specifically interpreted Jerome’s passage as a reference to Pamphilus’ search for scriptural texts (1975: 125 and n. 103). Venables interpreted the passage in terms of “hunting for and obtaining possession of books illustrative of Holy Scripture from all parts of the world” (DCB 4.179). Certainly, Jerome’s description fits both scriptural and ecclesiastical writings. 60 For lists of works possibly acquired by Pamphilus, see Gamble 1995: 157; Carriker 2003: 13– 14. 61 The final edition of the same work would be finished ca. 325 CE (see Carriker 2003: 38–40).

590 | The Origin of the μόνον-Collation

gies from Gen 5 and 11 (see below; cp. → EXCURSUS D).62 It is further important to observe that if Pamphilus was responsible for the procurement of the “Hebrew” (Aramaic?) text of “Matthew,”63 such indicates his pursuit of “true and eternal monuments” was not limited to those only in Greek. Of course, the trope of searching “all the world” for biblical MSS is one which goes back to Origen himself (H.E. 6.16), and it is only natural that Pamphilus would have assumed this function modeled by Origen. Therefore, in the absence of the full account Eusebius presumably supplied in his Life of Pamphilus, the extant data would seem to support the possibility that sometime between Pamphilus’ taking up the role as head librarian and Eusebius’ use thereof in his Chronicon, a copy of the Hebrew SP, in distinctive “Samaritan” letters, came into the possession of the Caesarean library (→ §7.1). Pamphilus’ curatorship of the collections provides a promising scenario in which this acquisition could have taken place. 2) Pamphilus’ Role as Scriptural Editor. In addition to the proposed acquisition of a copy of SP as part of Pamphilus’ expansion of Caesarea’s collections, his direct role in the production of the μόνον-collation must also be considered. Pamphilus’ reputation as an editor of Scripture is well established, as evinced by the MSS which bear his name in their subscriptions. These include not only most of the non-Pentateuchal hexaplaric books of the OT (→ Table 1.1.1.2), but nearly half of the NT, namely the Pauline corpus.64 Presumably, he would have

|| 62 For discussion of Eusebius’ hypothetical revision process, see R. Burgess (1997: 501–02), who argues these “revisions” were only updates from the years following the first edition. 63 Perhaps what Eusebius calls the Gospel of the Hebrews (see Theoph. 4.12 and H.E. 3.27.4); on the discrepancy, see earlier H. Lawlor and J. Oulton 1927–28/2.95–6 and 98, and WallaceHadrill 1960: 63–64 and 67. For this issue, see the more recent treatment by Coogan 2022b. He is very suspicious of Jerome’s claims (2022: 7, with n. 17 and passim). While I firmly support being suspicious of Jerome, and Eusebius’ comments can rightly be otherwise interpreted, the Caesarean library did have SP in Hebrew. So there is some evidence for the acquisition of Semitic texts, beyond the first column. 64 For the Pauline letters, see Devreesse’s discussion (1954: 163–164) of the subscription in MS HP (*H 015 = BnF, Coisl. 202, after Titus; see the MS online: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/ btv1b8577515k, fols. 14a–b; quoted in Swete 1914: 75; also H. Murphy 1959: 229): ἀντεβλήθη δὲ ἡ βίβλος πρὸς τὸ ἐν Καισαρίᾳ ἀντίγραφον τῆς βιβλιοθήκης τοῦ ἁγίου Παμφίλου χειρὶ γεγραμμένον [αὐτοῦ? cp. Hark below] also quoted in Swete 1914: 75). “Now this book was collated against the exemplar from the library of Holy Pamphilus written with his own hand.” Cp. also the Hark Pauline colophon after Heb:

‫ܐ ܇ ܒ‬

‫ܐ ܕ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܨ ܐ ܕܐ ⟩ܘܗܝ⟨ ܗܘܐ ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ ܀‬.‫ܗܘܐ ܒ ܬ ܐ ܗ‬

‫ܗܘܐ‬ ‫ ̇ܗܘ ܕܐܦ ܗܘ ܐܬ‬... ‫ܣ܇ܕ‬ ‫̈ܒܐ ܕ ܐ‬

The μόνον-Collation: An Historical Reconstruction | 591

also taken part in, if not directly sponsored, the production of the Caesarean ἔκδοσις of the Gospels, if an early date of Eusebius’ Gospel Canons can be accepted.65 Nevertheless, as discussed above (→ §1.1.1), Pamphilus’ name is conspicuously absent from the colophons for the hexaplaric Pentateuch. Rather, only Eusebius—specifically Eusebius Pamphili—was named, both as the sole editor of the μόνον-bearing exemplar (Exod) and in terms of his library (Gen and Num → §3.2). And while it is not impossible that “Pamphilus” was somehow dropped from the subscriptions, or του Ευσεβιου και του Παμφιλου became Ευσεβιου του Παμφιλου, when both were listed separately (working in conjunction) in the extant hexaplaric colophons, Pamphilus’ name was consistently provided first, preventing any such mistake.66 Thus, the venerable martyr’s name was most likely never attached to these works.

|| “… this same (exemplar/book) was also collated with an exemplar which was in Caesarea of Palestine, (from) the library of Holy Pamphilus, which was written in his own hand. …” Note that the subscription attached to the Acts and the General Epistles mentions Eusebius’ library only (text provided by Devreesse 1954: 168, from Vat. Reg. gr. 179, fol. 71; not digitized): ἀντεβλήθη δὲ τῶν Πράξεων καί καθολικῶν ἐπιστολῶν τὸ βιβλίον πρὸς τὰ ἀκριβῆ ἀντίγραφα τῆς ἐν Καισαρείᾳ βιλιοθήκης Εὐσεβίου τοῦ Παμφίλου. “Now this book of the Acts and Catholic Epistles was collated against the accurate exemplars from the library of Eusebius Pamphili in Caesarea.” Compare this subscription, with other MSS cited by Devreesse (1954: 162, with n. 3) in which the κεφάλαια of Acts were labeled either according to Pamphilus’ (ἔκθεσις κεφαλαίων τῶν Πράξεων τοῦ Παμφίλου) or Eusebius Pamphili’s (παρὰ Ευσεβίου τοῦ Παμφίλου). Presumably, scribal error is the cause for any such discrepancy. 65 On the date of Eusebius’ Canons, see the n. 97 below. N.B.: Here I use ἔκδοσις in the sense of a text published for circulation whether or not specifically “edited” (textually) by Pamphilus and Eusebius. For the contentious “Caesarean” recension (see Metzger 1994: xx–xxi, with literature cited there). 66 This was surely done purposefully by subsequent scribes, not only to grant Pamphilus pride of place, but also to avoid any such confusion caused by Eusebius’ adopted surname. The only exception to this order is SH Isa’s colophon: ‫ܣ ̇ ܘ ܕܐܦ‬ ‫ܨ ܐ ܕܐܘ ܒ ܘܕ‬ ‫ܐ ܕܐܘܪ ܓ‬ ‫ܒܒ‬ ‫ …“ ܗ ܢ ܬܪܨܘ‬from the exemplar of Eusebius and of Pamphilus, which they in turn edited from (the copy in? → APPENDIX) Origen’s library.” (Note, however, that the plural ‫ ܬܪܨܘ‬would have prevented any such mistake.) The SH 4 Kgdms subscription also listed Eusebius before Pamphilus, however there both of their roles were clearly differentiated: ‫ܣ‬ ‫ …“ ܐܘ ܒ ܬܪܨܬ‬I, Eusebius, edited while Pamphilus collated.”

592 | The Origin of the μόνον-Collation

In conclusion, it is probable Pamphilus’ role in the collation (if any) was limited to the acquisition of SP. His curatorship of the Caesarean library and searching for “true and eternal monuments,” particularly a Semitic version of “Matthew” (if such existed, see above n. 63), provide for a circumstance in which SP may have found its way into Christian hands. Perhaps the only argument militating against this understanding is if Eusebius’ source of the Samaritan data used in his Chronicon was an epitome. However, in light of Eusebius’ comments on the unique “Samaritan” script within the presentation of SP’s chronology, it is more likely that Pamphilus had acquired a Samaritan exemplar sometime between the years 285/6 and 307 CE and that this exemplar served as the library’s “Hebrew ἔκδοσις / ἀντίγραφον of the Samaritans.” If Pamphilus’ family’s financial resources were available, or if a patron (à la Ambrose for Origen, H.E. 6.23) arose amongst the Caesarean Christian community,67 the funds necessary for such a purchase would have been available. Eusebius: The Principle Investigator of the μόνον-Collation The last discussed is Eusebius, student and friend of Pamphilus and eventual bishop of Caesarea from 315 CE until his death ca. 340. As opposed to either Origen or Pamphilus, there are several historically verifiable elements indicating he was the one responsible for the addition of SP into the hexaplaric tradition. 1) The (Syro)Hexaplaric Colophons. First is the joint testimony of the surviving hexaplaric Pentateuch subscriptions. These name Eusebius—specifically Eusebius Pamphili (→ §3.2; Table 1.1.1.2), alone as having the final editorial hand in the production of the circulated μόνον-bearing copies. In the case of Exod, the colophon states that two differing exemplars were collated against each other. This is important since it permits an Origenic and an Eusebian copy, the latter of which, according to the subscription, was the μόνον-bearing exemplar (→ §2.2). Origen alluded to his own textual work on Exod (Ep. ad Africanum §7), so it should be assumed that his “edition,” be it a separately issued, critically edited text or the fifth column of the Hexapla Maior itself (edited with sigla or not),68 formed the base of the Eusebian ἔκδοσις. Thus, it is probable that the source of E1 (in the above stemma → §2.2; Figure 2.2.2) represented Origen’s work, upon which Eusebius’ layer (found in E3) was overlaid. The differences between the two are unknown, save the μόνον-collation, which was unique to

|| 67 On this, see Carriker 2003: 14. 68 While scholars still disagree which of these represents Origen’s marked text, the present discussion could apply to either circumstance.

The μόνον-Collation: An Historical Reconstruction | 593

Eusebius’. Otherwise, they may have been the same basic text.69 This interpretation is buttressed by the above-examined colophon to SH Num (→ §3.2). There, Eusebius’ active agency in the insertion of the μόνον-passages is specified. The circumstances for Deut (as Masius’ testimony to Deut 5.21‫ ח–א‬seems to imply → §4.2), while lacking an extant colophon, were probably much the same. Thus, together it is Eusebius, and only Eusebius, who was credited: namely his exemplar, library (i.e., his books), and indeed the very act of setting the passages in the margin. No one else’s activity is mentioned in connection the collation. Presumably, if Origen’s or Pamphilus’ name had been connected to the μόνον-layer, this would not have been omitted in the scribal rewriting of the subscriptions. After all, Eusebius’ reputation suffered due to his Arianizing tendencies.70 This is not to say that subsequent scribes would have stripped Eusebius of any due credit in terms of the biblical MSS circulating which transmitted his researches (e.g., the Gospel Canons); his scholarship was respected.71 Rather, the point is that if either Origen’s or Pamphilus’ names were attached to the μόνον-layer, it is unlikely that subsequent scribes would have transmitted Eusebius’ name without either of the others, especially Pamphilus, whose reputation was impeccable. 2) Eusebius’ Statements related to Direct Use of the First Column. In accordance with the above-hypothesized process employed by the μόνον-critic(s) (→ §4.4.1), the person responsible, whatever the status of his “real” understanding of Hebrew, would certainly have had an intimate knowledge of the first column, i.e., Hebrew in (square) Hebrew characters. While such could clearly be assumed for Origen, and perhaps Pamphilus, is there any explicit evidence showing that Eusebius utilized the first column which would then in turn suggest the possibility of such knowledge? Confirmation of any such utilization would cer|| 69 Also germane to this discussion is who was responsible for adding the selected (nonSamaritan) recentiores and collation notes found in the margins. While line 3a of the Exod colophon indicates this occurred for E1, it could of course have happened at any point for which the Hexapla Maior was available. 70 See above discussion (→ §3.2). Note that many Christian writers purposely distanced themselves from Eusebius; for which see the “Testimonies of the Ancients Against Eusebius” (e.g., Epiphanius, Jerome, Athanasius, Socrates, etc.) translated by A. McGiffert (NPNF 2/01.67–72; based on H. Valesius’ collection of the same reprinted in PG 19.83–98). Perhaps Valesius (and maybe McGiffert?) also wished to distance himself? 71 Thus Jerome, Ep. 119.11: Ego et in adulescentia et in extrema aetate profiteor et Origenem et Eusebium Caesariensem viros esse doctissimos, sed errasse in dogmatum veritate (CSEL 55.468) “I both in manhood and in extreme old age am of the same opinion, that Origen and Eusebius of Caesarea were indeed very learned men, but went astray in the truth of their opinions.” (McGiffert’s ET, NPNF 2/01.68).

594 | The Origin of the μόνον-Collation

tainly increase the likelihood, if not altogether confirm his candidacy, of his being the μόνον-editor (with both collating and translating duties implied). In fact such evidence does exist as shown by a recent study by Hollerich focusing on a number of Hebrew-centric comments found in Eusebius’ Comm. on Pss.72 His summary of the matter (namely “what use, if any, was Eusebius making of the Hebrew?”), is worth quoting in full: [Eusebius’ Hexapla Maior] must have had a Hebrew column in Hebrew script, not merely a Hebrew text in Greek transliteration, because he frequently alludes to the “Hebrew writing” (graphê, PG 23.809c), the “Hebrew reading” (lexis), or “Hebrew letters” (stoicheia). … He notes that the Hebrew original of Ps 52:2 (= Ps 53:2 MT) is verbally identical with the Hebrew of Ps 13:1 (= Ps 14:1b–c MT) because “the same words and the same letters are contained in both” (PG 23.456b).73 That tells us he is doing a painstaking check, letter by letter, of the Hebrew column of the Hexapla [Maior]. Did Origen’s commentary tell him this or did he discover it himself? Even if it is not his own discovery, the care to specify the Hebrew reading—in a passage in which Eusebius did not have an apologetic investment— is suggestive. We can attribute it partly, I propose, to scholarly precision.74

The notion of Eusebius’ sources for his Comm. on Pss., one of his later works,75 vis-à-vis Origen is an interesting question. And certainly any such analysis best awaits a complete critical edition and study.76 Hollerich points out that Eusebius knew of two commentaries by Origen on the Pss, neither of which covered the entire Psalter.77 However, he counters, preliminary analysis of Eusebius’ treatment of the Pss parallels his work in his Comm on Isa: Eusebius wrote complete commentaries on both books for which he did use his predecessor’s incomplete work; still, the former was clearly not bound to but rather would depart from the exegesis of the latter.78 Eusebius then showed critical faculties beyond Origen,

|| 72 See Hollerich 2013b. For Kantor’s recent discussion of Eusebius’ use of Secunda and prospective knowledge of Hebrew, see his forthcoming, B.II.3.2. 73 Τὰ αὐτὰ δὲ καὶ ἐν τῷ ιγʹ ἐδηλοῦτο, μάλιστα κατὰ τὴν Ἑβραϊκὴν γλῶσσαν, ἐν ᾗ αἱ αὐταὶ λέξεις ἐμφέρονται καὶ τὰ αὐτὰ στοιχεῖα ἐν ἀμφοτέροις. 74 2013: 160. 75 Hollerich 2013: 154–55. He prefers a post-Nicaean date and certainly after Constantine’s construction project at the (presumed) tomb of Christ between 326–33 CE. 76 For an overview of the status of the publication of Comm. on Pss, see Kantor forthcoming, B.II.3.3.6. 77 2013: 152, citing H.E. 6.24.2 in combination with the Philocalia’s transmission of Origen on Ps 50 which was not part of his first Comm on Pss. 78 2013: 152–53.

The μόνον-Collation: An Historical Reconstruction | 595

even if there is some level of intellectual debt, which in any case may largely comprise of his use of the Hexapla Maior.79 In addition to the case of the textual parallels in Pss 13(14) and 52(53), another occasion of direct use of the first column of the Hexapla Maior mentioned by Hollerich is that at Ps 71(72).10.80 In commenting on the reading in G, “[the kings of the] Arabians and Saba” (Ἀράβων καὶ Σαβὰ), he observed that Aquila and Symmachus both read “Saba and Saba” (Σαβὰ καὶ Σαβὰ),81 and that “the Hebrew” agreed with them.82 He then continued to remark that both places sound the same but are written with different letters, namely that the first “Saba” is written with the Hebrew letter σὲν (‫ שׁ‬according to Hollerich) and the second with σάδη (‫)צ‬. This is taken by both Hollerich, and A. Johnson before him, as an error.83 MT of course reads ‫שבא וסבא‬, with ‫ ס‬not ‫צ‬, suggesting Eusebius made a mistake,84 and thus perhaps did not actually check the first column (or did so sloppily). However, the wider Hebrew evidence is less certain. “Saba” occurs unambiguously four times in the Hebrew Bible, Gen 10.7, Isa 43.3, 1 Chron 1.9, and Ps 72.10, for each of which MT reads ‫סבא‬. Yet, there is some small evidence for orthographic variation,85 including at least one later MS which reads ‫ )ו(צבא‬for that at Isa 43.3.86 This, in combination with a similar level of variation in witnesses for the Pss 13(14) || 52(53) parallel which confirms verbatim Eusebius’ above-mentioned statement,87 suggests that he directly checked || 79 Hollerich: “The general character of the Psalms commentary resembles that of the Isaiah commentary: its laborious textual exposition [is] based on the resources of the Hexapla …” (2013: 156). 80 See 2013: 161, n. 32. It is unfortunate that he buried this case in a footnote. 81 Field 2.211; PG 23.808. 82 Ἀντὶ δὲ τοῦ, «Βασιλεῖς Ἀράβων καὶ Σαβὰ,» ὁ Ἀκύλας καὶ ὁ Σύμμαχος, ἥ τε Ἑβραϊκὴ γραφὴ συντόνως τούτοις, «Βασιλεῖς Σαβὰ καὶ Σαβὰ» εἰρήκασιν. 83 Hollerich 2013: 161, n. 32; Johnson 2006: 181–82 (with text and ET). 84 See above note. 85 According to Kennicott’s collations: Gen 10.7 ‫ ]סבא‬primo ‫ שבא‬MS 111; Isa 43.3 ‫ ושבא ]וסבא‬MS 93; ‫ וצבא‬MS 252. 1 Chron 1.9 ‫שבא ]סבא‬MSS 4, 118, 158, 168, 170; Ps 72.10: see next note. 86 Thus Kennicott MS 252. According to his collations, MS 3 initially read the same at Ps 72.10 but was corrected. 87 The Hebrew, according to MTL, is as follows: 13(14).1: ‫אמר נבל בלבו אין אלהים השחיתו התעיבו עלילה אין עשה טוב‬ 52(53).2: ‫אמר נבל בלבו אין אלהים השחיתו והתעיבו עול אין עשה טוב‬ Note at the former location, 11Q7 reads ‫עולה‬ ֯ for ‫עלילה‬. Whereas at the latter location—the occasion for Eusebius’ comment—far more harmonizing occurred in the tradition as Ken-

596 | The Origin of the μόνον-Collation

the first column before making any such claims, whether they were prompted by information from Origen’s Comm. on Pss or not. In the end, the point is not that later collations of medieval Masoretic codices represent the Hebrew of the first column. It is only to underscore that errors and other variants similar to those present in the later tradition could represent the type of readings in the first column which Church Fathers recorded (via the Hexapla Maior) in their writings (→ EXCURSUS C, regarding ‫ יהוה‬/ ‫ אדוני‬switching). Thus, Eusebius’ “error” with respect to the spelling of Saba or his “imprecision” in describing the parallel wording at Pss 14(13) || 53(52) may well be due to “errors” in the readings transmitted by the first column.88 Whatever the case, Hollerich’s claim that Eusebius’ Hexapla Maior certainly did have the first column is correct, and the Caesarean critic actively used both it and Secunda.89 Given this, his scholarly profile fits that of the μόνον-critic’(s). 3) Use of SP in his Chronicon, Samaritan Script, and His View of the Samaritans. As above stated, the first explicit use of SP by a Church Father, beyond that of a single word (i.e., the χολ scholion90), was Eusebius’ integration of the Samaritan chronologies from Gen 5 and 11 in his Chronological Canons.91 His description of the chronologies of SP and G, especially the “shared agreement” (συμφωνία) with respect to the ages of the patriarchs at procreation in ch 11, offered Eusebius an opportunity to buttress the credibility of G: … the Hebrew Writings kept by the Šamyrteans agree with our Reading with regard to the first mentioned transmitted number of years [that were lived] prior to the procreation of children; and disagree with the Hebrew Writings of the Jews by 650 years; … now, if according to the original ancient Hebrew Law which until today is preserved intact by the

|| nicott’s collations show: ‫ עלילה ]עול‬2 MSS; ‫ עון‬1 MS; ‫ התעיבו ]והתעיבו‬20 MSS. De Rossi’s collations added to the first place 1 MS which originally read ‫ עול‬for ‫ ;עלילה‬for the latter place 6 MSS (one later corrected) read ‫ עלילה‬for ‫עול‬. He also added 2 MSS (one which corrected) without the prefixed ‫ו־‬. While one might accuse Eusebius of imprecision, it is far likelier that the text in the first column was in fact the same at both locations, as Hebrew MSS for this parallel suggest. Compare Tov’s comments: “After the word pair ‫השׁחיתו התעיבו‬, the general ‫( עלילה‬deed) is appropriate and not ‫עול‬, which creates a tautology. The two words are tantalizingly close, and therefore a graphical interchange is likely” (TCHB3, 15). 88 This same logic applies to any number of readings in SH which are “errors.” It is often the case that it is just as likely the underlying Greek MS(S) are at fault, and SH merely faithfully adhered to its Vorlage. 89 Hence rightly Kantor concludes: “These sorts of comments [about the Hebrew in his Comm. on Pss] suggest that Eusebius was working with the first two columns of the Hexapla [Maior] in a rather close manner as he wrote his commentary” (forthcoming, B.II.3.3.6). 90 As discussed below (→ §6.2.2), the χολ scholion hardly proves “use” as such. 91 See Pummer 2002: 84–86.

The μόνον-Collation: An Historical Reconstruction | 597

Šamyrteans – and the Seventy’s translation is in agreement with this – [… then G and SP preserve the true reading regarding the years of begetting against MT which is faulty; … amongst] the Šamyrteans on the other hand, [there are mistakes] only prior to the Flood, since from the Flood until Abraham the years agree with those in the Tradition upheld by the Seventy.92

One cannot help but juxtapose the expressed emphasis of the agreement between G and SP, against MT, with the μόνον-translator’(s) choice of the G parallels in rendering the Samaritan text. Was this decision made, in conjunction with the below observations (→ §6.2.3), because the Caesarean collator(s)translator(s) assumed a greater συμφωνία between these two textual traditions, the passages themselves notwithstanding? It is also imperative to observe Eusebius’ description of the Samaritan script, in this specific textual context, for it supports his using SP in Hebrew (→ EXCURSUS A): The descendants of the Jews have a law that differs from that of the Šamyrteans who were newcomers [Zuzügler] to the Jews. Yes, even the characters of the Hebrew writings: they are found to be different among the Jews and different among the Šamyrteans which not even the descendants of the Jews would probably refuse to consider the true and original ones. This is why there also was no rift between them until the transformation of the characters.93

Here, Eusebius articulated a very different attitude to the Samaritans in comparison to Origen’s (and Jerome’s). To Eusebius, the Samaritans were “proselytes”94 whose textual tradition was as valid a source as any other.95 This, in combina-

|| 92 Here citing Pummer’s ET (emphasis mine) of Karst’s GT (GCS 20.44) of the Armenian version of Eusebius’ Chronicon (2002: 95–7). Compare the citation of Eusebius’ in the Ecloga Chronographica by George Syncellus (fl. ca. 800 CE; see the reprint of Mosshammer’s edition and ET in Pummer 2002: 402–04; cp. also the ET by Adler and Tuffin 2002: 116–19; 120; 123–25). 93 Pummer’s translation (emphasis mine) of Eusebius’ Chronicon (2002: 91–3; GCS 20.37). 94 See Karst’s n. ‘c’ for Zuzügler in his edition: “t. gr. προσηλυτοι” (GCS 20.37; see Pummer 2002: 81; PG 19.146). Interestingly, George Syncellus did not mention of the Samaritans’ “proselyte” status when making mention of the shift in Hebrew letters (reprint in Pummer 2002: 401; Adler and Tuffin 2002: 118; see also GCS n.s. 15.32–35 [frags. T16e and T16h, esp. the latter]). 95 This is not to say that he necessarily viewed Jews and Samaritans as the same; cp. his citation of Matt 10.5 (DE 9.11), when discussing Deut 18.15–19. Nevertheless, his comments about the “destruction” of Gerizim in Theoph. 4.23 (→ §4.3.3 at Deut 11.30+) make more sense if he considered the Samaritans legitimate Torah observers. The idea that Eusebius might have “conjured” a destruction on Gerizim to parallel that of the destruction of Jerusalem with respect to the Jews, perhaps shows that to Eusebius, both were more or less equitable vis-à-vis Christianity, at least in regard to the Law. See the very title of Theoph. 4.23: “Again, on the laws

598 | The Origin of the μόνον-Collation

tion with his description of SP in his Chronicon96 makes it more likely that Eusebius would have had both the opportunity and inclination not only to consult SP in Hebrew but also add its distinctive elements to the hexaplaric tradition. The only issue with this reconstruction is that no evidence survives directly connecting the “exclusive” Samaritan chronological data to the hexaplaric MS tradition in Gen (→ EXCURSUS D). Nevertheless, the agreement between G and SP Eusebius discerned in his chronological research seems like a probable catalyst prompting him to investigate SP further. 4) Preoccupation with “Contradictions” in Biblical Parallels. Another factor recommending Eusebius as the principle actor of the μόνον-collation is his acute sensitivity to and concern for biblical parallels and ostensible “contradictions.” Specifically, his Gospel Canons (290’s?)97 and Gospel Questions and Solutions (Quaestiones ad Stephanum et Marinum; ca. 320?) occupied a good deal of his earlier efforts.98 This preoccupation with parallel accounts of the same story in different biblical books99 as expressed in the Gospel Canons accords well with the ethos of the SP collation, specifically the cross-reference annotations. In addition to supplying the speech or action underlying a later narrated speech or action, certain issues in the parallel accounts of the Pentateuch are resolved, or rather might be resolved, by resorting to SP, such as the locus specified for Aaron’s death or the differing Wilderness Itineraries (→ §4.3.2).100 While not all early Christian exegetes bothered with these matters (or the Pent generally), || of the Jews, (viz.) that they should no more be observed, either on mount Gerizim, or in Jerusalem. And, on the service worthy of God, which should be set up in His Church” (Lee’s ET; 1843: 256). 96 See Ceriani (1863: 153), who also drew this connection; however, he still preferred Origen as the one who introduced SP into the hexaplaric tradition (→ §2.4.2 at “SP Omits” Notation at Exod 8.6–7 [10–11]). 97 The date of the Gospel Canons is an issue without an adequate solution, on which see Coogan (2022: 13, with nn. 48–49) who concludes “any point during Eusebius’ career is plausible.” That Eusebius would have published the Canons at one point or the other is not necessarily germane to the discussion. Rather it is the sensitivity or proclivity to note the “discrepancies” in parallel biblical passages that is the point. 98 Following Carriker’s timeline (2003: 37–9). Note that A. Whealey (2013) has argued that the second half of the Gospel Questions and Solutions (Quaestiones ad Marinum) was actually a work by Eusebius’ successor, Acacius (d. 365 CE). This would not detract from the current point. Instead it would support it, implying this was an element of his biblical study he was sure to impart to his students. 99 For a description of the Gospel Canons and Gospel Questions and Solutions (= Problems and Solutions), see Wallace-Hadrill 1960: 69–71 and 74–77. 100 Another ostensible “contradiction” could have been the differing ethnic designations in Num 14.45 and Deut 1.44; however, this only works via extension of the cross-reference (→ §3.3.3 at Num 14.45‫א‬, catena).

The μόνον-Collation: An Historical Reconstruction | 599

Procopius of Gaza at least cared for this discrepancy—discussing the locations of Aaron’s death without any mention of SP.101 This is not to say that such discrepancies would have prompted Eusebius to search for textual means of reconciling any such difficulty, as was at times the case in his Gospel Questions and Solutions,102 but only to point out he may have viewed this as a happy byproduct of the SP collation. In the end, even if the SH Num colophon did not specify Eusebius as the one who added SP to the hexaplaric tradition (→ §3.2),103 his career would still offer the best fit for the μόνον-collation. His physical use of SP and the testimony of the colophons in particular give greater weight to the case of his involvement and/or sponsorship than to either Origen or Pamphilus. Whether or not Eusebius was involved directly with either the collation or translation or deputed any part of the project to his students (e.g., Acacius) is unknown. Given the proposed use of the Hexapla Maior in the collation and translation process, it is very probable that he actively participated in the project even if some part of the project was delegated to talented students, especially as the collation would have proved very time consuming. Nevertheless, his final editorial approval would have been required. In this, Eusebius would have purposefully contributed something original to the hexaplaric tradition. His was an additional quantitative layer, one which enabled him to expand the purview of the scriptural traditions available to a Greek Christian audience. The beginnings of his interaction with SP was undoubtedly academic, probably dated to his preliminary research for the Chronicon. Nevertheless, the gap in time between this period and his later “Eusebius Pamphili” period suggests that perhaps something more might have been going on. For a fuller discussion relating to Eusebius’ motive(s), see below (→ §7.3).

|| 101 See discussion above (→ §4.3.2, Procopius’ Remark). 102 Note Hollerich’s description of the same: “Eusebius in the main kept to what he would have regarded as literal and historical solutions: solving contradictions … by multiplying episodes and individuals … and recognising textual variants (2013: 638–39, here at 639, emphasis mine). 103 See my ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS above.

600 | The Origin of the μόνον-Collation

6.2.2 Was Eusebius’ Collation Based on Origen’s Work? While the above historical reconstruction argues against the centuries-old assumption that Origen participated, in any way, in the μόνον-collation, and that, to the contrary, Eusebius of Caesarea’s career best fits the data, there is one piece of evidence which could be construed as supporting Origen’s involvement, namely the attribution of the χολ scholion to Origen (→ §4.3.4). A simplistic reading of the scholion, in isolation to the wider data set, might suggest that Eusebius may have either completed or based his work on an earlier, Origenic SP collation. Thus, the question needs to be posed: Does the scholion’s attribution indicate that Origen’s biblical researches included SP? Perhaps posing the question differently may better situate the matter historically: Is it really necessary to postulate that Origen had acquired such knowledge, namely that both G and SP read “all (the words)” in Deut 27.26, by physically consulting a Hebrew SP? One small word is hardly evidence for meaningful textual interaction, the kind of which the above-surveyed μόνονdata, especially the colophons, requires. Rather if the above analysis of the note’s origins is on track, viz., the apologetic nature of the note in its original context in his Comm. on Gal., then this bespeaks anecdotal evidence. The purpose of the scholion, as composed, is that SP confirms GDeut and, by extension, Paul—a textual directive utterly foreign to the remains of the extant hexaplaric SP collation (i.e., μόνον). Of course Origen knew, among other aspects of their religious belief,104 that the Samaritans accepted the Pentateuch alone, and mentioned this several times in his writings (e.g., Contra Celsum 1.49; Comm. on Matt. 17.29; Comm. on John 13.26.154 and frag. 57).105 However, knowing the Samaritans used only the Pentateuch and providing large-scale excerpts illustrating the unique (i.e., μόνον) textual character of SP vis-à-vis the hexaplaric LXX are two entirely different things. Additionally, it should be remembered that while Origen’s contact with Jews and interaction with Rabbinic traditions (however rudimentary) is well established,106 the same for that with Samaritans is another matter.107 Nev|| 104 Pummer: “… Origen … had ample opportunity to become acquainted with the Samaritans’ views on a number of subjects, including their denial of resurrection, … their veneration of Mt. Gerizim, their fear of touching members of another “race,” their meticulous observance of the law of circumcision, and the Samaritan messianic claimant Dositheus” (2016: 175; referencing his 2002 survey). 105 These passages are helpfully collected with ETs in Pummer 2002. 106 The classic study on this topic is de Lange 1976. See further, R. Brooks 1988 and P. Blowers 1988.

The μόνον-Collation: An Historical Reconstruction | 601

ertheless, it is fair to assume that Origen’s Jewish contemporaries knew of this textual distinction (e.g., b. Soṭah 33b), one which he just as probably learned from a Jew, not a Samaritan. Thus, in the end, while one might be tempted to interpret the χολ scholion as evidence of Origen’s personal, direct usage of SP, the case is inconclusive at best. Probably, it resulted from one of his many conversations with one of the more knowledgeable “Hebrews.” And while a conversation with a Samaritan cannot be ruled out, one cannot help but note that despite the Samaritan population in Caesarea (→ §7.3), no extant tradition records any such interaction between Origen and the adherents of Mount Gerizim. In the absence of other evidence, nothing suggests, much less requires, that any aspect of Eusebius’ work predate his own efforts. Historically, Eusebius should be credited with the entirety of the hexaplaric collation of SP.

6.2.3 Why did Eusebius Choose LXX/G in Rendering the Samaritan Texts? So if this reconstruction of the μόνον-collation adequately explains the extant data, one further question, at least insofar as the physical execution of project is concerned, remains: Why did Eusebius crib the Seventy specifically when rendering Samaritan Hebrew? Why were the recentiores not more regularly consulted? Doing so would have provided for better grammatical and, at times, lexical accuracy, as many such examples in the foregoing chapters ably show. Perhaps answers to this question may be more apparent than expected. Even if Eusebius could not be directly connected to the hexaplaric collation of SP, undoubtedly, the Christian collator(s)-translator(s) would have believed the Samaritans to be related to, though distinct from, the Jews (e.g., John 4). In addition to their more restricted scriptural canon, educated Christians would have been largely aware that they worshipped on a different temple mount and had various halakhic practices and other beliefs (e.g., resurrection108) divergent

|| 107 Another point was made long ago by Simon (→ §1.2.1.1, Post-Polyglot Period). Cp. de Lange 1976: 36–37. Note Pummer: “Origen probably did converse with the Samaritans about their scripture …, but his writings provide us with no direct evidence” (2000: 190, emphasis mine). If Pummer’s view was to be disputed, the present case can hardly bear the weight. 108 See Pummer for a brief overview of sources related to the Samaritan (dis/)belief in resurrection (2016: 71–72); cp. Bóid, who holds that a Samaritan denial of bodily resurrection need not be construed as a denial of the afterlife (1988: 608–09). Early Christians naturally held to bodily resurrection making Bóid’s distinction one without a difference in this context. Pum-

602 | The Origin of the μόνον-Collation

from those of the Jews.109 In consequence, it could be suggested that the collator(s)-translator(s) cribbed the Seventy, not due to any presumed Samaritan character inherent to LXX but rather as the result of the identities of the recentiores: The latter were not Samaritan—they were Jewish and/or Ebionite (i.e., Judaizing Christian) converts.110 Thus, presumably it would not have been appropriate for the Caesarean critic, specifically Eusebius as argued here, to have adapted any of the Three whole cloth in rendering the Samaritans’ Hebrew, as they themselves were not Samaritans but Jews and/or Ebionite(s), whose scriptural translations stemmed from a period when the separation between the two groups was increasingly acute.111 Even in the case of the Epiphanian112 tradition where Symmachus converted from Samaritanism to (Rabbinic) Judaism (→ §7.2)—and thus one might reasonably assume he brought some of his former coreligionists’ exegesis with him—Symmachus’ translation still would have been inappropriate.113 For according to this tradition, at least as Epiphanius told it, Symmachus’ translation stood expressly in opposition to Samaritan exegesis.114 Thus, the use of the Seventy in rendering SP probably resulted from a process of elimination: Of the Greek translations for the Pent available, via the

|| mer’s opinion is that Origen and other Fathers were probably well informed even if the definitive position amongst Samaritans at the time cannot be confirmed beyond all doubt. 109 See, e.g., the various Patristic testimonies on these matters in Pummer’s 2002 survey. 110 On these, see Fernández Marcos 2000: 111–13 (Aquila), 123–26 (Symmachus), and 142–44 (Theodotion), as well as the relevant sections in the Oxford Handbook of the Septuagint, chh 31 (Aquila, by Veltri), 32 (Symmachus, by Van der Meer), and 30 (Kaige and ‘Theodotion’, by S. Kreuzer). Eusebius, of course, held that Symmachus was an Ebionite (H.E. 6.17.1; Jerome followed this adding Theodotion; see De Vir. Ill. 54). In the case of positing Symmachus (and/or Theodotion) was an Ebionite, the same line of reasoning would have applied. 111 Again, presumably any Christian scholar would have had John 4 in mind vis-à-vis the Samaritan vs. Jew question. For the present argument, that (proto-)Theodotion could be dated earlier to the turn of the era (see Kreuzer 2021: 450) is irrelevant to this line of argument. All that matters is that the responsible party, namely Eusebius, believed that Theodotion (or anything attributed to him), specifically as a Jewish convert (H.E. 5.8.10, following Irenaeus), operated after Jesus. 112 De Mens et Pond §16. 113 See van der Meer’s survey (2021: 470–73) where the matter of Symmachus’ identity is reviewed. He notes that Eusebius’ belief that Symmachus was Ebionite has been “completely abandoned” by recent scholarship (p. 370, following Salvesen 1991, but imprecisely → §7.2). Research largely adheres to Geiger’s earlier suggestion that Symmachus was in some way connected with Rabbi Meir’s or Judah ha-Nasi’s exegetical school (2021: 471–73 and 473–75, much literature there cited). 114 … πρὸς διαστροφὴν τῶν παρὰ Σαμαρείταις ἑρμηνειῶν ἑρμηνεύσας … (E. Moutsoulas 1974: 177; PG 43.263–64). For discussion on the interpretation of this phrasing see below (→ §7.2).

The μόνον-Collation: An Historical Reconstruction | 603

Hexapla Maior, it was the most appropriate—or better, the least most inappropriate—to use. However, if the reconstruction thus far is accepted further considerations arise: How does Eusebius’ usage of the Seventy throughout this process, his septuagintal “cut, copy and paste,” relate to his view(s) of LXX? And what, in turn, may that reveal about his purpose(s) in the μόνον-collation? Certainly it can be stated categorically that Eusebius held LXX in high regard. Hollerich compares his view of LXX to that of Origen in maintaining the Septuagint preeminently as the Church’s Bible, which both he and his predecessor corrected or supplemented with the recentiores: “To all intents and purposes [Eusebius] regard[ed] the whole textual ensemble as scripture – a virtual ‘diatessaron’ …” .115 In ascertaining Eusebius’ most declarative statement on the matter, he notes the Caesarean bishop’s comment from his Proof of the Gospel (D.E. 5. proem.): We must recognize that the sacred oracles include in the Hebrew much that is obscure both in the literal sense (pros lexin) of the words and in their deeper interpretation (pros dianoian), and are capable of various translations into Greek because of their difficulty. The Seventy Hebrews in concert have translated them together, and I shall pay the greatest attention to them, because it is the custom of the Christian Church to use their work. But wherever necessary, I shall call in the help of the editions of the later translators, which the Jews are accustomed to use today, so that my proof may have stronger support from all sources.116

The procedure that Eusebius employed in his Proof, an inherently apologetic work, accords well with the ostensible process discerned in the μόνονtranslation. LXX is used as the base—but used critically (even if incompletely so) in concert with the recentiores.117 Nevertheless, Eusebius, despite any such editing or correction, maintained that LXX was translated from a Hebrew base more accurate than those used among the Jews in his day, and this base is to some extent reflected by SP (→ §6.2.1). Thus in his Chron. Eusebius claimed that the Jewish text was not as accurate as the underlying Hebrew of LXX:

|| 115 Hollerich 2013: 645 (in reference to Eusebius’ use of Scripture in his Comm. on Isa). 116 Hollerich’s revision (2013: 645) of W. Ferrar’s earlier ET (1920: 230). 117 Also as earlier stated by Sant: “The Hexaplaric LXX was used by him not uncritically …” (1971: 30). Of course, evaluations of how successful he was in adjusting the G/LXX text towards SP will vary depending on expected standards of translation. Certainly using GExod’s κυνομυια “dog-fly” to reflect the Samaritan plague of ravens (→ §2.3.1 at Exod 8.19(23)‫ )ד–א‬can hardly accord with anyone’s standard of accuracy, even if this “mistake” resulted from a lack of familiarity with (or lack of opportunity to learn? → §7.3.1) Samaritan exegesis.

604 | The Origin of the μόνον-Collation

On this issue, then, careful reflection suggests this conclusion: there is no choice but to acknowledge that, with the exception of Jared and two generations after him, the text of scripture used by the Jews has erred [διημαρτῆσθαι ... τὴν μὲν παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις γραφὴν] in its chronology from Adam to Abraham, whereas the Samaritan text is in error only for the years from Adam to the Flood. … There is thus complete confirmation that the Septuagint translation was translated from, so it would seem, an ancient and a strictly accurate Hebrew text of scripture [... τῆς τῶν οʹ ἑρμηνείας ἐκ, παλαιᾶς, ὡς ε͂οικε, καὶ ἀδιαστρόφου Ἑβραίων γραγῆς μεταβεβλῆσθαι συνισιαμένης ...].118 So for good reason it is this version that we too have used in our own chronography, especially insofar as the Church of Christ diffused over the whole earth is devoted to this version alone, the apostles and disciples of our Saviour having handed down a tradition from of old that it be used.119

It should also be pointed out that Eusebius accepted the Letter of Aristeas, although “he avoid[ed] later elaborations of the legend, such as the story of how seventy separate translators produced miraculously identical translations.”120 For Eusebius then, the inspiration of the Seventy lay not in their miraculous translation but in their role as part of God’s providential plan to “accurately” translate the Hebrew Scriptures before the Advent of Christ.121 Thus, as Sant earlier put it: “Eusebius therefore took the LXX as scientifically the most reliable and theologically the most authoritative.”122 Though all of these aspects of Eusebius’ view on LXX probably contributed to his adapting it for the renditions of SP’s exclusive readings, the matter ought not to be pressed too hard. On the one hand, his use of the venerable LXX, plus

|| 118 Hollerich translated this last clause as “from an ancient and uncorrupted text of the Hebrews” (2013: 646). “uncorrupted” is perhaps to be preferred here. 119 Here Eusebius as cited by Syncellus; ET from Adler and Tuffin (2002: 124–25). See the parallel section in Karst (GCS 20.44–45). The Greek is taken from ed. A. Schoene 1875/1.94, 96. 120 Thus Hollerich 2013: 645–46 and n. 42 (on Eusebius’ citation of Irenaeus in H.E. 5.8.10– 15). Cp. Sant (1971: 28) who appears to hold that Eusebius’ citation of Irenaeus was a full endorsement even if he still used LXX critically. Hollerich earlier appears to have interpreted Eusebius’ citation of Irenaeus here as a full endorsement only later coming to a more sober view of the work of the Seventy (1999: 76, with n. 43). 121 Hollerich 2013: 645 (citing P.E. 8.1). Cp. his Chron.: “… the one that is our reading, the translation of the seventy Hebrew men’s, translated from the vernacular language into the Greek language; the one that they transmitted faithfully word for word under Philadelphos Ptlomeos in the Alexandrians’ city [and] deposited for safekeeping in the Library of the Divans, carefully, expeditiously” (ET from Pummer 2002: 93). 122 1971: 29–30.

The μόνον-Collation: An Historical Reconstruction | 605

adjustments either taken from the recentiores (i.e., Theodotion123 and/or Aquila124) or added himself, does not imply any endorsement or approval of SP per se. We know from his comments in his Onomasticon and Chronicon that SP could be inaccurate, namely on account of the location of Gerizim and the Samaritan chronology before the Flood. On the other hand, however, his liberal use of the Seventy in translating SP need not imply that LXX was itself beyond such a use, as if employing it in this way somehow rendered the venerable text contaminated or disrespected. After all, Eusebius himself followed Origen’s earlier practice of editing the Seventy, injecting elements from the recentiores and using critical sigla traditionally functioning as censorial.125 As the hexaplaric process itself confirms, Origen and his intellectual heirs Pamphilus and Eusebius believed the LXX, holy or not, was fair game for editing. Whatever the case for the above, in the end it bears repeating Kahle’s reasonable deduction that the party responsible for the μόνον-data, here Eusebius, did not have any such σαμ΄ translation to hand (→ §1.2.3.3; cp. §1.2.1.2). Had this been so, it would have been natural—and fundamentally more appropriate—to cite that translation. There would have been no reason for the laborious adaption of the G parallels (→ §4.4.1), a process to which the s-group’s Num 13.1‫ד–א‬ scholion and the SH Deut 1.6–8 cross-reference explicitly testify. Further, the process employed by Eusebius creates a significant historical issue; for many scholars (both in Samaritan and Septuagint studies) assert or assume that το σαμ΄ must have existed before his period. Yet the evidence is clear: if a Samaritan Greek translation existed, Eusebius never encountered it (→ §7.2).

|| 123 See Sant: “[Eusebius] describe[d] him as one of the more accurate translators: αὐτὸς τῶν ἐπιμελῶς ἑρμηνευσάντων τυγχάνων” (1971: 32, citing his Comm. on Pss; PG 23.417). 124 Again Sant: “This means that where fidelity to the text, rather than the literary commendation was essential or required, Eusebius went to Aquila” (1971: 31). Also Hollerich: “Like other Christian scholars, he valued Aquila’s reputation for literal fidelity (akribeia) to the Hebrew.” (2013: 647). Again: “The unanimity of the Greek versions, or less frequently Aquila alone, was thus his normal guide [to the Hebrew]” (p. 647). 125 Cp. Hollerich when commenting on his use of the versions in his Comm. on Isa.: These examples illustrate Eusebius’ willingness to subordinate the LXX to the other translations and to the original Hebrew. As a rule, however, he rarely scuttles the traditional text. Instead, he tries to preserve the Septuagint reading along with the other versions, whether by a harmonization of two or more readings, or by offering separate interpretations (1999: 78).

606 | The Origin of the μόνον-Collation

6.3 Implications for Early Christian Biblical Scholarship and Manuscript Culture In light of the above reconstruction of the μόνον-collation and its origins, a number of broader implications for early Christianity and its then-budding scholarly scribal culture may be briefly sketched. Those discussed here relate to internal Christian matters, i.e., the wider hexaplaric endeavor, the state and contents of Caesarean/Eusebian library, and the way in which Christian scholars, whether as part of Eusebius’ circle or those who later used the library, operated or could have operated in relation to diverse texts, even Hebrew ones. The Hexaplaric Endeavor It should first be underscored that according to the present reconstruction of the μόνον-translation of SP (→ §4.4.1), the first column of the Hexapla Maior, bearing Hebrew in (presumably) square script must have existed as part of the columned synopsis, fully aligned with the remainder of the columns, including Secunda and LXX, during the lifetime of Eusebius. The thesis expounded by P. Nautin, that Secunda was “the Hebrew” column is not viable, as many scholars since the 1990s have countered.126 Rather, the traditional construal of the sixfold work must be maintained, even if the precise status of the LXX column (i.e., Was it marked with critical sigla or not?) or even Theodotion’s column (i.e., Did it exist as a “column” per se as the others did in all cases?),127 cannot be determined with absolute certainty. Simply put, the “translation” Eusebius produced could not have been constructed without it, absent the very dubious assistance of a native Hebrew speaker. Another such implication relates to the function of marginal readings from the versions in MSS such as the Eusebian edition of Exod as represented by BL ADD. 12134 (= SHL Exod). There are any number of diverse readings from the Three and others (“the Hebrew,” etc.) which occupy the margins of this and other hexaplaric MSS, the readings of which for some, though certainly not all, are at times difficult to reconcile, whether quantitatively and qualitatively. Occasionally, these may have exegetical and practical implications for Christians and/or Christian halakhah. Take for instance, the Three at GExod 22.28(27) where G reads θεους ου κακολογησεις / ‫ܒ ܐ‬ ‫“ ̈ܐ ܐ ܐ ܬܐ‬You shall not revile [lit. speak bad (of)] gods…” (thus NETS), to which the margin ad loc in

|| 126 See above nn. 5 and 20. 127 See above nn. 3 and 12.

Implications for Early Christian Biblical Scholarship and Manuscript Culture | 607

SH Exod notes ‫ܒ‬ ‫ ܐ‬.‫ ܐ ܬ ܛ ܬ‬.‫ ܐ ܬ ܛ ܣ‬.‫“ ܐ‬Aquila: You shall not curse. Symmachus: You shall not treat with contempt / despise. Theodotion: (reads) as the Seventy” (fol. 73a).128 Irrespective of the underlying Hebrew129 (few would have had access to this in any case), strictly speaking, each translation represents a different action in relation to “gods,” or as many Christian exegetes interpreted it, “leaders” in parallel to αρχοντας in the latter half of the verse.130 However, in applying this dictate to the Christian life, or in appropriating it homiletically, it is necessary to delimit the distinction. Viz., is the Christian required to refrain from “bad mouthing” (in general), “cursing” (using specific words of curse with such intent), or “dishonoring” (generally, by whether by actions or verbally) community leaders?131 The precise form of disrespect/dishonor under discussion would have had import for the Christian community at large since there is a profound difference between formal “cursing” (thus Aquila), “bad mouthing” (so LXX and Theodotion), and generic “disrespecting” (so Symmachus).132 It is cases like this which prompt one to contemplate the function of the textual apparatus of the hexaplaric MSS as produced by the “basic Caesarean layer” vis-à-vis its Christian readership.

|| 128 Field rightly retroverted: α. ου καταραση σ. ουκ ατιμασεις (1.120). Cp. AppII: {αʹ} σʹ {θʹ} θεοὺς οὐκ ἀτιμάσεις 344s; αʹ (αʹ σʹ θʹ 57′-73cI 85′-130s) οὐκ ἀτιμάσεις (αταμ. 130) 57′-73-550′(s nom)cI 85′-130s SH. SH’s entry seems imprecise here (cp. PS 2.1907). 129 Presumably ‫ אלהים לא תקלל‬as with MT/SP. See Wevers, NGTE, 355, with nn. 24–25. As he observed, Aquila translated more literally here, while G’s interpretation of ‫ קלל‬is “more limiting” than MT (thus his comment on κακως ερεις although it is in parallel to κακολογησεις; cp. his comments on the same in Exod 21.16[17; NGTE, 330]). 130 See, e.g., Theodoret’s Quaes. Exod. 51 or the interpretation in the catenae (θεους = τους κριτας) ad loc attributed to Eusebius (CatNic 1/2.805). 131 See the various Fathers quoted in the catena, especially the note attributed to Origen connecting this verse with the “revilers” in 1 Cor 6.10 (see CatNic 1/2.806). Note also the anonymous comment in the catena indexed to v 28: ΑΔΗΛΟΥ. Θεὸν οὐ βλασφημήσεις. Θεοὺς λέγει ἢ τοὺς ἱερεῖς, ἢ τοὺς προφήτας, ἢ τοὺς διδασκάλους, ἢ τοὺς ἡγουμένους τῶν φυλῶν, ὥσπερ ἀν τάξει ὄντας αὐτοῖς Θεός. Ὁ δὲ ἅγιος Ἀθανάσιος, ἁγίους ἄνδρας φησίν. Anonymous. You shall not blaspheme God. [Scripture] says “gods,” [i.e.,] whether priests, or prophets, or teachers, or leaders of the tribes, such as God would appoint over them [sc. the Israelites]. Now Holy Athanasius says “holy men.”

Note that Θεὸν οὐ βλασφημήσεις here was supplied in AppII as an unattributed variant reading. 132 Of course, if a given Christian were to read Paul’s quoting the latter half of the verse in Acts 23.5 back into their exegesis, then perhaps that could settle the matter in favor of LXX/Theodotion.

608 | The Origin of the μόνον-Collation

When variants from the recentiores create conflict, whether textually or exegetically, any reader who searched for meaning in his text would have been forced to make some sort of decision. Each exegete’s task differed based on, or at least informed by, their respective motives, goals, and presumed audience. However, for most readers disagreement probably would have provoked tension of some kind which might need resolution. Thus, in the above case of the Samaritan reading “Gerizim” at Deut 27.4, the fundamentally opposing readings of SP and LXX(/MT et al) elicited three completely different interpretations amongst Syriac exegetes (→ §4.3.3). It was argued above that, most likely, the variant reading was originally supplied—by Eusebius—without recommending a view or supplying an evaluative comment. Probably, the hexaplaric editorial intention was to supply readings without any such endorsement or hint as to which ought to be preferred. Doing so would provide for more exegetical opportunity and grant exegetes more freedom. On a more practical level, perhaps this policy was adopted for the sake of making sure the hexaplaric MSS were as useful to as many people as possible, thus ensuring they would be more widely used and copied. Whatever the case may be for the wider hexaplaric tradition or later scribal habits—note the high-handed liberty observed above with which later scribes obviously excised readings from the margins they wished not to copy—the μόνον-collation is a special case since we know that Eusebius was specifically responsible for it (→ §3.2 et passim). Further, from his Onomasticon (→ §4.3.3), we know that he believed the Samaritan claim that biblical Gerizim was ‫מול שכם‬ was factually inaccurate. Further still, it is also clear that he believed that SP preserved textually correct readings (e.g., in his Chron.). In light of this, there is no reason to suppose that Eusebius’ setting these SP data in the margins of his edition implies an endorsement, or disapproval, of any kind.133 Thus, in step with the wider hexaplaric editorial policy, readings were supplied “as is”; readers were apparently required (or expected?) to weigh the evidence for themselves and arrive at their own conclusions. In other words, the μόνον-passages bore no inherent exegetical value: they were options. It would seem then that the purpose of the hexaplaric apparatus was to present data only, a “granting of space” (a la Saley → §5.2.1) to variants, both quantitative and qualitative, with-

|| 133 Again, the same logic applies to his using the venerable LXX for his Samaritan “translation” (→ §6.2.3).

Implications for Early Christian Biblical Scholarship and Manuscript Culture | 609

out necessarily offering evaluations of said data.134 The latter was more appropriate to other genres such as commentary. The Caesarean Library Perhaps the most important implication of the above reconstruction is that the work had to have been Caesarea-based since that is where, to the best of our knowledge, the Hexapla Maior was housed. It would further be noted that a complete Hebrew SP, being procured from another religious community with whom Christians had few if any relations (→ §7.3), would have been a considerable expenditure. If Pamphilus’ financial assets enabled this purchase, this would further imply this period as a time when the Caesarean library was well managed and well-funded.135 A further line of thought regarding the library relates to the acquisition of Semitic texts. Based on the above hypothesis (→ §6.2), potentially up to three distinct Semitic texts were housed in the Caesarean library: 1) the proto-MT, square script text used in the first column of the Hexapla Maior, 2) the copy of SP, in “Samaritan” script, underlying Eusebius’ Samaritan researches, and 3) whatever formed the “Hebrew” (Aramaic?) version of Matthew. These texts, being in two different languages (assuming Aramaic), and at least two different scripts, imply that Christian scholars of the period, such as Pamphilus and Eusebius, viewed these textual artifacts as desirable—even if they could not perhaps understand them, at least at the time of their purchase. One could also

|| 134 Note that the concept of Eusebius “giving textual space” to a reading he thought was inferior is not unique to the μόνον-data. Compare, e.g., his treatment of the timing of the resurrection in the shorter and longer endings in Mark (Quaestiones ad Marinum 1.2). There he considered both textual options. Yet while he did remark that the shorter ending is found in the “accurate copies” (τὰ γοῦν ἀκριβῆ τῶν ἀντιγράφων …; for additional patristic witness see Marcus 2009: 1089), strangely, he still (perhaps diplomatically?) exegeted the longer ending without really condemning it. This is made more odd by the circumstance in his Gospel Canons. As Coogan recently points out, Eusebius clearly favored the shorter reading in his Canons which do not account for the longer ending, something later editors of the Canons eventually did supply (2022: 165–69, with the relevant notes and literature there cited). Observe, e.g., the note in much later NT MSS from f1: Εν τισιν των αντιγραφων εως ωδε πληρουται ο ευαγγελιστης εως οὗ και Ευσεβιος ο Παμφιλου εκανονισεν· εν πολλοις δε και ταυτα φερεται. “In certain copies, the Evangelist ended here, up to which point Eusebius Pamphi[li] also made canons, but in many [MSS], also these things are found” (Coogan’s ET, 2022: 166; on the issue generally, see also Metzger 1994: 102–06, and the similar such notes cited in NA28-app ad loc). 135 Compare the much-cited occasion in which Emperor Constantine ordered many vellum codices from Eusebius’ scriptorium (see Gentry 2021: 568). These, of course, costed a significant amount of money as well as other resources.

610 | The Origin of the μόνον-Collation

imagine that some of their co-workers or superiors (i.e., other Church leaders, influential members of the Christian community) might question their interest in these items, the expenditure required to purchase them, or any other such resources (e.g., time) expended on these “foreign,” “non-Christian”136 items. Each of these considerations is naturally speculative. Nevertheless, the willingness not only to obtain but also decode the Hebrew SP suggests that the Caesarean library’s collections were rich indeed and may have even included other, non-biblical Jewish or Samaritan texts, in Greek or Hebrew/Aramaic, related to biblical research. Christian Textual Scholarship As for the implications for Christian textual scholarship, these are twofold. Firstly, Eusebius’ deciphering the Samaritan Hebrew, through use of the Hexapla Maior, makes it abundantly clear that his interaction with the first column was both substantial and not entirely bound to Aquila.137 Even outside of the extant μόνον-data, his Chronicon implies as much. There, the use of the Hexapla Maior proposed above was most likely the very process which permitted Eusebius to excerpt the Samaritan’s genealogical information from Gen 5 and 11.138 These data amounted to the names and ages of approximately 20 people and would have required him to collate at least two chapters in SP Gen. (On Gen vis-à-vis the μόνον-collation → APPENDIX D.) Secondly, the collation process hypothesized above (→ §4.4.1) stands rather close to the historic realities of parallel text creation and usage in Christian circles. As recent research demonstrates, the use of juxtaposed texts, presumably in the context of language learning, was fairly widespread, even if the extant data is most prevalent for the centuries following Eusebius.139 Whatever the

|| 136 I say “non-Christian,” not in an underlying theological sense, but in the sense that they were otherwise the exclusive property of either Samaritan or Jewish communities. Again, I reiterate Coogan’s hypothesis regarding the “Hebrew” “Matthew” as noted above (n. 63). 137 Thus Hollerich’s statements on the matter might be qualified: “How much use [Eusebius] could make of [the Hebrew and Secunda] is another matter. In the commentary on Isaiah there are numerous references to ‘the Hebrew’, but these are invariably accompanied by a citation of Aquila …” (2013: 647). Certainly, he used a crib; but perhaps his use of resources was more critical than is generally realized. 138 Devreesse suggested as much without explaining how Eusebius deciphered SP (1954: 130, n. 6). 139 See, for instance, the above-referenced study by Yardney (2019) which provides an overview of parallel language exemplars from Antiquity, including both multi-language syllabaries (e.g., the so-called Graeco-Babyloniaca ca. 1st cent BCE–1st CE) and other such parallel texts (esp.

Implications for Early Christian Biblical Scholarship and Manuscript Culture | 611

case, the Hexapla Maior is itself an evidence of this sort of textual technology; and in this sense, the proposed means by which Eusebius approached the Hebrew SP is a natural and indeed expected use of the large synopsis. In other words, Eusebius’ procedure—using the Hexapla Maior as an analytical lexicon to the Hebrew Bible—should have happened. The very structure of the Hexapla Maior anticipated as much, even if Origen never conceived of this use as one of its functions from the outset. What must be asked is if Eusebius was the only such scholar to use the Hexapla Maior in this way. For example, it is undeniable that Jerome employed flesh-and-blood Jewish teachers from whom he learned Hebrew along with living Rabbinic traditions. Yet Newman has recently argued that he also made use of a Greek-Hebrew onomasticon (or Hebrew-Greek in reverse) at some point in his career.140 However, if Jerome, as is often supposed, utilized the massive synopsis directly,141 he could have further used the Hexapla Maior in just this way.142 Any number of lists or parallel collations of difficult passages could have

|| pp. 172–76). Notable examples from Christian contexts, akin to Eusebius’ use of Hexapla Maior proposed here, include the 3rd–4th cent CE Greek-Coptic glossary for Hosea and Amos (believed to comprise the entire Twelve originally; see her n. 66) and the ca. 400 CE Greek-Latin glossary for the Pauline epistles which was created “by taking two continuous texts of Paul, one in Greek and one in Latin, and attempting to line up the equivalents” (2019: 174). On the Jewish side, A. Aejmelaeus (forthcoming) suggests that the so-called καιγε movement itself began in Palestine where both Hebrew and the more isomorphic Greek translation(s) would have been used in parallel. While no such texts exist in parallel columns, the parallel function Aejmelaeus discusses would have prompted such use. Further evidence and discussion are proffered by Kantor in his analysis of the educational Sitz im Leben of Secunda (2017: 57–75). He notes, while pointing out that columned glossaries preceded columnar translations, that columnar translations “go back only to the 4th cent CE” (2017: 62; presumably excepting the Hexapla Maior). Further, the latter “seems to have developed out of the tradition of [the former]. [Eleanor] Dickey explains the phenomenon as essentially ‘[treating] a continuous text like a glossary’ ” (p. 62). Dickey’s phrasing (2015: 814), highlighted by Kantor, describes precisely what Eusebius did. 140 2009: 134–37. 141 See Graves 2007: 93, with nn. 68–69. As Graves points out, not all scholars have been so convinced. Gentry, however, is a recent proponent of Jerome’s having used the Hexapla Maior in person (2021: 566). 142 Graves, extrapolating on Jerome’s preface to his Comm. on Eccl., comes to such a conclusion, albeit without claiming too much (2007: 93–94; see the ET in NPNF 2/06.487). That Jerome would have aligned the Hebrew with Aquila for any extended passage of Scripture would have required access to at least columns 1 and 3, as the extant MS tradition, with its selective glossing on the hexaplaric LXX, cannot permit this much without direct access to the Hexapla Maior (or a complete copy of a section thereof).

612 | The Origin of the μόνον-Collation

been constructed by the Stridonite for his personal use in his researches.143 However, such speculation begs the question: If Eusebius deciphered Hebrew SP via the Hexapla Maior, why is there no evidence, outside of (perhaps) Jerome, that any other early Christian scholar made an effort to access the Hebrew Bible via the Hexapla Maior if Hebrew was so privileged by the wider Church?144 Why does it seem that no other Christian scholar made any attempt to “learn” biblical Hebrew (at any level, however imperfectly and for whatever reasons), if this was possible by means of the massive synopsis?145 Granted the primary source materials were based in Caesarea; however, the potential benefits of using the library’s resources in this way surely would have attracted at least a few such students, exegetes, or scholars, assuming report of this technique moved beyond Eusebius’ (and possibly Jerome’s) immediate circle. However, the impression left by the extant data from the early Christian hexaplaric tradition is that either Eusebius was the only such scholar to have thought of using the Hexapla Maior to access Hebrew, or that any such notion was undesirable or unnecessary or perhaps simply not worth the effort. What this means for early Christian views of Hebrew—not the supposed rhetorical claims reflecting theological beliefs, but real, practical action—is still an open question.

6.4 Conclusions In conclusion, Eusebius Pamphili, and Eusebius alone, was the one responsible for the hexaplaric collation of the Hebrew SP. Origen cannot, based on the ex-

|| 143 Graves holds Jerome “may have obtained some of his copies of the [recentiores], at least for certain books, by copying directly from the [Hexapla Maior]” (2007: 93). 144 This is, in essence, the overarching argument posited by Gallagher in his 2012 monograph. On Gallagher’s work generally vis-à-vis the Fathers’ text-canon theory, see Ceulemans’ incisive 2014 review. Note in particular the latter’s remarks regarding the early Christian valuation of Hebrew: “A Christian author … can have said whatever he wanted about the importance of the Hebrew text …, [but] in the end he used the Greek text” (2014: 90–91). 145 Again compare Graves on Jerome: “One should not overestimate how much Hebrew Jerome could have learned by use of the recentiores alone, but together with the periodic help of a teacher and exposure to Hebrew culture, the hexaplaric versions would have gone a long way to compensate for the lack of any written grammars or dictionaries for Biblical Hebrew” (2007: 94). While I do not dispute Graves’ reasoning vis-à-vis Jerome, the present study contends that the Hexapla Maior was—in its most fundamental, linguistic (as opposed to textual or exegetical) layer—an analytical dictionary of biblical Hebrew. If the role of a dictionary is elemental to learning a language, even passively, then one wonders why no one else outside of the core hexaplaric editors took advantage of this opportunity.

Conclusions | 613

tant evidence, in any way be connected with the μόνον-collation; neither was there any Samaritan column in the Hexapla Maior. Rather it was Origen’s intellectual successor who integrated the Samaritan textual tradition into the hexaplaric stream. Eusebius’ discernable process in enacting the μόνον-collation formed a natural continuation of the hexaplaric endeavor. He was in fact the first to give the Samaritan text of the Pentateuch a place in Christian consciousness. The techniques he employed formed a natural, if unique, outgrowth of hexaplaric scholarship and resulted in granting “textual space” for the Samaritans’ Holy Writ in Christian biblical MSS. In this sense, we may claim that it was Eusebius who was really “the first Samaritanologist.”146

|| 146 Here I intentionally adapt Tal’s 2013 article title claiming the same for Gesenius.

7 The μόνον-Collation’s Implications for Samaritan Studies Finally, in keeping with the dual scope of the present work (→ §1.4), it is now time to consider what the μόνον-evidence has to offer Samaritan studies, given that these data comprise the earliest known textual evidence of the Hebrew SP. In addition to potential variants, which have been flagged above ad loca, there are three principal areas of Samaritanology for which the hexaplaric collation of SP may bear significance, namely: 1) the shape and form of the Hebrew SP Eusebius used; 2) the apparent absence of the Samareitikon, or any such Samaritan Greek translation(s?), known in Caesarea, Jerusalem,1 and (perhaps) Egypt during Eusebius’ floruit; and 3) the state of Samaritan–Christian relations during the same period. In what follows, each of these areas is taken in turn in an effort to shed further light, insofar as is possible, on this most opaque era of Samaritan history.

7.1 The Samaritan Pentateuch in the Age of Eusebius Beyond the analyses supplied above, with their attendant historical implications for Christian MS studies and scribal culture, what remains presently are the same for Samaritan MS culture. Here considered are the possible consequences of this study for SP itself, specifically: 1) its scope, textual shape, and physical form; 2) para-textual considerations, specifically the so-called Samaritan Tenth Commandment (STC); and 3) the date and provenance of Eusebius’ exemplar.

7.1.1 Textual and Material Considerations: Scope, Shape, and Form Scope In the present study, it is argued that Eusebius of Caesarea undertook a collation of a Samaritan Pentateuch (→ §6), in “Samaritan” Hebrew script (→ EXCUR-

|| 1 Eusebius is known to have used the Jerusalem church’s library (see Carriker 2003: 181, citing H.E. 6.20.1). While Samaritans may not have lived in large numbers in Jerusalem, the church’s library there presumably could have had resources indicating the existence of such a text. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110760798-007

616 | The μόνον-Collation’s Implications for Samaritan Studies

A), for the sake of comparing its readings against the hexaplaric LXX (→ §1.3.2). This collation was executed at length for Exod (→ §2), Num (→ §3), and Deut (→ §4), and the findings were added by Eusebius to his own ἔκδοσις of those books which circulated amongst, and was eventually collated with, other hexaplaric MSS lacking these data. Said data did not form a constituent part of the Hexapla Maior; rather Eusebius added a layer in excess to, and physically separate from, Origen’s synoptic work. Most probably, he also collated Gen at some point although the only evidence for this part of the collation survives for SP Gen 5 and 11, as recorded in his Chronicon (→ §6.2.1). While the MS tradition does not bear any such trace (→ EXCURSUS D), the Caesarean bishop could not have known the character of SP Gen without examining the text. Leviticus in SP may also have been investigated; however, again no evidence survives of such a collation probably because SP Lev closely approximates LXX quantitatively (→ §1.3.2.2, with Table). It may, therefore, confidently be posited that a complete Hebrew SP had made its way into the Caesarean library. SUS

Textual Shape As was explained above, the textual shape of the so-called “expansions” in the Eusebian exemplar repeatedly accorded with later, extant SP codices dating from the medieval period against those in pre-Samaritan MSS, most clearly in the cases of 4Q22 and 4Q27, when the latter disagree with the former. As such, these “expansions” so characteristic of the (pre-)SP text-type, were transmitted, though not in their entirety (→ §2.6.2), by μόνον-bearing witnesses in their specifically “Samaritan” form. Yet, this is not to say that each and every reading within a given “expansion” was completely stable at this period. The evidence does admit variants when compared with medieval codices,2 though caution is required in establishing these since doing so requires that each passage be interpreted through the prism of the septuagintistic “translation” Eusebius produced (or for which he was ultimately responsible) as well as the scribal mistakes and/or editorial idiosyncrasies of later tradents. In any case, the exemplar of SP in the Caesarean library was clearly a copy of the text shaped by the Samaritans themselves: it was thus the/a “canonical” SP. The consonantal framework3 of medieval SP then must significantly predate

|| 2 Of course even much later medieval codices transmit variants. The early period would, in this sense, not differ from the later. 3 It is important to note that unlike the Masoretes, the Samaritan scribes never fixed the orthography of the Pentateuch. On this see, among others, Florentin 2012: 341. This phenomenon

The Samaritan Pentateuch in the Age of Eusebius | 617

its physical extant witnesses, in much the same way that pre-/proto-MT well predates MTL. And whatever processes led to its production within the Samaritan community can easily be assumed to have taken place before the Father of Church History laid his hands on it (→ §7.1.3). Physical Form So assuming that the Caesarean copy of SP included all five books—the scope of readings Eusebius quoted ranged from Gen 5 (in his Chron.) up to Deut 34 (in the μόνον-collation)—and that this copy transmitted the known “canonical” consonantal framework represented in medieval exemplars (admitting occasional, rather minor textual variants), in what physical form did this exemplar take shape: scroll(s) or a codex?4 Definitive evidence is, unfortunately, not forthcoming. Eusebius never described the physical shape of his source, at least in his extant writings.5 Furthermore, any clues from the hexaplaric collation notes and colophons are ambiguous: viz., the references in the data to the Samaritan “exemplar” ἀντίγραφον/‫ ܨ ܐ‬or “book” βιβλίον/‫ܒܐ‬ could readily refer to either a “scroll” or a “codex”; nothing linguistically demands either interpretation.6 While it is perhaps most probable that Eusebius acquired SP in the form of (a) scroll(s), the external, comparative evidence, both Samaritan and Jewish, cannot confirm such a supposition beyond doubt. For instance, with respect to the adoption of the codex by Jews for the Bible, the evidence clearly indicates the scroll was the favored and only proper medium for Holy Writ.7 Codices were known and used, even as indicated by early Rabbinic sources, but for nonsacral purposes, i.e., private study.8 Only much later, after the advent of Islam,9 || is well illustrated by many of the SP variants found even in the limited number of passages examined above. 4 On the script → APPENDIX A. 5 This mirrors somewhat his failure to meaningfully describe their script. 6 For which, see the appropriate lexica, s.v.; ἔκδοσις is of course even more ambiguous. 7 See, e.g., the surveys by B. Outhwaite (2020: esp. 62; 73–74) and I. Resnick (1992: esp. 8–11; 14–15) with much literature. Outhwaite observes (2020: 71–72) that the earliest evidence for Jewish Bibles in codex form is found in the Cairo Genizah. As an example of the dominance of the scroll in earlier 3rd cent. CE Judaism, Resnick points to the mosaic at the synagogue at DuraEuropus depicting Moses receiving the Law from God on Sinai in scroll form (!) as opposed to the two stone tablets (1992: 9). 8 Outhwaite 2020: 73–74. 9 Outhwaite: “Most Hebrew nouns for the book, in all its different grades, are derived from or through Arabic or Persian; exceptions appear to be neologisms from the Islamic period” (2020: 76; see also pp. 69–70). He also notes that codex use may have been encouraged by the introduction of paper in Egypt in the 800s CE.

618 | The μόνον-Collation’s Implications for Samaritan Studies

did Jews adopt the codex as a legitimate form for the Scriptures (in a liturgical setting), and even then, this may have been at the impetus of the Karaites.10 If the Samaritans reflected wider Jewish practices in this regard,11 then Eusebius’ copy can safely be presumed as one or more scrolls—assuming the copy had been written for liturgical use. Nevertheless, since Jewish sources imply that codices were used for nonsacral (“academic”?) purposes, perhaps it ought not be disallowed that the Samaritans also utilized the codex in some form before Eusebius’ time, even if they too did not so enthusiastically embrace the codex for sacred Scripture as Christians clearly did.12 Or is it indeed possible that the Samaritans adopted the codex for their Pentateuch even as they emerged as ever more distinct from their Jewish counterparts?13 (Comparable to, say, their adoption of a unique script? → APPENDIX A.) One attempt to demonstrate that the Samaritans, at least in part, adopted the codex circa Eusebius’ floruit was by Alan Crown in his 1987 codicological study on Samaritan book bindings. He theorized that the Samaritans had begun producing their Pentateuch in codex form, and that this shift from scroll to codex prompted the ire of Sakta the “heresiarch” of one of the Dosithean sects.14 Based on his reading of the much later, and not altogether clear, account in Abū l-Fatḥ’s Chronicle,15 Crown held that Sakta, whom he dated to the mid-3rd cent CE,16 had problems with the wider Samaritan community specifically involving

|| 10 Outhwaite 2020: 80–86. 11 On use of the codex amongst Jews, see Outhwaite 2020: 73–74; Resnick 1992: 10–11. 12 On the Christian embrace of the codex for the Scriptures ca. 200–300 CE, well demonstrated by the work of C. Roberts and T. Skeat 1983 (see esp., pp. 35–44 and the table on p. 37), see also Resnick 1992: 1–4, with much literature. 13 According to the surveys of both Outhwaite and Resnick, much of the scholarship assumes some form of identity shaping played a role in both the Christian adoption of the codex and the Jewish retention of the scroll for their respective canons of Scripture. If such be true, one might argue this could have played a part in the Samaritan community’s own identity craft, although the early sources for Samaritan history are spotty. On the use of the codex as well as the liturgical function and symbolism of the Torah scroll in the Samaritan community and its traditions, see Pummer 2016: 196–96 and 286–87. 14 1987: 432, 448, 450. 15 See S. Isser’s 1976 study on the Dositheans where he described Abū l-Fatḥ’s Chronicle as the “most difficult source” of his study which offers “by far the most extensive information …, but raise[s], thereby, the most extensive problems” (1976: 74). Isser nevertheless argued that the source materials used by Abū l-Fatḥ were early and probably at least contemporary with Patristic accounts of the same sect (1976: 75). 16 1987: 450. No date for Sakta was offered by J. Fossum in “Sakta,” CSS, 209.

The Samaritan Pentateuch in the Age of Eusebius | 619

the material manifestation and presentation of the Pentateuch. For this he cited Sakta’s reported complaints about the scroll covers used in Samaritan synagogues,17 derogatory comments about “leaves” (i.e., “pages” of a codex), and numerous references to the veneration of palm fronds which were used for scroll handles both in his era and amongst his followers. Each of these, Crown surmised, combined to give a glimpse of the “zeal with which a group of religious fanatics fought to prevent the scroll being displaced by the codex.”18 However, Crown’s interpretation of these disparate elements of Sakta’s views could just as easily be otherwise interpreted.19 For example, while Sakta’s reported issues with scroll covers shows a concern for the physical manifestation (or accessibility?) of SP in Samaritan communities, it still reveals the continued use of scrolls.20 Further, the supposed derogatory comments about “leaves” / “pages” is taken out of context. Abū l-Fatḥ recorded: “[Sakta said] that the opinion of the gentiles is like the pieces of paper or leaves (of a book).”21 This comment is set amongst others in which Sakta altered or re-envisioned Samaritan halakhah regarding purity, this comment being specifically provided between his opinions on un/clean animals and the touching of a corpse. Furthermore, several statements earlier, Abū l-Fatḥ claimed that Sakta acknowledged impurity was of two types “grave and venial,” and that “he permitted contact with gentiles.”22 Nothing in the passage suggests that Sakta specifically || 17 Abū l-Fatḥ: “[Sakta] made out that the container for the rolled up Scroll in the Synagogue was like a whore displaying her charms” (1985: 227). P. Stenhouse’s 1985 ET of Abū l-Fatḥ’s Arabic Chronicle is cited here. Note, also, that an ET of excerpts relevant to the Dositheans from a different edition of the Chronicle’s text are supplied in Isser 1976. (For the sources of the editions of the Chronicle see the summary in Stenhouse 1989: 221; also 1985: xxviii. Isser’s ET was from the text published by E. Vilmar based on more recent MS sources. The ET provided there was the work of L. Scanlon and L. Nemoy, each of whom supplied notes.) Isser’s text reads: “He said that the ark containing the rolled up Scroll in the synagogue is like an overdressed harlot” (1976: 81). Isser clarified: “The sense evident is that [Sakta] thought that there should be no ark in the synagogue, and that the holy Scroll should simply repose on the lectern. The ark was in his view, an unauthorized innovation, especially when it was richly ornamented (“overdressed”)” (1976: 83, n. ‘n’). 18 1987: 450. 19 Note that Isser, in his summary of Sakta’s (called “Shalīh” by his edition of Abū l-Fatḥ) acts and policies made no mention of any such controversy (1976: 104). Fossum similarly did not mention it (“Dosithean Sects,” CSS, 80–82, at 81–82). 20 That these were not codices in boxes, see Nemoy’s philological note in Isser (1976: 83, n. ‘n’). 21 Stenhouse 1985: 226. 22 Stenhouse 1985: 226. The parallel part in Isser’s excerpts reads: “He permitted marriage with Gentiles …” (1976: 81).

620 | The μόνον-Collation’s Implications for Samaritan Studies

complained about Samaritan adoption of the codex or that such was “un/clean” somehow.23 If anything, the “opinion of the gentiles” statement, if authentic,24 should be read in light of the then contemporary Jewish use of the codex, viz., that the opinions of the gentiles are like things recorded on leaves in a codex, i.e., non-binding. As for the final element, palm frond worship, Crown simply misinterpreted. The worship or veneration of the fronds is not due to their function as scroll handles in general but to a particular set of said handles connected to the death of the Dosithean martyr Levi. Abū l-Fatḥ’s account is worth quoting at length: When these (latter) had stoned Levi to death, these (followers of his) took a scroll-handle made of palm fronds and dipped it in his blood and they said, “This is he of whom God said, ‘Let not innocent blood be scattered in the midst of the land’. “What sin had Levi committed that he should be stoned with rocks? that he should be killed when he bore witness that Dūsīs was a prophet?” They took erroneous writings and put the scrollhandle of palm-fronds in them and decided amongst themselves that whoever desired to gaze upon the scroll-handle of Levi, or read the writings of Dūsīs25 should fast seven days and nights before looking at them.26

As Stenhouse clarifies in a note to his ET, the passage means that the followers of the martyr Levi took scroll handles, dipped them in his blood, and attached them in some way to the writings of Dūsīs,27 that is Dositheus himself, the 1st cent. CE Samaritan sectarian. The subsequent account by Abū l-Fatḥ of the eight Dosethean sects makes mention of the reverence accorded to these writings and the fronds attached to them, including in the accounts of Sakta28 as well as the

|| 23 Actually, Isser described Sakta as being somewhat lenient with respect to the purity laws (1976: 104) suggesting that, assuming a connection between the codex and gentiles, Sakta might have had the opposite opinion had codices flourished amongst the Samaritan community at that time. 24 Again the portion from Isser’s edition reads rather differently: “As to all the utensils used by gentiles and clothes worn by them, and all other woven stuffs that originate out of the work of gentiles and not out of the work of Israelites, he did not consider them as causing uncleanness.” (1976: 81). 25 Isser’s ET: “... and read the manuscript of Dusis …” 26 Stenhouse 1985: 218; Isser’s ET (1976: 79) is similar. 27 1985: lxvii, n. 1008; see also Scanlon’s note in Isser 1976: 79, with n. ‘f’. The latter’s reads “… faulty Scrolls of Scripture …” precluding these from being Dūsīs’ own writings even if he himself acted as a scribe. 28 “He (Sakta) said, ‘Cursed be what they (i.e., the Bʿaūnaʾī) said (when they claimed) that ‘the dead would rise’, and that ‘no one need fast if he wants to look at the scroll-handle of Levi, and the text in the handwriting of Dūsīs’ …” (1985: 226).

The Samaritan Pentateuch in the Age of Eusebius | 621

group listed after Sakta, namely the five brothers called Beni Yuṣadaq and another called Ṣadūq the Great who “were zealous for the scroll-handle and its enchantments.”29 But none of these are meant to indicate an anti-codex/proscroll position. Rather they are manifestations of the relic cult of Dūsīs-Levi— namely the writings (or SP scroll?) of the former and the blood soaked handles attached therein from the latter—the connection with a “scroll” as such is incidental. Simply put, the quoted sections Crown mustered to his argument lack any explicit information about the shift from scroll to codex amongst the Samaritans. While use of codices did exist in some form amongst Jews, and thus one might assume the same for the Samaritans, it is perhaps safer to assume that the latter did not adopt the codex for the Pentateuch before their Jewish counterparts. After all, if the mode of scriptural reading played into religious identity, as scholars have certainly argued for Jews and Christians, then something similar may have played a role for the Samaritans contra Christianity (cp. → §§7.1.2; 7.3). Nevertheless, without evidence to the contrary, scrolls are perhaps best assumed as the medium through which Eusebius met SP, even if it must be granted that this is an assumption. Condition One final comment bears repeating as it was only briefly mentioned above (→ §2.4.2 at Exod 8.6–7[10–11]). In light of the overall probability that the Pamphilan-Eusebian copy of SP comprised an unspecified number of scrolls forming a single copy each of Gen, Exod, Lev, Num, and Deut, the whole of the data, irrespective of the wording used in the collation notes, must be interpreted as coming from a singular witness. There is no reason to interpret the Caesarean collation as somehow representative of the entirety of the Samaritan textual tradition. Thus, the annotation stating that SP Exod 8 lacks vv 6–7 (10–11) should not be interpreted as evidence that SP, in Eusebius’ era, itself lacked these verses, but that the copy of SP the μόνον-collator(s) possessed lacked these verses.30 The hexaplaric evidence then is representative of a single witness, not of the entire SP MS tradition (even if Eusebius believed the latter). Eusebius and his team did not undertake a collation of all known SP exemplars,

|| 29 1985: 228. This line of text is omitted in Isser’s edition (1976: 82); see Stenhouse 1985: lxx, n. 1065a. 30 Again, pace Pummer 1998. Pummer’s interpretation unduly credits more care to the Samaritans than to the Christian collator(s). In fact, there is no reason to presuppose greater scribal care for the one over the other.

622 | The μόνον-Collation’s Implications for Samaritan Studies

come to a critical text, and then use the fruits of their critical reconstruction as the “SP” underlying their work. A single copy was acquired and used; operating otherwise would have been too expensive and overly laborious. This observation prompts one further consideration: Assuming the above analysis of Exod 8.6–7(10–11), at least one haplographic error, uncorrected by the Samaritan scribe(s) responsible for its production, marred the Eusebian copy. Should its presence be taken as an indication of this copy’s low quality? Would such imply that the copy in question was perhaps a practice copy, or, at least, one unsuited for synagogual reading and/or halakhic legislation? Perhaps a Samaritan scribe, upon producing a defective, sloppily or hastily written Torah wanted to recoup his losses;31 or perhaps a younger scribe felt if unnecessary or undesirable to bother with correcting a practice copy upon receiving another commission. Potential explanations are manifold. However, if Samaritan–Christian relations were at a low point, as our evidence might suggest (→ §7.3), it would make more sense if one imagines that the Caesarean SP was partially defective, at least insofar as Samaritan scribal standards were concerned. After all, how would the Christian buyer(s) have known the copy was imperfect?

7.1.2 Para-textual Aspects: The “Samaritan Tenth Commandment” Next considered is what para-textual features the Eusebian SP might have had. Presumably, the text was laid out colometrically32 (i.e., differentiating between prose and poetry), intervals were used indicating sections (i.e., paragraphing, a la parashot),33 and perhaps even word-separation dots were employed. If said

|| 31 See Crown’s comments on the process of medieval Samaritan scribal practice: Scribes made their own ink, prepared their own writing materials and were also restorers, correctors and binders, responsible not only for writing manuscripts but for all stages of turning the raw materials into codices. Frequently, scribes worked in a team so that a manuscript may have been written by two or more men working together (see his “Scribes,” CSS, 213–14, at 214). Assuming this process had earlier antecedents, scribes producing scrolls should have operated in much the same manner, albeit on the differing medium. Therefore, had the scribe(s) of the Caesarean exemplar produced one unfit for synagogual use, he(they) could have tried to sell it. 32 On the Samaritan scribal practices of colometry and symmetry, see Crown 1984. 33 For which the Samaritans employed the qiṣṣa, illustrated by the symbol —‫ ׃‬in both von Gall’s and Schorch’s editions; T-F styles the marker thus: “--!

32.35

|| 50 See Field 1.250, n. 13. Cp. Table 3.4.2 above.

>!

x x (ex ?)

x

Addendum: ‘ΤΟ ΣΑΜΑΡΕΙΤΙΚΟΝ’ Readings in LXX Editions | 683

Sixtine

Latin Sixt

Deut 10.22

=

=

27.4

>!

27.26

>!

32.8

=

Drusius

Montfaucon

Field

Wevers

x

x x

=

=

x

x

x

x

x

34.(1b)–1‫–א‬2

x (!)

“34.12” → §1.1

x (at 5.21; !) x

684 | Appendix, Addendum, and Manuscript Plates

Manuscript Plates

PLATE I: SHL Exod 20.17‫ ו–א‬and Exod 20.19‫§ →( ד–א‬2.3.3). Courtesy of the British Library Board, BL ADD. 12134, fol. 66a. The so-called “Samaritan Tenth Commandment” (→ §7.1.2) is in the upper register and the Israelite request for a prophetic intermediary is in the lower.

Manuscript Plates | 685

PLATE I: SHL Exod, latter part of the Decalogue. For credit see above; fol. 65b. Note the structured layout and the “Eastern” enumeration of the Decalogue.

686 | Appendix, Addendum, and Manuscript Plates

PLATE II: THE SHL Exod Colophon. Credit: see PLATE I, fol. 133a. The scribe wrote his own note at the bottom (see Wright, CSMBM 1.30) reading: “This book was completed in the month of Shabaṭ [Feb.] in the year 1008 [AG = 697 CE]. For the sake of our Lord may all the faithful, who in future encounter this book, pray my sake—Lazarus, the poor, wretched sinner who wrote it!”

Manuscript Plates | 687

PLATE II: THE SHL Exod Colophon. Same MS, fol. 132b. For complete analysis, see above (→ §2.2).

688 | Appendix, Addendum, and Manuscript Plates

Plate III: The SHV Num Colophon. Courtesy of Princeton University Library, Scheide Library, M150, fol. 151b. While somewhat smudged, the final (extant) line unambiguously reads ̣ referencing Eusebius’ having “set” the SP passages in the margins. Note also the gapped spacing between the final two surviving words. See above (→ §3.2) for analysis.

Manuscript Plates | 689

Plate IV: SHL Num 13.33‫ו–א‬. Courtesy of the British Library Board, BL ADD. 14437, fol. 16b. In the discussion above (→ §3.3.1), it is argued the index symbol ⁜ was wrongly set next to the in Num 14.2, whereas the correct placement would be on fol. 16a (not pictured here) ‫ܐ‬ in the first line of Num 14.1. JNum supplies the passage at its correct next to the ‫ܐ‬ location, which could not have been likely guessed since both locations make good sense, indicating SH originally indexed the passage correctly as in SP itself.

690 | Appendix, Addendum, and Manuscript Plates

Plate V.1: s-group MS 344 Num 13.1‫( ד–א‬Athos, Παντοκρατορος 24, fol. 208b, bottom mg, ind RH col.). Courtesy of the Göttinger Septuaginta Unternehmen (https://septuaginta.unigoettingen.de/). Both the attribution (left) and reading (right) use the same index symbol also used to anchor the reading to the running text after Num 13.1 (not pictured). Again, observe the former is in an uncial script while the latter used a cursive script like the running text.

Plate V.2: s-group MS 344 Num 14.45‫( א‬fol. 212bα). The reading is strangely attributed to the ο΄text. The accompanying cross-reference has been disconnected from the reading as each uses . a differently shaped index marker (~̇ and ͡ , respectively) each with the same such mark as an anchor in-text. See above for discussion (→ §3.3.3, ad loc).

Manuscript Plates | 691

Plate V.3: s-group MS 344 Num 21.11‫( א‬fol. 223b, bottom, ind RH col.). Here the reading is indexed using a symbol akin to a stick-figure without arms laying horizontally with its head to the left, also found in-text on the first visible line of the pictured RH column. The phrase “of the Samaritans” is the second to the last word in the final line at the bottom of the margin. For discussion of “ευρομεν,” see §3.3.3 at Num 21.12‫–ג–א‬13a, attribution.

Plate V.4: s-group MS 344 Num 27.23‫( ב–א‬fol. 234b, bottom, ind RH col.). For an explanation of the erroneous “attribution,” see the above discussion (→ §3.3.3, ad loc).

692 | Appendix, Addendum, and Manuscript Plates

Plate VI: Gerizim scholion in the Catena at Deut 27.4 (MS 529C, BnF, Coisl. 6, 13th cent.; fols. 174aβ–bα). Credit: Bibliothèque nationale de France; Département des manuscrits. Coislin 6; public domain; https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b11004648s. Mention of the “Samareitikon” is in the second line (from the top), whereas “in Mount Gerizim” is found in the third line (→ §4.3.3, n. 247).

Manuscript Plates | 693

Plate VII: The χολ scholion in MS 529C (credit: see PLATE VI above, fols. 175aβ–bα). Here is the “χολ scholion,” most assuredly an exegetical note of Origen’s originally supplied in his Comm. on Gal. (→ §4.3.4). Eusebius later added this information to the μόνον-collation in light of its subject matter. In MS 529, mention of the “Samaritan exemplar” is on the last line of the first pictured column, and “το χολ” (= ‫ )כל‬occurs on the first line of the second pictured column.

694 | Appendix, Addendum, and Manuscript Plates

Plate VIII: JExod 11.3–7 (BnF Syr. 26, fol. 132‫ܒ–ܐ‬, photo retouched by the author). Credit: Bibliothèque nationale de France; Département des manuscrits. Syriaque 26; public domain; https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10091189h. In JExod 11.3–7, Jacob principally reproduced the “unique” Samaritan part of passage (→ §5.2.3, ad loc). Note the marginal ‫( ܐܠ‬between the columns) at v 4 represents the reading of SH. While unmarked, perhaps in light of the blending method, strictly speaking the second to tenth lines from the top of col. ‫( ܒ‬the text between the påsôqås) could have been marked sub ÷ (the lemniscus) per Jacob’s system.

Manuscript Plates | 695

Plate IX: JNum 21.20‫ ב–א‬and JNum 21.22+, 22‫( ב–א‬BnF Syr. 26, fol. 304‫ܒ–ܐ‬, photo retouched by the author). Credit: see PLATE VIII. Both JNum 21.20‫ ב–א‬and JNum 21.22+, 22‫§ →( ב–א‬5.2.3, ad loc and cross-references) are both marked marginally with the lemniscus (÷) along the RH side (including the first line of col. ‫)ܒ‬. As discussed, the encircled attribution note (“And also these are only written in the [exemplar] of the Samaritans”) is likely meant to serve “doubleduty.” The Greek proper names (between the columns) relate to the following verses in col. ‫ܒ‬.

696 | Appendix, Addendum, and Manuscript Plates

Plate X: The “Samaritan Tenth Commandment” (Jerusalem National Library Sam. 2° 6; Schorch’s J1, fol. 107). Credit: ‫מאוסף הספרייה הלאומית‬, The National Library of Israel. “Ktiv” Project, The National Library of Israel; public domain. The Decalogue in Exod 20 was completely enumerated (→ §7.1.2, with n. 55) by the scribe whose work is dated 1215 CE. Note the STC marker ‫ י‬is immediately next to the line with the writing on the stones (... ‫)וכתבו‬. Two lines further down the erection of the stones (... ‫ )תקימו‬is commanded, and the building of the altar is mandated on the opposite side of the page (i.e., fol. 108, not pictured), following after the mention of “in Mount Gerizim” (spaced out, but as one word ‫ב ה ר ג ר י ז י‬ ‫ )מ‬on the last line of fol. 107.

Manuscript Plates | 697

PLATE XI: The “Samaritan Tenth Commandment” in MS Q. Courtesy of the British Library Board, BL ADD. 22369, fol. 54b (von Gall’s MS Q; Schorch’s L2; dated 1360 CE). MS Q, the only witness in von Gall’s edition to enumerate the Decalogue in both Exod and Deut (→ §7.1.2), here labels the STC immediately next to the line commanding the erection of the stones (... ‫ תקימו‬middle of the line). While the following line does contain the first part of the mandate to build the altar on Mount Gerizim (‫בהרגריזים‬, as one word, is found in the middle of the line in question), note that for the same in Deut (on fol. 136a), the enumerated ‫ י‬occurs at the same place in the passage as here. However in Deut said line ends with ...‫תקימו‬, suggesting that the placement in Exod was intentional as opposed to a mistake.

Bibliography Note on Manuscripts Consulted Directly When citing MSS directly, the numbered folio is that provided by the original cataloguer as written on the page. In the case of columned MSS, the folio and columns are cited as follows: e.g. fols. 106bβ-107aα, meaning the data is found on folio 106 on the backside (i.e., ‘b’ or ‘verso’) starting with the second column (i.e., β). Columns are referred to using the alphabet of the language in which the MS was written. Please note that all transcriptions of Jacob of Edessa’s Pentateuch (BnF, Syr. 26) are preliminary.

Outline 1.

2. 3.

Primary sources (polyglotta, SP, Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible [including Wevers’ studies and major translations], Hexapla, Syriac Bible) Patristic (chronologically) Other (Josephus, Rabbinic, Samaritan, classical literature, et al) Reference literature (alphabetical, by abbreviation then by author) Secondary literature (alphabetical)

1. Editions of Primary Sources Standard, recent editions and their respective MS sigla are cited throughout.

1. Biblical Texts Polyglotta S.S. BIBLIA Polyglotta Complectentia Textus Originales Hebraicos cum Pent. Samarit: Chaldaicos Graecos… Edited by Brian Walton. 6 vols. London, 1653–57. Vetus Testamentum hebraicum cum variis lectionibus. 2 Vols. Edidit Benjaminus Kennicott. Oxonii: e typographeo Clarendoniano, 1776–80. Also consulted: de Rossi, J. [Giovanni] B. (ed.). Variae Lectiones Veteris Testamenti. Vol. I–IV. Parma: Regio, 1784–88. Samaritan Pentateuch SP = T-F = ‫ ההדירו‬.‫ נספחים‬,‫ הערות‬,‫ מבוא‬:‫ נוסח שומרון ונוסח המסורה‬:‫חמישה חומשי תורה‬

‫ מהדורה‬,‫אביב ההוצאה לאור ע"ש חיים רובין‬-‫ אוניברסיטת תל‬.‫אברהם טל ומשה פלורנטין‬ .‫ ראשונה‬English: The Pentateuch – The Samaritan version and the Masoretic version. Edited and annotated by Abraham Tal and Moshe Florentin. Tel Aviv: The Haim Rubin Tel Aviv University Press, 2010. = Der Hebräische Pentateuch der Samaritaner. Fünfter Teil: Deuteronomium nebst Nachträgen und Verbesserungen. Edited by August Fr. von Gall. Berlin: Verlag Alfred Töpelmann, 1918. = The Samaritan Pentateuch: A Critical Editio Maior. Volume 3: Leviticus. Edited by Stefan Schorch. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2018.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110760798-009

700 | Bibliography

= The Samaritan Pentateuch: A Critical Editio Maior. Volume 1: Genesis. Edited by Stefan Schorch. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2021. = Tsedaka = The Israelite Samaritan Version of the Torah: First English Translation Compared with the Masoretic Version. Translated by Benyamim Tsedaka. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013. **On Tsedaka’s ET see Florentin’s 2015 review. Samaritan Reading/Vocalization Tradition = ‫ על פי תעודות שבכתב‬:‫עברית וארמית נוסח שומרון‬ / ‫ מלי תורה‬:‫ועדות שבעל פה כרך רביעי‬The Words of the Pentateuch. Edited by Zeʾev Ben-Ḥayyim. The Academy of the Hebrew Language, Texts and Studies 10. Vol. IV. Jerusalem: 1977. ST = ‫ שמות‬,‫ בראשית‬: ‫ כרך א‬- ‫ = התרגום השומרוני לתורה ; מהדורה ביקורתית‬The Samaritan Targum of the Pentateuch: A Critical Edition, Part I. Genesis, Exodus. Edited by A. Tal. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 1980. ‫ מבוא‬:‫ כרך ג‬- ‫ = התרגום השומרוני לתורה ; מהדורה ביקורתית‬The Samaritan Targum of the Pentateuch: A Critical Edition, Part III. Introduction. Edited by A. Tal. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 1983. ‫ דברים‬,‫ במדבר‬,‫ כרך ב ויקרא‬- ‫ = התרגום השומרוני לתורה ; מהדורה ביקורתית‬The Samaritan Targum of the Pentateuch: A Critical Edition, Part II: Leviticus, Numeri, Deuteronomium. Edited by A. Tal. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 1981. Also consulted: CALex (see also under 3. Targumim). STJ transcription was provided by A. Tal. Hebrew Bible (and related texts) 1. MT BHS = Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Electronic ed. (Logos). Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 2003. BHQ = Deuteronomy / ‫אלה הדברים‬. Edited by Carmel McCarthy. Biblia Hebraica Quinta editione cum apparatu critico novis curis elaborato. Vol 5. Stuttgart, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: 2007. Electronic edition (Logos). = Judges / ‫שפטים‬. Edited by Natalio Fernández Marcos. Vol. 13. 2010. Electronic edition (Logos). = Genesis / ‫בראשׁית‬. Edited by Abraham Tal. Biblia Hebraica Quinta editione cum apparatu critico novis curis elaborato. Vol 1. Stuttgart, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: 2015. Electronic edition (Logos). *All comments from BHQ editors are referenced as “BHQap” 2. DSS and related literatures DJD = Discoveries in the Judaean Desert DJD 1 = Qumran Cave I. Edited by D. Barthélemy, J.T. Milik et al. Oxford: OUP / Clarendon Press, 1955. DJD 3 = Le “Petites Grottes” de Qumrân: Textes Exploration de la falaise; Les Grottes 2Q, 3Q, 5Q, 6Q, 7Q à 10Q. Edited by M. Baillet, J.T. Milik et al. Oxford: OUP / Clarendon Press, 1962. DJD 5 = Qumran Cave 4: I : (4Q158-4Q186). Edited J.M. Allegro, A.A. Anderson. Oxford: OUP / Clarendon Press, 1968. DJD 8 = The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Naḥal Ḥever (8ḤevXIIgr): (The Seiyal Collection I). Edited by Emanuel Tov, in collaboration with R. Kraft and P. Parsons. Oxford: OUP / Clarendon Press, 1990.

Bibliography | 701

DJD 9 = Qumran Cave 4 - IV: Palaeo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts. Edited by P.W. Skehan, E.C. Ulrich, and J.E. Sanderson. Judith E. Oxford: OUP / Clarendon Press, 1992. DJD 12 = Qumran Cave 4 - VII: Genesis to Numbers. Edited by E.C. Ulrich, F.M. Cross, J.R. Davila, et al. Oxford: OUP / Clarendon Press, 1994. DJD 13 = Qumran Cave 4 - VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1. Edited by H.W., T. Elgvin, J.T. Milik, et al. Oxford: OUP / Clarendon Press, 1994. DJD 14 = Qumran Cave 4 - IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings. Edited by E.C. Ulrich, F.M. Cross, S.W. Crawford, et al. Oxford: OUP / Clarendon Press, 1995. Also utilized and/or referenced: Ulrich 2010 = The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants. Edited by Eugene Ulrich; based on the identification of fragments by Frank Moore Cross, J. T. Milik, Patrick W. Skehan, et al.; and on the editions of the Biblical Qumran Scrolls by Maurice Baillet, Dominique Barthélemy, Millar Burrows, et al. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 134. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Qumran Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls Database. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2011. [Database created from Stephen Pfann’s transcriptions of the Qumran materials.] The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. 2 Vols. Edited by Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Masada VI: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965, Final Reports - Hebrew Fragments from Masada - The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada. Edited by Yigael Yadin and Shemaryahu Talmon. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1999. 3. Targumim (non-Samaritan) TgO, TgN, TgPJ, TgPss, CGD et al = Targum Onkelos, Neofiti, Pseudo-Jon., Targum of the Psalms, Cairo Geniza Tg. frag. D, etc. : All Targumim and Cairo Genizah documents were taken from the files of the CaLex (on which see 2. REFERENCE LITERATURE below). These modules are based on the respective research projects and/or editions of Sokoloff, M. Cohen, Sperber, Klein, Clarke, Macho, Kaufman, et al. For which, consult the provided source notes. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Deuteronomy. Translated by Ernst. G. Clarke, in collaboration with S. Magder. The Aramaic Bible. Vol. 5B. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1998. The Targum of Psalms. Translated by David M. Stec. The Aramaic Bible. Vol. 16. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2004. Greek Bible (OT and NT; incl. Wevers’ companion studies) H-P = Vetus Testamentum Graecum cum variis lectionibus. Edidit Robertus Holmes. Tomus Primus. Oxonii: E Typographeo Clarendoniano. M DCC XCVIII. Br.-M. or [Alan] Brooke-[Norman]McLean = The Old Testament in Greek according to the text of Codex Vaticanus… Vol.1, parts 1–3. Cambridge: CUP, 1906—. [Henry St. J. Thackeray joined the editorial team for the volumes after the Octateuch, from 1927 on] Volumes cited: Gen 1906; Exod-Lev 1909; Num-Deut 1911; Josh, Judg, Ruth 1917; 1–2 Samaritan 1927; 3–4 Kgdm 1930. N.B.: The main apparatus is cited as “AppI”; the hexaplaric apparatus as “AppII.” Gen = Genesis. Edited by John W. Wevers. Vol. I. Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974. Exod = Exodus. Edited by John William Wevers. Vol. II/ 1. Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum. Göttingen: V & R, 1991.

702 | Bibliography

Lev = Leviticus. Edited by J.W. Wevers. Vol. II/2. Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum. Göttingen: V & R, 1986. Num = Numeri. Edited by J.W. Wevers. Vol. III/1. Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum. Göttingen: V & R, 1982. Deut = Deuteronomium. Edited by J.W. Wevers. Vol. III/ 2. Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum. Göttingen: V & R, 20062. Pss = Psalmi Cum Odis. Edited by A. Rahlfs. Vol. X. Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis Editum. Göttingen: V & R, 1979. Isa = Isaias. Edited by Joseph Ziegler. Vol. XIV. Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum. Göttingen: V & R, 1983. Duodecim = Duodecim Prophetae. Edited by Joseph Ziegler. Vol. XIII. Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum. Göttingen: V & R, 1984. Dan = Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco. Edited by Joseph Ziegler, Olivier Munnich, and Detlef Fraenkel. Vol. XVI/2. Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis Editum. Göttingen: V & R, 1999. 2 Macc = Maccabaeorum Liber II. Edited by Werner Kappler. Vol. IX/2. Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum. Göttingen: V & R, 2008. 2 Esdr. = Esdrae Liber II. Edited by Robert Hanhart. Vol. VIII.2. Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis Editum. Göttingen: V & R, 1993. Esther = Esther. Edited by Robert Hanhart. Vol. VIII/3 of Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis Editum. Göttingen: V & R, 1983. NA28 = Aland, Kurt, Barbara Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger. Novum Testamentum Graece. 28th Edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012. BA 1 = La Bible d’Alexandrie. Vol 1. L’Genèse. Translated with notes and introduction by Marguerite Harl. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1986. BA 2 = La Bible d’Alexandrie. Vol 2. L’Exode. Translated with notes and introduction by Alain Le Boulluec and Pierre Sandevoir. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2004. BA 3 = La Bible d’Alexandrie. Vol 3. Le Lévitique. Translated with notes and introduction by Paul Harlé and Didier Pralon. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1988. BA 4 = La Bible d’Alexandrie. Vol 4. Les Nombres. Translated with notes and introduction by Gilles Dorival et al. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1994. BA 5 = La Bible d’Alexandrie. Vol 5. Le Deutéronome. Translated with notes and introduction by Cécile Dogniez and Marguerite Harl. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2007. King = Nicholas King (transl.). The Old Testament: A new, cutting-edge translation of the Septuagint. Vol. 1. The Pentateuch. Suffolk: Peter Mayhew, 2010. NETS = Perkins, Larry (transl.). Exodus in the New English Translation of the Septuagint. Edited by Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright. Oxford: OUP, 2009. Peters, Melvin K (transl.). Deuteronomion in the NETS. NGTG = Wevers, John W. Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 35. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1993. NGTE = Wevers, J. W. Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 30. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1990. NGTL = Wevers, J. W. Notes on the Greek Text of Leviticus. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 44. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1997.

Bibliography | 703

NGTN = Wevers, J. W. Notes on the Greek Text of Numbers. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 46. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1998. NGTD = Wevers, J. W. Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 39. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1995. THGG = Wevers, J. W. Text History of the Greek Genesis. Mitteilungen des SeptuagintaUnternehmens 11. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974. THGE = Wevers, J. W. Text History of the Greek Exodus. Mitteilungen des SeptuagintaUnternehmens 21. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992. THGL = Wevers, J. W. Text History of the Greek Leviticus. Mitteilungen des SeptuagintaUnternehmens 19. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. THGN = Wevers, J. W. Text History of the Greek Numbers. Mitteilungen des SeptuagintaUnternehmens 16. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. THGD = Wevers, J. W. Text History of the Greek Deuteronomy. Mitteilungen des SeptuagintaUnternehmens 13. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. Η ΠΑΛΑΙΑ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ, ΚΑΤΑ ΤΟΥΣ ΕΒΔΟΜΗΚΟΝΤΑ / VETVS TESTAMENTVM, SECVNDVM LXX, TOMVS PRIMVS, LVTETIAE PARISIORVM, Apud SEBASTIANVM CHAPPELET, M. DC. XXVIII. Ally, Zaki, and Ludwig Koenen (eds.), Three Rolls of the Early Septuagint: Genesis and Deuteronomy. A Photographic Edition. Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen 27. Bonn: R. Habelt, 1980. Bülow-Jacobsen, Adam and John Strange. ‘P. Carlsberg 49: Fragment of an Unknown Greek Translation of the Old Testament (Exod. 3,2–6. 12–13. 16–19). Same Codex as H 16 (Strasb. inv. 748)’ Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 32 (1986): 15–21. Rahlfs, Alfred and Paul Glaue. Fragmente einer griechischen Übersetzung des samaritanischen Pentateuchs, Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens 1/2, Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1911. Robert, Ulysse. Heptateuchi partis posterioris versio latina antiquissima e codice Lugdunensi. Lyon: Librairie de A. Rey et Cie, 1900. Sanders, Henry A. (ed.). Facsimile of the Washington manuscript of Deuteronomy and Joshua in the Freer collection: with an introduction by Henry A. Sanders. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan, 1910. Hexapla Editions/Fragments Burkitt, Francis C. (ed.), Fragments of the Books of Kings According to the Translation of Aquila: From a MS. Formerly in the Geniza at Cairo Now in the Possession of C. Taylor D.D. Master of S. John's College and S. Schechter M.A. University Reader in Talmudic Literature. Preface by C. Taylor. Cambridge: CUP, 1897. de Montfaucon, Bernard (ed.). Hexaplorum Origenis quae supersunt…. 2 Vols. Paris: 1713. Drusius, Johannes. Veterum Interpretvm Graecorum in totum vetus Testamentum. Fragmenta. Collecta, versa & Notis illustrata. Arnhemiae: Apud Iohannem Ianssonium Bibliopolam, 1622. Field, Frederick (ed.). Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt…. 2 Vols. Oxonii: E Typographeo Clarendoniano, 1875. [Pent. fascicle published in 1871] ET of Field’s Prolegomena: Frederick Field's Prolegomena to Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, sive veterum interpretum Graecorum in totum Vetus Testamentum fragmenta. Translated and annotated by Gérard J. Norton; with the collaboration of Carmen Hardin. Paris: J. Gabalda, 2005.

704 | Bibliography

Mercati, Giovanni (ed.). Psalterii hexapli reliquiae: Pars prima, Codex rescriptvs bibliothecae Ambrosianae O 39 svp. Rome: Vatican Library, 1958. Taylor, Charles (ed.). Hebrew-Greek Cairo Genizah Palimpsests from the Taylor-Schechter Collection Including a Fragment of the Twenty-second Psalm According to Origen’s Hexapla. Cambridge: CUP, 1900. Wessely, Charles, ‘Un nouveau fragment de la version grecque du Vieux Testament par Aquila.’ Pages 224–29 in Mélanges offerts à m. Émile Chatelain. Paris, 1910. Syriac Bible (including SH) 1. Syrohexapla SHL = Bibliothecae Syriacae a Paulo de Lagarde Collectae. Edited by P.A. de Lagarde and A. Rahlfs. Gottingae: 1892. SHM = CS = Extracts from: Critici Sacri Sive Annotata Doctissimorum Virorum Vetus Ac Novum Testamentum…. Tomi Primi, pars secunda [Lev-Deut]. Edited by Sebastianus Munsterus et al. Amsterdam: Henricus & Vidua Theodori Boom et al, 1698. SHV = The Pentateuch in the Version of the Syro-Hexapla : A Fac-similie Edition of a Midyat MS. Discovered 1964. Edited by Arthur Vööbus. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 369. Subsidia 45. Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO Waversebaan, 49, 1975. = The Book of Isaiah in the Version of the Syro-Hexapla: A Facsimile Edition of MS. St. Mark 1 in Jerusalem. Edited by Arthur Vööbus. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 449. Subsidia 68. Louvain: Peeters, 1983. SHB = New Syro-Hexaplaric texts: Edited, Commented upon and Compared with the Septuagint. Edited by Wilhelm Baars. Leiden: Brill, 1968. SHC = Monumenta sacra et profana ex codicibus praesertim Bibliothecae Ambrosianae. Codex Syro-Hexaplaris Ambrosianus photolithographice editus curante et adnotante. Tomus 7. Edited by A.M. Ceriani. Mediolani: Impensis Bibliothecae Ambrosianae, 1874. SHCur = variants recorded by Ceriani in his edition of SHC taken from BL ORIENT. 8732. Masius, Andreas. Iosuae Imperatoris Historia. Antuerpiae : ex Officina Christophori Plantini, 1574. Monumenta Sacra et Profana, ex Codicibus Praesertim Bibliotheca Ambrosianae: Pentateuchi Syro-Hexaplaris quae supersunt cum notis. Accedunt nonnulla alia fragmenta Syriaca. Tomus 2, Fascicles 1–4. Edited by A.M. Ceriani. Mediolani: Impensis Bibliothecae Ambrosianae, 1863. (Fascicle 5 published ca. 1907? Material quoted from fasc. 5 is still cited ‘1863: page.’) Veteris testamenti ab Origene recensiti fragmenta apud Syros servata quinque. Edited by Paul A. de Lagarde, Gottingen: 1880. 2. Harklean The Apocalypse in the Harklean Version: A Facsimile Edition of MS. Mardin Orth. 35, fol. 143r159v. Edited by Arthur Vööbus. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium Vol. 400. Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO Waversebaan, 1978. Yohanna, Samer S. The Gospel of Mark in the Syriac Harklean Version. An Edition Based upon the Earliest Witnesses. Biblica et Orientalia 52. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2015. Also consulted: Juckel, Andreas. Review of Yohanna in Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 21/1 (2018): 204–217.

Bibliography | 705

3. Peshitta P = Leiden Peshitta. Leiden: Peshitta Institute Leiden, 2008. (Logos edition) P = The Old Testament in Syriac: According to the Peshitta Version. Part I: 1. Edited by the Peshitta Institute. Leiden: Brill, 1977. [Gen–Exod] The Old Testament in Syriac: According to the Peshitta Version. Part I: 2. Edited by John H. Hospers and Hans J.W. Drijvers et al. Leiden: Brill, 1991. [Lev–Josh] The Old Testament in Syriac: According to the Peshitta Version. Part IV: 6 Edited by Wilhelm Baars and Jürgen C.H. Lebram. Leiden: Brill, 1972. [1 Esdras]

2. Patristic Works (roughly chronological; reprints in Pummer 2002 are noted) N.B.: For patristic works, the volumes from the Migne series are cited PL or PG vol.column(s). Those from the Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller series are cited GCS vol.page(s). Catenae/Collections CatNic = Νικηφορος Θεοτοκης (ed.). Σειρα ενος και πεντηκοντα υπομνηματιστων εις την Οκτατευχον και τα των Βασιλειων. Leipzig, 1772–73. Florentino, Francisco Zephyro (tr.). Moyses Enucleatus sev Locorum Obscuriorum; qui Pentateucho… Coloniae Agrippinae, apud Petrum Haack, 1597. Petit, Françoise (ed.). La Chaîne sur la Genèse: édition intégrale: chapitres 4 à 11. Traditio exegetica Graeca 2. Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 1993. See also, Devreesse 1959 in 3. Secondary literature. Also consulted: Lienhard, J. and R. Rombs (eds.). Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Old Testament. Vol III. Edited by T. Oden (series editor). Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2001. Simonetti, Manlio. (ed.). Matthew 1–13. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament. Vol. Ia. Edited by T. Oden (series editor). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001. Martin, F., E. Smith, and T. Oden. Acts. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament. Vol V. Edited by T. Oden (series editor). Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2006. Elowsky. J. and T. Oden. John 1–10. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament Vol. IVa. Edited by T. Oden (series editor). Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP, 2006. Africanus Wallraff, Martin, et al (ed.). Iulius Africanus Chronographiae: The Extant Fragments. Translated by William Adler. Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte N.F. 15. Berlin: Walter de Grutyer, 2007. “Apostolic Fathers” The Apostolic Fathers. Edited by J.B. Lightfoot. Vol. 2. New York: MacMillan and Co., 1890. Hippolytus Arabic Catena fragment = Bonwetsch, G. and H. Achelis (eds.). Hippolytus Werke: Exegetische und Homiletische Schriften. Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 1/2. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1897.

706 | Bibliography

Origen Ep. Ad Africanum = de Lange, N. and M. Harl (eds.). Philocalie, 1-20 Sur les Écritures and La lettre à Africanus sur l’Histoire de Suzanne. Sources Chrétiennes 302. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1983. Comm. on Matt. = Klostermann, E (ed.). Origenes Mattäuserklärung. Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte 40. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1935. = Klostermann, E. and Benz, R. (eds.). Origenes Mattäuserklärung. Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte 41. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1941. Contra Celsum = Borret, M. (ed.). Contre Celse. Sources Chrétiennes 132. Paris: Éditions du Cerf 1967. Reprinted in Pummer 2002. Comm. on John = Preuschen, E. (ed.). Der Johanneskommentar. Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte 10. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1903. Reprinted in Pummer 2002. Comm. on Rom. = Bammel, C.P.H. (ed.). Der Römerbriefkommentar des Origenes: Kritische Ausgabe der Übersetzung Rufins. Vetus Latina: Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel. Aus der Geschichte der Lateinischen Bibel 16. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1990. Reprinted in Pummer 2002. = Scheck, T. (transl.) Origen: Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Books 1-5. Fathers of the Church 103. Washington DC: CUA Press, 2001. Hom. on Gen and Exod. = Heine, R. (transl.) Origen. Homilies on Genesis and Exodus. The Fathers of the Church 71. Washington DC: CUA Press, 1982. Hom. on Num. = Baehrens, W. (ed.). Homilien zum Hexateuch in Rufins Übersetzung. Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte 30. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1921. Reprint in Pummer 2002. = Scheck, T. (transl.). Homilies on Numbers. Ancient Christian Texts. Edited by C.A. Hall. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2009. Hom. on Pss. = Perrone, L. (ed.). Die neuen Psalmenhomilien: Eine kritische Edition des Codex Monacensis Graecus 314. Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte. N.F. 19. Berlin, München, Boston: De Gruyter, 2015. = Trigg, J. (transl.). Homilies on the Psalms: Codex Monacensis Graecus 314. Fathers of the Church, vol. 141. Washington DC: CUA Press, 2020. Sel. in Pss = PG 12 Sel. in Ezek = PG 13 = Hooker, M. (transl. and annot.). R. Pearse (ed.). Origen of Alexandria: Exegetical Works on Ezekiel. Ancient Christian Texts in Translation 2. Ipswich: Chieftain Publishing, 2014. Adnot. in Deut = PG 17 Eusebius Chonicon = Karst, J (ed. and transl.). Die Chronik aus dem armenischen Übersetzt mit textkritischem Commentar. Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte 20. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1911. Reprinted in Pummer 2002. = Helm, R. (ed.). Die Chronik des Hieronymus. Hieronymi Chronicon. Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte 24. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1913.

Bibliography | 707

= Schoene, A. (ed.). Eusebi Chronicorum Libri Duo. Vol 1. Berlin: Apud Weidmannos. 1875. DE = Gaisford, T. (transl.). Evangelicae Demonstrationis Libri Decem… Oxonii: e Typographeo Academico, 1852. = Ferrar, W. J. (transl.). The Proof of the Gospel: Being the Demonstratio Evangelica of Eusebius of Cæsarea. Edited by W. J. Sparrow-Simpson and W. K. Lowther Clarke. Translations of Christian Literature: Series I: Greek Texts. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1920. Eclogae = Gaisford, T. (ed.). Eusebii Pamphili episcopi Caesariensis eclogae propheticae. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1842. H.E. = Lake, K. and J. Oulton (transl.). Eusebius Ecclesiastical History. 2 vols. The Loeb Classical Library 153 and 265. Cambridge, MA: HUP, 1926–1932. = Schwartz, E (ed.). Die Kirchengeschichte. Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte 9/1–3, Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1903–09. = Wright, W., N. McLean, and A. Merx (eds.). The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphili, 265-339, Bishop of Caesarea: Syriac Text… London: C.J. Clay and Sons (CUP), 1898. = Bardy, G (ed. and transl.). Histoire ecclésiastique. Livres V-VII. Sources Chrétiennes 41. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1955. = Lawlor, H. J. and J. E. L. Oulton (transls.). Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History and Martyrs of Palestine. 2 Vols. Translated with introduction and notes. London: SPCK, 1927–28. M.Pal. = Bardy, G (ed. and transl.). Histoire ecclésiastique. Vol 3. Sources Chrétiennes 55. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1958. = Cureton, W. (ed. and transl.). History of the Martyrs of Palestine by Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea… London: Williams and Norgate: 1861. = Lawlor and Oulton 1927–28. Onomasticon [both Eusebius and Jerome’s LT] = Klostermann, E. (ed.). Das Onomastikon der biblischen Ortsnamen. Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte 11/1. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1904. Reprinted in Pummer 2002. = Chapman, Rupert L., III. The Onomasticon: Palestine in the Fourth Century A.D. Edited by Joan E. Taylor. Translated by G. S. P. Freeman-Grenville. First EnglishLanguage edition. Jerusalem: Carta, Jerusalem, 2003. = R. Notley and Ze’ev Safrai (eds. and transls.). Eusebius, Onomasticon. A Triglott Edition with Notes and Commentary. Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series 9. Leiden: Brill, 2005. PE = Gifford, E (transl.). Eusebius of Caesarea: Praeparatio Evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel). 3 Vols. Oxonii: e typographeo academico, 1903. Quaestiones ad Stephanum et Marinum / Gospel Questions and Solutions = Pearse, R. (ed.). Miller, D, A. McCollum, and C. Downer, et al (transl.). Eusebius of Caesarea, Gospel Problems and Solutions. Ancient Christian Texts in Translation 1. Ipswich: Chieftain Publishing, 2010. Theophany = Lee, S. (ed. and transl.). Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea on Theophania … Cambridge: CUP, 1843. Reprinted partially in Pummer 2002. = Gressmann, H. (ed and transl.). The Theophanie. Die griechischen Bruchstücke und Übersetzung der syrischen Überlieferungen. Die griechischen christlichen

708 | Bibliography

Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte 11/2. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1904. ReprintReprinted in Pummer 2002. Comm on Pss. = PG 23. Also: J.B. Pitra (ed.). Analecta Sacra Spicilegio Solesmensi …. Tom III. Patres Antenicaeni. E typographeo Veneto, Mechitaristarum Sancti Lazari, 1883. Titus of Bostra Contra Mani. = Roman, A., T. Schmidt, P.-H. Poitier, and É. Crégheur (eds.). Titi Bostrensis Contra Manichaeos Libri IV. Corpus Christianorum Series Graeca 82. Turnholt: Brepols, 2013. Gregory of Nazianzus Poems = Dunkle, Brian. Gregory Nazianzen’s Poems on Scripture. PhD. Thesis, Boston College: 2009. = Dunkle, Brian (ed. and transl.). Poems on Scripture: Saint Gregory of Nazianzus. Popular Patristics Series Book 46. Yonkers, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2012. Jerome Adv. Ruf. = Lardet, P. (ed.). Contra Rufinum, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 79. Turnholt: Brepols, 1982. = Hritzu J. (transl.). “The Apology Against the Books of Rufinus.” Pages 47–220 in Saint Jerome, Dogmatic and Polemical Works. Washington, DC: CUA Press, 1965. Comm. on Amos = M. Adriaen, M. (ed.). Commentarii in prophetas minores. Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 76. Turnholt: Brepols, 1969. Reprint in Pummer 2002. Comm. on Gal. = Raspanti, G. (ed.). Commentarii in epistulam Pauli apostoli ad Galatas. Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 77A. Turnholt: Brepols, 2006. = See Cain 2010b. Comm. on Ezek = Glorie, F. (ed.). Commentariorum in Hiezechielem libri XIV. Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 75. Turnholt: Brepols, 1964. Reprint in Pummer 2002. Comm. on Ps = de Lagarde, P., G. Morin, and M. Adriaen (eds.). Hebraicae quaestiones in libro Geneseos. Liber interpretationis hebraicorum nominum. Commentarioli in psalmos. Commentarius in Ecclesiasten. Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 72. Turnholt: Brepols, 1959. De Vir. Ill. = Siamake, K (ed.). Ἰερωνυμοῦ, De viris Illustribus. Thessalonica, 1992. = Halton, T. (transl.). Saint Jerome: On Illustrious Men. Fathers of the Church 100. Washington, DC, CUA Press, 1999. Dial. contra Luc = PL 23. Reprint in Pummer 2002. HQG = Hebraicae quaestiones in libro Geneseos. Liber interpretationis hebraicorum nominum. Commentarioli in psalmos. Commentarius in Ecclesiasten. Edited by P. de Lagarde, G. Morin, M. Adriaen. Preface by Paul Antin. Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 72. Turnhout: Brepols, 1959. = Hayward, Robert (transl.). Saint Jerome’s Hebrew Questions on Genesis. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1995. Ep. Titus = Bucchi, F. (ed.). Commentarii in epistulas Pauli apostoli ad Titum et ad Philemonem. Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 77C. Turnholt: Brepols, 2003. Letters (25, 34, 108, 119, and 121) = Hilberg, I. (ed.). Sancti Eusebii Hieromymus Epistulae. Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum Vols. 54–56/1. Vienna: Verlag der

Bibliography | 709

Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1910/1918. Reprinted partially in Pummer 2002. = W. H. Fremantle, G. Lewis, and W. G. Martley (transls.). “Prefaces to Jerome’s Early Works.” St. Jerome: Letters and Select Works. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Vol. 6. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1893. = Greenslade, S.L. (ed. and transl.). Early Latin Theology: Selections from Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, and Jerome. Louisville: The Westminster Press, 1956. Prologues = Weber, R. and R. Gryson (eds.). Biblia Sacra Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem. 5th revised edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1969. [ETs of Jerome’s Prologues by K.P. Edgecomb can be found on http://www.fourthcentury.com/ index.php/jerome-translations-of-scripture (managed by Wisconsin Lutheran College, Milwaukee, WI, USA).] Theodore of Mopsuestia Conti, M. (transl.) and J. Elowsky (ed.). Commentary on the Gospel of John. Ancient Christian Texts. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP,2010. Epiphanius De Mens et Pond = Dean, J.E. (ed. and transl.). Epiphanius’ Treatise on Weights and Measures: The Syriac Version. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 11. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1935. [See also PG 43.237–94] = Moutsoulas, Elia D., (ed.) “Τὸ ‘Περὶ μέτρων καὶ σταθμῶν’ ἔργον Ἐπιϕανίου τοῦ Σαλαμῖνος,” Θεολογία 44 (1973): 157–98. Panarion = Holl, Karl (ed.). Epiphanius (Ancoratus and Panarion). Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte 25. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1913. Reprinted in Pummer 2002. = Williams, Frank (transl.). The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Books I (Sects 1– 46). Second Edition, Revised and Expanded. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Reprinted from an earlier edition in Pummer 2002. = Williams, F. (transl.). The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: De fide. Books II and III. Revised Edition. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean studies: Volume 2 of The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Reprinted in Pummer 2002. De Gemmis = Blake, R.P. and H. De Vis (eds. and transl.). Epiphanius de Gemmis. Studies and Documents 2. Blake, R.P. — London: Christophers, 1934. Reprinted in Pummer 2002. Theodoret Quaest. in [relevant book] = Petruccione, J.F. (ed.) and R.C. Hill (transl.). The Questions on the Octateuch. 2 Vols. Greek text, English translation with introduction and commentary. The Library of Early Christianity 1. Washington DC: The CUA Press, 2007. Procopius of Gaza PG 87 = Migne, J.P. (ed.). Commentarii in Octateuchum. Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graecae, Vols 87/1–3. Paris: Migne, 1860. [Note: PG’s Greek text is from CatNic.] Reprinted partially in Pummer 2002. = Clausero, Conrado (transl.) Procopii Gazaei Sophistae Comentarii in Octateuchum … . Tiguri: per Andream Gessnerum F. et Iacobum Gessnerum fratres, 1555.

710 | Bibliography

Also consulted: Karin Metzler (ed.), Prokop von Gaza. Eclogarum in Libros Historicos Veteris Testamenti Epitome. Teil 1: Der Genesiskommentar. Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte. (NF) 22. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015. Also: Pieter W. van der Horst’s review of Metzler’s edition in Bryn Mawr Classical Review (http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2015/2015-06-31.html; dated 6/31/2015; accessed 4/18/2016). Procopius of Caesarea De aedif = On Buildings = Translated by H. B. Dewing, Glanville Downey. Loeb Classical Library 343. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1940. Reprinted in Pummer 2002. Jacob of Edessa Cath. Hom. = Brière, Maurice (ed. and transl.). Les Homiliae cathedrales de Sévère d'Antioche: Homélies CXX à CXXV. Patrologia Orientalis 138 (29.1). Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1960. Hex. = Chabot, J.-B. (ed.) and A. Vaschalde (transl.). Iacobi Edesseni Hexaemeron, seu in opus creationis libri septem. 2 vols. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 92 [text] and 97 [LT]. Paris: L. Durbecq, 1928 [text], 1932 [LT]. JSam = Salvesen, Alison (ed. and transl.). The Books of Samuel in the Syriac Version of Jacob of Edessa. Monographs of the Peshitta Institute 10. Leiden: Brill, 1999. George Syncellus The Chronography of George Synkellos: A Byzantine Chronicle of Universal History from the Creation. Translated with an Introduction and Notes by William Adler and Paul Tuffin. Oxford: OUP, 2002. See also Africanus. (Mosshammer’s edition is reprinted in Pummer 2002.) Anastasius Sinaita Quaest = PG 89.595–98; reprint in Pummer 2002. Photius Codex = Freese, J.H. (transl.). The Library of Photius, Volume 1. Vol. 11 of Translations of Christian Literature. Ser. 1. London: SPCK, 1920. Timothy I Ep. 47 = Braun, O. (ed.). ‘Ein Brief des Katholikos Timotheos I über biblische Studien des 9 Jahrhunderts.’ Oriens Christianus 1 (1901): 299–313. = ETs in Brock 1997 and Butts 2021 Isho‘dad of Merv Comm. = van den Eynde, Celas (ed.). Commentaire d’Išo‘dad de Merv sur l’Ancien Testament, II: Exode–Deutéronome. 2 Vols. (text and FT). Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 176, 179, Syr. 80–81. Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1958. Barhebraeus Scholia = Sprengling, Martin and William Graham (eds. and transl.). Barhebraeus’ Scholia on the Old Testament: Part I: Genesis - II Samuel. Oriental Institute Publications 13. Chicago: Oriental Institute, Univ. of Chicago, 1931.

Bibliography | 711

Chron. Eccl. = Abbeloos, J.B. and T.J. Lamy (eds.). Gregorii Barhebræi Chronicon ecclesiasticum. 2 Vols. Louvain: Peeters, 1872–77. = Wilmshurst, D (transl.). Bar Hebraeus, The Ecclesiastical Chronicle: An English Translation. Piscataway: Gorgias, 2016. Scholia on Pss = Julius L Siegel (ed. and transl.). The Scholia of Bar Hebraeus on the Book of Psalms. PhD Thesis, University of Chicago: 1928.

3. Other (Josephus, Rabbinic, Samaritan, Christian non-“Patristic” lit., etc.) Josephus (cited by Loeb paragraphs) Ant = Antiquities of the Jews Bell. Iud. = Wars of the Jews Niese, B. (ed.). Flavii Iosephi Opera. 7 Vols. Berolini: apvd Weidm., 1888–94. NT Apocrypha James, Montague R. The Apocryphal New Testament. Oxford, 1924. Brannan, Rick. “Greek Apocryphal Gospels, Fragments and Transcriptions.” Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2013.

Agrapha:

Texts

and

Diogenes Laertius Vit. Phil. = Lives of Eminent Philosophers = Hicks, R. D. (transl.). Lives of Eminent Philosophers. 2 vols. The Loeb Classical Library 184 and 185. Cambridge, MA: HUP, 1925. Bordeaux Pilgrim Cuntz, Otto and Wirth, Gerhard. Itineraria Romana, Vol 1, Itineraria Antonini Augusti et Burdigalense: Accedit tabula geographica. Berlin, Boston: B. G. Teubner, 2012 Madaba Mosaic Map Michael Avi-Yonah. The Madaba Mosaic Map: With Introduction and Commentary. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1954. Hesychius Schmidt Moritz (ed.). Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon. 4 vols. Ienae: Sumptibus Frederici Maukii, 1867. Tibåt Mårqe TM = Tal, Abraham (ed., annot., and transl.). Tibåt Mårqe: The Ark of Marqe. Edition, Translation, Commentary. Studia Samaritana 9. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2019. Also consulted: Macdonald, John (ed. and transl.). Memar Marqah, the teaching of Marqah: Volume I, The text, Volume II, The translation. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 84. Berlin: Verlag Alfred Töpelmann, 1963. Samaritan Liturgy and piyyutim The Samaritan liturgy. 2 Vols. Edited by Arthur E. Cowley. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1909. Samaritan piyyutim (prayers, liturgical poems) are from the CaLex (unless otherwise noted): http://cal.huc.edu/showsubtexts.php?subtext=56420. The texts in CaLex are from

712 | Bibliography

Z. Ben Ḥayyim, The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic Amongst the Samaritans III/2: The Recitation of Prayers and Hymns (Jerusalem, 1967). Classical Samaritan Poetry. Translated by Laura Lieber. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press, 2022. Abū l-Fatḥ’s Chronicle Stenhouse, Paul (ed. and transl.). Kitab al Tarikh of Abu'l Fath: The Chronicle of Abu'l Fath. Mandelbaum Studies in Judaica 1. Sydney: Mandelbaum Publishing, 1985. Asatir / Šarḥ al-Asaṭir Gaster, Moses (ed. and transl.). The Asatir: The Samaritan Book of the “Secrets of Moses.” Together with the Pitron or Samaritan Commentary and the Samaritan Story of the Death of Moses. London: The Royal Asiatic Society, 1927.

2. Reference Literature ABD = Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. Edited by David Noel Freedman, et al. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Articles referenced: Yöel Arbeitman ‘Mamre (Person/Place)’ 4.492–3; PierreMaurice Bogaert ‘Latin Versions’ 6.799–803; S.P. Brock ‘Ancient Versions (Syriac)’ 6.794–99; G. Mattingly ‘Anak (Person)’ 1.222; Larry Perkins ‘Antilebanon’ 1.262; Ray L. Roth ‘Gebal’ 2.922–23; Bruce Waltke ‘Samaritan Pentateuch’ 5.932–40 BDAG = Arndt, W., F.W. Danker, and W. Bauer (eds.). A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. BDF = Blass, F., A. Debrunner, and R. Walter Funk. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. BrillDAG = Montanari, Franco. Edited by Madeleine Goh and Chad Schroeder. The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2015. Brockelmann-Sokoloff, Lexicon = Sokoloff, Michael [and C. Brockelmann]. A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum. Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias Press & Eisenbrauns, 2009. CaLex = Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon (Hebrew Union College, 2005); online: http://cal.huc.edu/index.html. All entries are referenced s.v. CBS = A Classified Bibliography of the Septuagint. Edited by S.P. Brock, C.T. Fritsch, and S. Jellicoe. Leiden: Brill, 1973. CSMBM = Wright, William. Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum: Acquired since the Year 1838. 3 Vols. London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1870–72. CSS = A Companion to Samaritan Studies. Edited by Alan David Crown, Reinhard Pummer, Abraham Tal. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993. Articles referenced: Alan D. Crown ‘Scribes’ 213–14; Ferdinand Dexinger ‘Taheb,’ 224–26; Gilles Firmin ‘Castell, Edmund,’ 49; Gilles Firmin ‘de Sacy, A.I.,’ 208; Gilles Firmin and Paul Lester Stenhouse ‘Morin, Jean,’ 160; Moshe Florentine ‘ʿAmråm Dā̊ re,’ 13; Jarl Fossum ‘God, names of,’ 105; ‘Dustån and Dosithean Sects,’ 80–82; ‘Sakta,’ 209; Jean Margain ‘Kahle, Paul,’ 141; Reinhard Pummer ‘Šēmå” 216; Phillipe de Robert ‘Postel, Guillaume,’ 189; ‘Sancy, Achille Harlay de,’ 211; Haseeb Shedadeh

Bibliography | 713

‘Qiṣṣa,’ 197; Paul Lester Stenhouse ‘Baba Rabba,’ 37–38; Abraham Tal ‘Mårqe,’ 152–53; ‘Tībåt Mårqe,’ 235–36; ‘Tetragrammaton,’ 232; David Talshir ‘Kohn, Samuel,’ 146 DBSup = Dictionnaire de la Bible : Supplément Articles referenced: Maurice Baillet ‘Samaritains – Sources Littéraires Samaritaines. 1. Inscriptions.’ DBSup 11.860–74. R. O’Callaghan ‘Madaba (Carte de)’ 5.627–704. DCB = A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects and Doctrines. Edited by William Smith and Henry Wace. London: John Murray, 1877-87. Articles referenced: C.J. Ball ‘Jacobus (24) Edessenus’ 3.332–35, C. Elliott ‘Hebrew Learning among the Fathers’ 2.851–72; W.H. Fremantle ‘Sophronius (7)’ 4.718; J. Gwynn ‘Paulus (48) Tellensis’ 4.266–71; W.J. Josling ‘Decalogue’ 1.797; J. Lightfoot ‘Eusebius (23) of Caesarea’ 2.308–48; C. Taylor ‘Hexapla, The’ 3.14–23; E. Venables ‘Pamphilus (1)’ 4.178–79. DCH = The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Edited by David J. A. Clines. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993–2011. DSA = ‫ = מילון הארמית של השומרונים‬A Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic. Edited by A. Tal. 2 Vols. Leiden: Brill, 2000. EBR = Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception. Edited by Constance M. Furey, Joel Marcus LeMon, et al. 20+ Vols. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009– Articles referenced: I. Magen ‘Gerizim, Mount. I Archaeology, Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, and Second Temple and Hellenistic Judaism’ 10.105–116; R. Pummer ‘Gerizim, Mount. II Christianity’ 10.116–18. GEDSH = Gorgias Encyclopaedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage. Edited by Sebastian P. Brock, Aaron Michael Butts, George Anton Kiraz & Lucas Van Rompay. Piscataway, New Jersey: Gorgias Press, 2011. Online edition: https://gedsh.bethmardutho.org/ index.html. Referenced (implied or explicitly) as s.v. Articles referenced: David Bundy ‘Timotheos I’; Sebastian P. Brock ‘Severus of Antioch’; Andreas Juckel ‘The Enaton (Ennaton),’ ‘Ḥarqlean Version,’ ‘Tumo of Ḥarqel’; George Kiraz ‘Syriac Orthodox Church’; Jonathan A. Loopstra, ‘Tell ʿAda, Monastery of’; Jack Tannous ‘Athanasios I Gamolo,’ ‘Wright, William’; Lucas Van Rompay ‘Bar Bahlul, Ḥasan’ ‘Ceriani, Antonio Maria (1828–1907),’ ‘Masius, Andreas,’ ‘Pawlos of Kallinikos,’ ‘Pawlos of Tella’ GLRB = Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods (From B. C. 146 to A. D. 1100). Edited by Evangelinos A. Sophocles. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1900. H-R = Hatch, Edwin and Redpath, H.A. A Concordance to the Septuagint and the other Greek versions of the Old Testament (including the Apocryphal books). Second Revised Edition. Baker Books, 1998. HALOT = The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Edited by Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, M. E. J. Richardson, and Johann Jakob Stamm. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994–2000. Jastrow = A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. Compiled by Marcus Jastrow. 2 Vols. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1903. Jew. Encycl. = The Jewish Encyclopedia: A Descriptive Record of the History, Religion, Literature, and Customs of the Jewish People from the Earliest Times to the Present Day. Edited by Isidore Singer. 12 Volumes. New York; London: Funk & Wagnalls, 1901–1906.

714 | Bibliography

Articles referenced: J. D. Eisenstein ‘Names of God – In Rabbinical Literature’ 9.162–65; H. G. Enelow ‘Ladvocat, Jean-Baptiste’ 7.593. J-M = Joüon, Paul, and T. Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2006. JPS = Smith, R. Payne. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary: Founded upon the Thesaurus Syriacus of R. Payne Smith, edited by J. Payne Smith. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1902. LALHB = The Lexham Analytical Lexicon of the Hebrew Bible. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2017. Always cited with implied s.v. LALS = The Lexham Analytical Lexicon of the Septuagint. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012. Always cited with implied s.v. Lampe = A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Edited by G. W. H. Lampe. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1961. LEH = A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Revised Edition. Edited by Johan Lust, Erik Eynikel, and Katrin Hauspie. Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart, 2003. LSJ = Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott, Henry Stuart Jones, and Roderick McKenzie. A GreekEnglish Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. M-M = Moulton, James Hope, and George Milligan. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1930. M’Clintock and Strong = M’Clintock, John, and James Strong. Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature. New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1891–1894. Articles referenced: ‘Sacy, Antoine Isaac Silvestre de’ 9.233; ‘Drusius, Johannes’ 2.902; ‘Ladvocat, Jean Baptist’ 5.193–94; ‘Morin, Pierre’ 6.612–13 Nöld. Gram. §[relevant section] = Nöldeke, Theodor. Compendious Syriac Grammar. Translated by James A. Crichton. London: Williams & Norgate, 1904. OCD = The Oxford Classical Dictionary. 3rd ed. Edited by Simon Hornblower and Anthony Spawforth. Oxford: OUP, 1999. Articles referenced: P.B.R. Forbes and R. Browning ‘Hesychius,’ 701–02. ODCC = The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Edited by F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. ODNB = The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Current General Editor Sir David Cannadine. Oxford: OUP, 2004–. Online: https://www.oxforddnb.com/. Articles cited: M. Borrie ‘Madden, Sir Frederic [1801–1873],’ https://doi.org/10. 1093/ref:odnb/17751; R. Forrest ‘Marsh, Herbert [1757–1839],’ https://doi.org/ 10.1093/ref:odnb/18111. Porter = Porter, Stanley E. Idioms of the Greek New Testament. Sheffield: JSOT, 1999. PS = Thesaurus Syriacus. 2 Vols. Edited by R. Payne Smith, et al. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1879–1901. Quasten = Quasten, Johannes. Patrology. 4 Vols. Utrecht-Brussels: Spectrum Publishers, 1949–. Smyth = Smyth, Herbert Weir. A Greek Grammar for Colleges. New York: American Book Company, 1920. TCHB3 = Tov, Emanuel. Textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Third edition, revised and expanded. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2012. TDOT = Botterweck, G. Johannes, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, (eds.). John T. Willis, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, David E. Green, and Douglas W. Stott (transls.). Theological

Bibliography | 715

Dictionary of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977–2012. Article cited: Heinz-Josef Fabry ‘‫ ָס ַלל‬,’ 10.266–70. THB = Brill’s Textual History of the Bible. For articles, see author entries. Appendice al catalogo delle edizioni Hoepli. Edited Libreria antiquaria Hoepli. Milan: 1905. Ben-Ḥayyim, Zeʾev. A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew: Based on the Recitation of the Law in Comparison with the Tiberian and Other Jewish Traditions. With assistance from Tal Abraham. Jerusalem The Hebrew University: Magnes Press/Eisenbrauns, 2000. Coakley, James F. Robinson’s Paradigms and Exercises in Syriac Grammar. 7th Ed. Oxford: OUP, 2013. Devreesse, Robert. Introduction à L’Etude des Manuscrits Grecs. Paris, Imprimerie Nationale: Librairie C. Klincksieck, 1954. Dines, Jennifer. The Septuagint. Edited by Michael A. Knibb. London: T & T Clark, 2004. Fernández Marcos, Natalio. The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible. Translated by Wilfred G. E. Watson. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Jellicoe, Sidney. The Septuagint and Modern Study. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968. Lake, Kirsopp. ‘Texts from Mount Athos.’ Pages 89–185 in Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica: Essays in Biblical and Patristic Criticism. Vol. 5. London: Clarendon Press, 1903. Muraoka, Takamitsu. A Greek-Hebrew/Aramaic Two-way Index to the Septuagint. Leuven: Peeters, 2010. Rahlfs, Alfred (ed.) Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments. Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens 2. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1914. Rahlfs, Alfred and Detlef Fraenkel (eds.) Supplementum. Vol. I/1. Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004. Sokoloff, Michael (ed.). A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic. Second Edition. Johns Hopkins University / Bar Ilan University Press, 2002. Spicq, Ceslas. Theological Lexicon of the New Testament. Translated by and J.A. Ernest. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994. Swete, Henry Barclay. An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914. Thackeray, Henry St. John. A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek: According to the Septuagint. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909. Townley, James. Illustrations of Biblical Literature, 2 Vols., New York: Carton & Porter, 1856. Zotenberg, Hermann. Manuscrits orientaux: Catalogues des manuscrits syriaques et sabéens (mandaïtes) de la Bibliothèque nationale. Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1874.

3. Secondary Literature Abu Alsaud, L., ‘Byzantine Churches in Nablus (Neapolis), Palestine.’ Zephyrus 82 (2018): 187– 207.

716 | Bibliography

Adler, William. ‘The Jews as Falsifiers: Charges of Tendentious Emendation in anti-Jewish Christian Polemic.’ Pages 1–27 in Translation of Scripture. Edited by David Goldenberg. Philadelphia: Annenberg Research Institute, 1990. Aejmelaeus, Anneli. “The Origins of the Kaige Revision.” In Scriptures in the Making: Texts and Their Transmission in Late Second Temple Judaism. Edited by R. Hakola, P. Huotari, & J. Orpana, Leuven: Peeters, forthcoming. Aitken, James K. “Ecclesiastes.” Pages 356–69 in The T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint. Edited by James K. Aitken. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. Albrecht, Felix. ‘Report on the Göttingen Septuagint.’ Textus 29 (2020): 1–20. Aldrich, Henry. Aristeae Historia LXXII Interpretum: Accessere Veterum Testimonia De Eorum Versione. Oxon: e Theatro Sheldoniano, 1692. Alger, John Goldworth. Paris in 1789–94: Farewell Letters of Victims of the Guillotine. London, G. Allen, 1902. Anderson, Robert T. and Terry Giles. The Samaritan Pentateuch: An Introduction to its Origin, History, and Significance for Biblical Studies. Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study, Volume 72. Atlanta (Ga.): SBL, 2012 Anderson, Robert. ‘Samaritan History During the Renaissance.’ Pages 95–112 in The Samaritans. Edited by A. D. Crown. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1989. Arad, Pnina. Christian Maps of the Holy Land: Images and Meanings. Cultural Encounters in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages 28. Brepols Publishers, 2020. Auvrey, Paul. ‘Jean Morin (1591–1659),’ Revue Biblique 66 (1959): 397–414. Barag, Dan. ‘Samaritan Writing and Writings.’ Pages 303–23 in From Hellenism to Islam: Cultural and Linguistic Change in the Roman Near East. Edited by H. Cotton, R. Hoyland, J. Price, & D. Wasserstein. Cambridge: CUP, 2009. Barnes, Timothy D. ‘The Composition of Eusebius’ Onomasticon.’ Journal of Theological Studies 26 (1975): 412–15. Barnes, Timothy D. Constantine and Eusebius. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981. Barrett, Charles K. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. 2 Vols. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2004. Barthélemy, [Jean-]Dominique. ‘Origène et Le Texte de L’Ancien Testament.’ Pages 203–17 in Etudes d’Histoire du Texte de l’Ancien Testament. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 21. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag Freiburg, 1978. Barthélemy, Dominique. ‘Quinta ou Version selon les Hébreux?’ Theologische Zeitschrift 16 (1960): 342–53. Reprinted: Pages 54–65 in Etudes d’Histoire du Texte de l’Ancien Testament. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 21. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag Freiburg, 1978. Ben-Dov, Jonathan. ‘Early Texts of the Torah: Revisiting the Greek Scholarly Context.’ Journal of Ancient Judaism 4 (2013): 210–34. Ben-Dov, J. ‘Text Duplications between Higher and Lower Criticism.’ Pages 217–41 in The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by M. Langlois. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology 94. Leuven: Peeters, 2019. Ben-Ḥayyim, Zeʾev. ‘The Tenth Commandment in the Samaritan Pentateuch.’ Pages 487–92 in New Samaritan Studies of the Société d'Études Samaritaines. Ed. A. D. Crown. London: Mandelbaum Publishing (The University of Sydney), 1995. Ben-Zvi, Izhak and William F. Albright. ‘The Beit-el-Ma Samaritan Inscription.’ BASOR 84 (1941): 2–4.

Bibliography | 717

Berner, Christoph. ‘The Redaction History of the Sinai Pericope (Exod 19–24) and its Continuation in 4Q158.’ Dead Sea Discoveries 20 (2013): 378–409. Billen, Albert V. The Old Latin Texts of the Heptateuch. Cambridge: CUP, 1927. Blowers, Paul. ‘Origen, the Rabbis, and the Bible.’ Pages 96–116 in Origen of Alexandria: His World and His Legacy. Edited by Charles Kannengiesser and William L. Petersen. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 1. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988. Böhm, Martina. ‘Samaritans in the New Testament.’ Religions 11/3 (2020); available: https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11030147. Bóid, Iain R. ‘Use, Authority and Exegesis of Mikra in the Samaritan Tradition.’ Pages 595–633 in Mikra. Edited by Martin Jan Mulder. Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 1988. Bóid, Iain R. Principles of Samaritan Halakhah. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 38. Brill, Leiden 1989. Bossina, Luciano. ‘Manuscripts, Papyri, and Epigraphy: Manuscripts of the Septuagint from Uncials to Minuscules.’ Pages 145–63 in The Oxford Handbook of the Septuagint. Edited by A. Salvesen and T. L. Law. Oxford: OUP, 2021. Bowman, John and Shemaryahu Talmon. ‘Samaritan Decalogue Inscriptions.’ Bulletin of the John Ryland’s University Library of Manchester 33 (1951): 211–36 Brent, Allen. Hippolytus and the Roman Church in the Third Century: Communities in Tension Before the Emergence of a Monarch-Bishop. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Brock, Sebastian P. ‘Towards a History of Syriac Translation Technique.’ Pages 1–14 in III Symposium Syriacum 1980. Edited by Lavenant René. Roma : Pontificium Institutum Studiorum Orientalium / Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1983. Brock, Sebastian P. A Brief Outline of Syriac Literature. Volume 9 of Mōrān ʼEthʼō. Baker Hill, Kottayam, India: St. Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute, 1997. Brock, Sebastian P. ‘Jacob the Annotator: Jacob’s Annotations to his Revised Translation of Severus’ Cathedral Homilies.’ Pages 1–14 in Studies on Jacob of Edessa. Edited by Gregorios Ibrahim and George . Kiraz. Piscataway, NJ, USA: Gorgias Press, 2010. Brooks, Rodger. ‘Straw Dogs and Scholarly Ecumenism.’ Pages 63–95 in Origen of Alexandria: His World and His Legacy. Edited by Charles Kannengiesser and William L. Petersen. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 1. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988. Bruneau, Phillippe. ‘“Les Israélites de Délos” et la Juiverie Délienne’ Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 106 (1982): 465–504. Bruns J. Edgar ‘The “Agreement of Moses and Jesus” in the “Demonstratio Evangelica” of Eusebius.’ Vigiliae Christianae 31 (1977): 117–25. Bull, George (trans). The Pilgrim: The Travels of Pietro Della Valle. London: Hutchinson, 1990. Burgess, Richard W. ‘The Dates and Editions of Eusebius’ Chronici Canones and Historia Ecclesiastica.’ Journal of Theological Studies 48 (1997): 471–504. Burn, John H. ‘Frederick Field, M.A., LL.D.’ The Expository Times 8/7 (1897): 325–28. Burnett, Stephen. ‘Later Christian Hebraists.’ Pages 785–801 in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation. Vol. II: From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment. Edited by Magne Saebø. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. Burris, Kevin R. A Critical Edition of the Hexaplaric Fragments of Numbers 1–18. PhD Thesis, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary: 2009.

718 | Bibliography

Butts, Aaron. (transl. and annot.). ‘Letter 47 by Timothy I (d. 823).’ Pages 123–28 in Texts and Contexts of Eastern Christianity. Edited by James E. Walters. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2021. Butts, Aaron. and Simcha Gross. ‘Introduction.’ Pages 1–26 in Jews and Syriac Christians. Intersections across the First Millennium. Edited by Aaron Michael Butts and Simcha Gross. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 180. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020. Cain, Andrew. ‘An unidentified patristic quotation in Jerome's commentary on Galatians (3.6.11).’ Journal of Theological Studies 61/1 (2010a): 216–25. Cain, Andrew. (transl.). St. Jerome: Commentary on Galatians. Fathers of the Church 121, Washington DC: CUA Press, 2010b. Cain, Andrew. ‘Jerome’s Epitaphium Paulae: Hagiography, Pilgrimage, and the Cult of Sain Paula.’ Journal of Early Christian Studies 18/1 (2020): 105–39. Carbajosa, Ignacio. Pages 255–285 in The Text of the Hebrew Bible and Its Editions. Studies in Celebration of the Fifth Centennial of the Complutensian Polyglot. Edited by Andrés Piquer Otero and Pablo A. Torijano Morales. Supplements to the Textual History of the Bible 1. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Carpzov, Johann Gottlob. Critica sacra Veteris Testamenti … Lipsiae: Impensis Jo. Christiani martini, 1728. Carriker, Andrew. The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea. Vigiliae Christianae Supplements Series 67. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Ceulemans, Reinhart. ‘The Greek Christian afterlife of the minor versions: the possibilities of a shift in perspective.’ Pages 101–17 in Florilegium Lovaniense: Studies in Septuagint and Textual Criticism in honour of Florentino García Martínez. Edited by H. Ausloos, B. Lemmelijn, M. Vervenne. Leuven: Peeters, 2008. Ceulemans, Reinhart. ‘Readings attributed to “οι περι (τον) Ακυλαν and/or (τον) Συμμαχον” by Greek Christian scribes and authors (Theodoret excepted).’ Semitica et Classica 4 (2011): 73–88. Ceulemans, Reinhart. ‘Greek Christian access to ‘the Three,’ 250–600 CE.’ Pages 165–91 in Greek Scripture and the Rabbis. Edited T. Michael Law and Alison Salvesen. Leuven: Peeters, 2012. Ceulemans, Reinhart. ‘Readings Attributed to “οι περι α΄ and/or σ΄” by Theodoret or Cyrrhus.’ Pages 473–97 in XIV Congress of the IOSCS, Helsinki, 2010. Edited by M. Peters. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2013. Ceulemans, Reinhart. Review article of Gallagher 2012. Louvain Studies 38 (2014): 86–103. Chambers, Talbot. ‘Divisions of the Decalogue.’ The Old Testament Student 6 (1886): 5–10. Chapman III, Rupert L. with Eusebius of Caesarea, The Onomasticon: Palestine in the Fourth Century A.D. Edited by Joan E. Taylor; translated by G. S. P. Freeman-Grenville. First English-Language edition. Jerusalem: Carta, 2003. Charlesworth, James H. “What is a Variant? Announcing a Dead Sea Scrolls fragment of Deuteronomy.” MAARAV 16/2 (2009): 201–12. Chia, Philip S. A Critical Edition of the Hexaplaric Fragments of Genesis 1–18. PhD Thesis, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary: 2021. Childs, Brevard. S. The Book of Exodus. A Critical, Theological Commentary. The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1974. Clements, Ruth A. ‘Origen’s Hexapla and Christian-Jewish Encounter in the Second and Third Centuries.’ Pages 303–29 in Religious Rivalries and the Struggle for Success in

Bibliography | 719

Caesarea Maritima. Edited by Terence L Donaldson. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier UniverUniversity Press, 2000. Coakley, James F. ‘An Early Syriac Question Mark.’ Aramaic Studies 10 (2012): 193–213. Coogan, Jeremiah. Eusebius the Evangelist. Cultures of Reading in the Ancient Mediterranean. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022. Coogan, Jeremiah. ‘The Ways that Parted in the Library: The Gospels according to Matthew and according to the Hebrews in Late Ancient Heresiology.’ The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 73 (2022b): 1–18 [Cowper] ‘Notice of Proposals for Publishing by Subscription Origenis Hexaplorum… and Otium Norvicence, sive Tentamen de Reliquiis’ in The Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record. N.S. Edited by B.H. Cowper. Vol. 7 New Series (1865): 475–76. Cranfield, Charles E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. International Critical Commentary. 2 Vols. London: T&T Clark International, 2004. [White] Crawford, Sidnie. Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2008. [White] Crawford, Sidnie. ‘The Jewish and Samaritan Pentateuchs: Reflections on the Difference (?) between Textual Criticism and Literary Criticism.’ Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 9/3 (2020): 320–33. Crown, Alan D. ‘Problems in Epigraphy and Paleography: The Nature of the Evidence in Samaritan Sources.’ Bulletin of the John Ryland’s University Library of Manchester 62 (1979): 37–60. Crown, Alan D. ‘Columnar Writing And The Samaritan Massorah.’ Bulletin of the John Ryland’s Library 67 (1984): 349–81. Crown, Alan D. ‘The Samaritans in the Byzantine Orbit.’ Bulletin of the John Ryland’s University Library of Manchester 69 (1986): 96–138. Crown, Alan D. ‘Studies in Samaritan scribal practices and manuscript history: V: Samaritan bindings: A chronological survey with reference to Nag Hammadi Techniques.’ Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 69 (1987): 425–91. Crown, Alan D. ‘Redating the Schism between the Judeans and the Samaritans.’ Jewish Quarterly Review n.s. 82 (1991): 17–50. Crown, Alan D. ‘Samaritan Literature and its Manuscripts.’ Bulletin of the John Ryland’s University Library of Manchester 76 (1994): 21–49. Dar, Shimon. ‘The Samaritans in Caesarea Maritima.’ Pages 225–35 in Studia Samaritana: Samaria, Samarians, Samaritans: Studies on Bible, History and Linguistics. Studia Samaritana 6. Edited by József Zsengellér. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2011. Daryaee, Touraj. ‘The Sasanian Empire.’ Pages 33–43 in The Syriac World. Edited by Daniel King. London: Routledge, 2019. Dayfani, Hila. ‘The Relationship between Paleography and Textual Criticism: Textual Variants Due to Graphic Similarity between the Masoretic Text and the Samaritan Pentateuch as a Test Case.’ Textus 27 (2018): 3–21. Dayfani, Hila. ‘4QpaleoExodm and the Gerizim Composition.’ Journal of Biblical Literature 141/4 (2022): 673–98. de Halleux, André. ‘Une version syriaque révisée du commentaire d'Hippolyte sur Suzanne.’ Le Muséon 101/3–4 (1988): 297–341. de Lange, Nicholas. Origen and the Jews: Studies in Jewish-Christian Relations in Third-century Palestine. Cambridge: CUP, 1976.

720 | Bibliography

de Lange, Nicholas. ‘The Letter to Africanus: Origen’s Recantation?’ Studia Patristica 16 (1985): 242–247. de Lange, Nicholas. Japheth in the Tents of Shem: Greek Bible Translations in Byzantine Judaism. Texts and Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Judaism 30. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. de Montfaucon, Bernard. Diarium italicum, sive, Monumentorum veterum, bibliothecarum, musaeorum, etc. notitiae singulares in itinerario Italico collectae. Paris: apud Joannem Anisson, typographiae regiae praefectum, 1702. de Montfaucon, Bernard. Bibliotheca Coisliniana … . Paris: Ludovicum Guerin & Carolum Robustel, 1715. de Sacy, A.I. Silvestre. ‘Notice d’un manuscrit syriaque, contenant les livres de Moïse.’ Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale. 4 (1798–99) : 648–68. de Troyer, Kristin. ‘The Scribe of the Marginal Notes of Manuscript 344 (Ra 344; BM v).’ Pages 99–109 in From Scribal Error to Rewriting: How Ancient Texts Could and Could not Be Changed. Edited by Anneli Aejmalaeus, D. Longacre, and N. Mirotadze. De Septuaginta Investigationes 12. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2020. Debié, Muriel. ‘The Eastern Provinces of the Roman Empire in Late Antiquity.’ Pages 11–32 in The Syriac World. Edited by Daniel King. London: Routledge, 2019. di Segni, Leah. ‘Metropolis and provincia in Byzantine Palestine.’ Pages 575–89 in Caesarea Maritima. A Retrospective after Two Millennia. Edited by Avner Rabban and Kenneth G. Holum. Leiden: Brill, 1996. di Segni, Leah. ‘The Onomastikon of Eusebius and the Madaba Map.’ Pages 115–20 In The Madaba Map Centenary 1897–1997. Travelling Through the Byzantine Umayyad Period. Proceedings of the International Conference Held in Amman, 7–9 April 1997. Edited by M. Piccirillo and E. Alliata. Jerusalem: Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, 1999. di Segni, Leah. Review article on Pummer 2002. Journal for the Study of Judaism 37/2 (2006): 241–59. Dickey, Eleanor. ‘Columnar Translation: An Ancient Interpretive tool that the Romans gave the Greeks.’ Classical Quarterly 65/2 (2015): 807–21. Deleandine, M. Ant. Bibliothèque publique de Lyon. 1806. Devreesse, Robert. Les Anciens Commentateurs Grecs de l'Octateuque et des Rois (Fragments tirés des Chaînes). Studi e Testi 201. Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1959. Devreesse, Robert. Catalogue des manuscrits grecs: Le fonds Coislin. Vol. 2. Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1945. Dexinger, Ferdinand. ‘Das Garizimgebot im Dekalog der Samaritaner.’ Pages 111–33 in Studien zum Pentateuch, FS Kornfeld Walter. Vienna: Herder Verlag, 1977. Dexinger, Ferdinand. ‘Limits of Tolerance in Judaism: The Samaritan Example.’ Pages 88–114 in Jewish and Christian Self-Definition. Volume Two: Aspects of Judaism in the GraecoRoman Period. Edited by Ed Sanders. London: SCM Press, 1981. Donner, Herbert. The Mosaic Map of Madaba: An Introductory Guide. Palaestina antiqua 7. Kampen: Kok Pharos Publishing House, 1992. Downey, Glanville. ‘Caesarea and the Christian Church.’ Pages 23–42 in Studies in the History of Caesarea Maritima. Edited by Glanville Downey and Charles T Fritsch. Joint Expedition to Caesarea Maritima 1 / Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental

Bibliography | 721

Research, Supplemental Studies 19. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press for the American Schools of Oriental Research, 1975. Driver, Samuel R. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy. 3rd Ed. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902. Dupin [Du-Pin], Louis E. Dissertation Préliminaire ou Prolégomènes sur la Bible. Paris: Andrew Pralard, 1699. Anonymously translated: A Compleat History of the Canon and Writers of the Books of the Old And New Testament. London: 1699. Dušek, Jan. Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions from Mt. Gerizim and Samaria between Antiochus III and Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 54 Leiden: Brill, 2012. Eshel, Esther, and Hanan Eshel. ‘Dating the Samaritan Pentateuch's Compilation in Light of the Qumran Biblical Scrolls.’ Pages 215–40 in Emanuel. Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in honor of Emanuel Tov. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 94. Edited by Paul, Shalom, Robert Kraft, et al. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Fernández Marcos, Natalio. ‘The Textual Context of the Hexapla: Lucianic Texts and Vetus Latina.’ Pages 408–20 in Origen’s Hexapla and Fragments. Edited by Alison Salvesen. Tübingen : J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1998. Fernández Marcos, Natalio. ‘On Symmachus and Lucian in Ezekiel’ Pages 151–61 in Interpreting Translation. Edited by García Martínez Florentino. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2005. Fernández Marcos, Natalio. ‘Joshua and Judges.’ Pages 201–15 in The Oxford Handbook of the Septuagint. Edited by A. Salvesen and T. L. Law. Oxford: OUP, 2021. Fincati, Mariachiara. The Medieval Revision of the Ambrosian Hexateuch: Critical Editing between Septuaginta and Hebraica Veritas in Ms. Ambrosianus A 147 inf. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016. Fitzmyer, Joseph. ‘ “4Q Testimonia” and the New Testament.’ Theological Studies 18 (1957): 513–37. Fitzmyer, Joseph. ‘The Inscriptions of Bar-Gaʾyahand Matiʿelfrom Sefire (2.82).’ Pages 213–18 in Context of Scripture. Vol. 2. Edited by William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Florentin, Moshe. ‘Some Thoughts About the Evaluation of the Samaritan Reading of the Pentateuch and the Hebrew Dialect Reflected in This Reading.’ Pages 339–53 in Die Samaritaner Und Die Bibel: Historische Und Literarische Wechselwirkungen Zwischen Biblischen Und Samaritanischen Traditionen = The Samaritans and the Bible: Historical and Literary Interactions between Biblical and Samaritan Traditions. Edited by Jörg Frey, Ursula Schattner-Rieser, and Konrad Schmid. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012. Florentin, Moshe. Review of Tsedaka’s 2013 ET of SP. The Journal of Theological Studies NS 66 (2015): 739–47. Fossum, Jarl. ‘VI. Sects and Movements.’ Pages 293–389 in The Samaritans. Edited by A. D. Crown. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1989. François, Wim, ‘Andreas Masius (1514‒1573): Humanist, Exegete and Syriac Scholar,’ Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 61/3–4 (2009): 199–244. Gallagher, Edmon. Hebrew Scripture in Patristic Biblical Theory: Canon, Language, Text. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 114. Leiden: Brill, 2012.

722 | Bibliography

Gallagher, Edmon. ‘The Septuagint's fidelity to its Vorlage in Greek patristic thought.’ Pages 663–76 in XIV Congress of the IOSCS, Helsinki, 2010. Edited by Melvin K. H. Peters. Atlanta (Ga.): SBL, 2013. Gallagher, Edmon. ‘The religious provenance of Aquila manuscripts from the Cairo Genizah.’ Journal of Jewish Studies 64/2 (2013): 283–305. Gallagher, Edmon. ‘Is the Samaritan Pentateuch a sectarian text?’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 127 (2015): 96–107. Gallagher, Edmon. and John D. Meade (eds.). The Biblical. Canon Lists from Early Christianity: A Textual Analysis. Oxford: OUP, 2017. Gallagher, Edmon. ‘The Latin Canon.’ Pages 166–90 in Textual History of the Bible. Edited by Armin Lange. Vol. 2a: Deuterocanonical Scriptures. Edited by Matthias Henze and Frank Feder. Leiden: Brill, 2020. Gamble, Harry Y. Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1995. Gaster, Moses. The Samaritans: Their History, Doctrines and Literature. London: OUP, 1925. Geiger, Abraham. ‘Die gesetzlichen Differenzen zwischen Samaritanern und Juden.’ Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 20 (1866): 527–73. Geiger, Abraham. ‘Einleitung in die biblischen Schriften.’ Pages 1–279 in Nachgelassene Schriften. Vol 4. Edited by Ludwig Geiger. Berlin: Louis Gershel Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1876. Gentry, Peter. ‘Hexaplaric Materials in Ecclesiastes and the Role of the Syro-Hexapla.’ Aramaic Studies 1 (2003): 5–28. Gentry, Peter. ‘Origen’s Hexapla.’ Pages 553–71 in The Oxford Handbook of the Septuagint. Edited by A. Salvesen and T. L. Law. Oxford: OUP, 2021. Gentry, Peter. Text History of the Greek Ecclesiastes: Introduction to the Göttingen Septuagint Edition of Ecclesiastes. De Septuaginta Investigationes 17. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2022. Gentry, Peter, John Meade, et al. [Commentary on Hexaplaric Colophons], forthcoming. Gesenius, Wilhelm. De Pentateuchi Samaritani origine indole et auctoritate : commentatio philologico-critica. Halae: Rengerianae, 1815. Gibert, Pierre. ‘The Catholic Counterpart and Response to the Protestant Orthodoxy.’ Pages 758-73 in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation. Vol. II: From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment. Edited by Magne Saebø. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. Gold, Victor. ‘The Mosaic Map of Madeba.’ The Biblical Archaeologist 21/3 (1958): 49–71. Graf, Georg. Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur. Fünfter Band. Studi e Testi 172. Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1953. Grafton, Anthoy. and Megan Williams. Christianity and the transformation of the Book: Origen, Eusebius, and the Library of Caesarea. Cambridge (Mass.): Belknap Press of HUP, 2006. Grant, R. ‘The Decalogue in Early Christianity.’ Harvard Theological Review 40 (1947): 1–17. Graves, Michael. Jerome’s Hebrew Philology: a Study Based on his Commentary on Jeremiah. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 90. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Graves, Michael. The Inspiration and Interpretation of Scripture: What the Early Church Can Teach Us. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2014. Griffin, Sidney H. The Bible in Arabic: The Scriptures of the “People of the. Book” in the Language of Islam. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 2013.

Bibliography | 723

Gzella, Holger. Aramaic: A History of the First World Language. Translated by Benjamin D. Suchard. Eerdmans Language Resources Series. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2021. Hainthaler, Theresia. ‘Theological Doctrines and Debates within Syriac Christianity.’ Pages 377–90 in The Syriac World. Edited by Daniel King. London: Routledge, 2019. Hamilton, Alistair. ‘In Search of the Most Perfect Text: The Early Modern Printed Polyglot Bibles from Alcalá (1510-1520) to Brian Walton (1654-1658).’ Pages 138–56 in The New Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 3: From 1450 to 1750. Edited by Euan Cameron. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. Hall, Bruce. Samaritan religion from John Hyrcanus to Baba Rabba: A critical examination of the relevant material in contemporary Christian literature, the writings of Josephus, and the Mishnah. Sydney: Mandelbaum Trust, University of Sydney, 1987. Hanson, Richard P.C. Allegory and Event: A Study of the Sources and Significance of Origen's Interpretation of Scripture. SCM Press, 1959. Harviainen, Tapani and Haseeb Shehadeh. ‘How Did Abraham Firkovich Acquire the Great Collection of Samaritan Manuscripts in Nablus in 1864?.’ Studia Orientalia Electronica 73 (1994): 167–92 Hendel, Ronald. The Text of Genesis 1–11: Textual Studies and Critical Edition. Oxford: OUP, 1998. Hendel, Ronald. Steps to a New Edition of the Hebrew Bible. Text-Critical Studies 10. Gen. Ed. Michael Holmes. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016. Hepner, Gershon. ‘The Samaritan Version of the Tenth Commandment.’ Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 20 (2006): 147–51. Hiebert, Robert J.V. The “Syrohexaplaric” Psalter. SCS / SBL 27. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1989. Hiebert, Robert J.V. ‘Syriac Biblical Textual History and the Greek Psalter.’ Pages 178–204 in The Old Greek Psalter. Edited by Pietersma Albert. Sheffield : Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Hjelm, Ingrid. ‘Northern Perspectives in Deuteronomy and its Relation to the Samaritan Pentateuch.’ Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 4 (2015): 184–204. Hjelm, Ingrid. ‘The Samaritan and Jewish Versions of the Pentateuch: A Survey.’ Religions 11/2 (2020); available: https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11020085. Hjelt, Arthur. Études sur l'Hexaméron de Jacques d'Edesse, notamment sur ses notions géographiques contenues dans le 3ième traité. Helsingfors 1892. Hody, Humphrey. De Bibliorum Textis Originalibus… Libri IV. Oxonii: E Theatro Sheldoniano, 1705. Hogue, Timothy. ‘The Eternal Monument of the Divine King: Monumentality, Reembodiment, and Social Formation in the Decalogue.’ Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 2019. Hogue, Timothy. ‘The Monumentality of the Sinaitic Decalogue: Reading Exodus 20 in Light of Northwest Semitic Monument-Making Practices.’ Journal of Biblical Literature 138 (2019): 79–99. Hollerich, Michael J. ‘Eusebius as a Polemical Interpreter of Scripture.’ Pages 585–615 in Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism. Edited by Harold W Attridge. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Hollerich, Michael J. Eusebius of Caesarea’s Commentary on Isaiah: Christian Exegesis in the Age of Constantine. Oxford Early Christian Studies. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999.

724 | Bibliography

Hollerich, Michael J. ‘Eusebius.’ Pages 629–52 in The New Cambridge History of the Bible From the Beginnings to 600. Edited by James Carleton Paget and Joachim Schaper. Cambridge: CUP, 2013a. Hollerich, Michael J. ‘Eusebius’ Commentary on the Psalms and Its Place in the Origins of Christian Biblical Scholarship.’ Pages 151–67 in Eusebius of Caesarea: Tradition and Innovations. Edited by A. Johnson and Jeremy Schott. Hellenic Studies Series 60. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies, 2013b. Horne, Thomas H. An Introduction to the Critical Study and the Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures. Vol. 1. 8th Ed. New York: Robert Carter, 1847 [1st Ed. 1818]. Hottinger, Johanne. Exercitationes Anti-Morinianae de Pentateucho. Tiguri, Typis Joh. Jacobi Bodmeri, 1644. Houtman, Cornelis. Exodus. 3 Vols. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament. Leuven: Kok Pharos/Peeters, 2000. Isser, Stanley. The Dositheans. A Samaritan sect in late Antiquity. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 17. Leiden: Brill, 1976. Jenkins, R.G. ‘Colophons of the Syrohexapla and the Textgeschichte of the Recensions of Origen.’ Pages 261–77 in VII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Edited by Claude Cox. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1991. Jenkins, R.G. ‘The First Column of the Hexapla: The Evidence of the Milan Codex (Rahlfs 1098) and the Cairo Genizah Fragment (Rahlfs 2005).’ Pages 88–102 in Origen's Hexapla and Fragments. Edited by Alison Salvesen. Tübingen : J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1998. Johnson, Aaron. ‘The Blackness of Ethiopians: Classical Ethnography and Eusebius’ Commentary on the Psalms.’ Harvard Theological Review 99 (2006): 165–86. Joosten, Jan. ‘The Samareitikon and the Samaritan Tradition’ Pages 346-59 in Die Septuaginta Text, Wirkung, Rezeption. Edited by Kraus von Wolfgang and Siegfried Kreuzer. Tübingen : Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Joosten, Jan. ‘Septuagint and Samareitikon.’ Pages 1–15 in From Author to Copyist: The Composition, Redaction and Transmission of the Hebrew Bible in Honor of Zipi Talshir. Edited by Cana Werman. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015. Joosten, Jan. ‘1.3.2 Samareitikon.’ Pages 235–38 in Textual History of the Bible. Volume 1A. General Editor Armin Lange. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Joosten, Jan. ‘Biblical Interpretation the Samareitikon as Exemplified in Anonymous Readings in Leviticus Attested in Mˊ.’ Pages 313–25 in The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by M. Langlois. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology 94. Leuven: Peeters, 2019. Juckel, Andreas. ‘Introduction to the Ḥarklean Text.’ Pages xxxi-li in Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels. 4 Vols. Edited by G.A. Kiraz. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Kahle, Paul. ‘Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Pentateuchtextes.’ Theologische Studien und Kritiken 88 (1915): 399-439; reprinted: Opera Minora. Leiden: Brill, 1956: 3–37. Kahle, Paul. The Cairo Geniza. 1st Edition. London: OUP, 1947. Kamesar, Adam. Jerome, Greek Scholarship, and the Hebrew Bible: A Study of the Quaestiones Hebraicae in Genesim, Oxford Classical Monographs. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993. Kamin[-Rozik], Sarah. ‘The Theological Significance of the Hebraica Veritas in Jerome’s Thought.’ Pages 243–53 in Sha'arei Talmon: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and

Bibliography | 725

Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon. Edited by Michael Fishbane and Emanuel Tov. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992. Kantor, Benjamin. ‘The Second Column (Secunda) of Origen’s Hexapla in Light of Greek Pronunciation.’ Ph.D. diss., The University of Texas at Austin, 2017. Kantor, Benjamin. ‘The Oldest Fragment of Origen’s Hexapla: T-S 12.182,’ 2019; online: https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.45329. Kantor, Benjamin. τὸ ἑβραϊκόν | TO HEBRAIKON. Vol. 1: Text-Critical Notes. A Critical Edition of the Second Column (Secunda) of Origen’s Hexapla with Special Emphasis and Extensive Notes on the Ambrosiana Palimpsest (MS Ambrosiana O 39 Sup.). Supplemented by the Greek Transcriptions of Hebrew Found in the Church Fathers, LXX Manuscripts, Syro-Hexapla, and Other Sources. Forthcoming. [cited by section] Kartveit, Magnar. The Origin of the Samaritans. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 128. Leiden. Boston: Brill, 2009. Kartveit, Magnar. ‘Samaritan Self-consciousness in the First Half of the Second Century B.C.E. in Light of the Inscriptions from Mount Gerizim and Delos.’ Journal for the study of Judaism 45 (2014): 449–70. Kartveit, Magnar. ‘The Place That the Lord Your God Will Choose.’ Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 4/2 (2015): 205–18. Kartveit, Magnar. and Gary N. Knoppers. ‘Qumran, Mount Gerizim, and the Books of Moses.’ Pages 1–16 in The Bible, Qumran, and the Samaritans. Edited by Magnar Kartveit and Gary N. Knoppers. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2018. Kartveit, Magnar. ‘Scholars’ Assessments of the Relationship between the Pre-Samaritan Texts and the Samaritan Pentateuch.’ Pages 1–17 in The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by M. Langlois. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology 94. Leuven: Peeters, 2019. Kartveit, Magnar. ‘Theories of the Origin of the Samaritans—Then and Now.’ Religions 10 (2019); available: https://doi.org/10.3390/rel10120661. Kartveit, Magnar. ‘Where Should the Temple Stand: In Jerusalem or on Mount Gerizim?’ Judaïsme ancien / Ancient Judaism 7 (2019): 75–88. Kartveit, Magnar. ‘The Tension between the Law and the Prophets as a Background to the Formation of the Samaritan Pentateuch.’ Pages 263–82 in Yahwistic Diversity and the Hebrew Bible: Tracing Perspectives of Group Identity from Judah, Samaria, and the Diaspora in Biblical Traditions. Edited by Benedikt Hensel, Dany Nocquet and Bartosz Adamczewski. Forschungen zum Alten Testamentt 2. Reihe, 120. Tübinben: Mohr Siebeck, 2020. Keener, Craig S. Acts: An Exegetical Commentary. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013. Kelly, John N. D. Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies. New York: Harper & Row, 1975. Kennicott, Benjamin. The State of the Printed Hebrew Text of the Old Testament Considered: Dissertation the Second. Wherein the Samar. Copy of the Pentateuch is vindicated: … Oxford: printed at the Theatre, 1759. Kim, Kyung-Rae. Studies in the Relationship between the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint. PhD. Thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem: 1994. Kippenberg, Hans Gerhard. Garizim Und Synagoge. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen Zur Samaritanischen Religion Der Aramäischen Periode. Vol. 30. Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1971.

726 | Bibliography

Knoppers, Gary N. Jews and Samaritans: The Origins and History of Their Early Relations. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. Knoppers, Gary N. ‘Toward a Critical Edition of the Samaritan Pentateuch: Reflections on Issues and Methods’ Pages 163–88 in Reading the Bible in Ancient Traditions and Modern Editions: Studies in Memory of Peter W. Flint. Edited by A. Perrin, K. Baek, D. Falk. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017. Knoppers, Gary N. ‘The Samaritan Tenth Commandment: Origins, Content, and Context.’ Pages 275–300 in Judah and Samaria in Postmonarchic Times. Mohr Siebeck, 2019. Kohn, Samuel. ‘Zur neuesten Litteratur über die Samaritaner.’ Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 39 (1885):165–226. Kohn, Samuel. ‘Samareitikon und Septuaginta.’ Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 38 (1894), 1–7, 49–67. Koster, Marinus. The Peshitta of Exodus: The Development of Its Text in the Course of Fifteen Centuries. Studia Semitica Neerlandica, 19. Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 1977. Koster, Marinus. ‘The Numbering of the Ten Commandments in Some Peshitta Manuscripts.’ Vetus Testamentum 30 (1980): 468–73. Kraemer, Casper. ‘Pliny and the Early Church Service: Fresh Light from an Old Source.’ Classical Philology 29/4 (1934): 293–300. Kraus, Matthew. ‘Hebraisms in the Old Latin Version of the Bible.’ Vetus Testamentum 53/4 (2003): 487–513. Kreuzer, Siegfried. ‘Kaige and “Theodotion” .’ Pages 449–58 in The Oxford Handbook of the Septuagint. Edited by A. Salvesen and T. L. Law. Oxford: OUP, 2021. Ladvocat, Jean Baptist. ‘Notice d'un manuscrit oriental apporté `a Paris en 1764.’ Journal des sçavans (1765): 542–55. Lambe, Patrick. ‘Biblical Criticism and Censorship in Ancien Régime France: The Case of Richard Simon.’ Harvard Theological Review 78 (1985): 149–77. Langlois, Michael. ‘Dead Sea Scrolls Palaeography and the Samaritan Pentateuch.’ Pages 255– 85 in The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by M. Langlois. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology 94. Leuven: Peeters, 2019. Law, T. Michael. ‘A History of Research on Origen’s Hexapla: From Masius to the Hexapla Project,’ Bulletin of the International Organization of Septuagint and Cognate Studies 40 (2007): 30–48. Law, T. Michael. ‘Origen’s parallel Bible: Textual Criticism, Apologetics, or Exegesis?’ Journal of Theological Studies 59 (2008): 1–21. Law, T. Michael. ‘La version syro-hexaplaire et la transmission textuelle de la Bible grecque.’ Pages 101-20 in L’Ancien Testament en Syriaque. Edited by F. B. Chatonnet and M. Debié. Études Syriaques 5. Paris: Geuthner, 2008b. Law, T. Michael. Origenes Orientalis: The Preservation of Origen’s Hexapla in the Syrohexapla of 3 Kingdoms. De Septuaginta Investigationes 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Leal, Beatrice. ‘A Reconsideration of the Madaba Map,’ Gesta 57/2 (2018): 123–43. Leroux, Ernest. (ed.). Mélanges orientaux: textes et traductions publiés par les professeurs de l'École spéciale des langues orientales vivantes. Paris: École nationale des langues orientales vivantes, 1883. Levine, Baruch. Numbers 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible Volume 4A. New York: Doubleday, 1993.

Bibliography | 727

Levine, Lee I. Caesarea under Roman Rule. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 7. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Liljeström, Marketta. ‘The Syrohexapla.’ Pages 655–69 in The Oxford Handbook of the Septuagint. Edited by A. Salvesen and T. L. Law. Oxford: OUP, 2021. Lim, Timothy. ‘The emergence of the Samaritan Pentateuch.’ Pages 89–104 in Reading the Bible in Ancient Traditions and Modern Editions: Studies in Memory of Peter W. Flint. Edited by Andrew B. Perrin, Kyung S. Baek, Daniel K. Falk. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017. Loop, Jan. Johann Heinrich Hottinger. Arabic and Islamic Studies in the Seventeenth Century. Oxford: OUP, 2013. Loopstra, Jonathan. ‘The Syriac Bible and its Interpretation.’ Pages 293–308 in The Syriac World. Edited by Daniel King. London: Routledge, 2019. Lossen, Max. (ed.). Briefe von Andreas Masius und seinen Freunden, 1538 bis 1573. Leipzig: Verlag con Alphons Dürr, 1886. Lowy, Simeon. The Principles of Samaritan Bible Exegesis. Studia Post-Biblica 28. Leiden: Brill, 1977. Macuch, Rudolf. Grammatik des Samaritanischen Aramäisch. Studia Samaritana 4. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1982. Magen, Yitzhak. ‘The Church of Mary Theotokos on Mt. Gerizim.’ Pages 83–89 in Ancient Churches Revealed. Edited by Y. Tsafrir. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993. Magen, Yitzhak. The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan. Judea & Samaria Publications. Vol. 7. Jerusalem: Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria; Israel Antiquities Authority, 2008. Mandelbrote, Scott. ‘English Scholarship and the Greek text of the Old Testament, 1620–1720: The impact of Codex Alexandrinus.’ Pages 74–93 in Scripture and Scholarship in Early Modern England. Edited by A. Hessayon and N. Keene. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006. Mandelbrote, Scott. ‘The History of Septuagint Studies: Early Modern Western Europe.’ Pages 33–51 in The Oxford Handbook of the Septuagint. Edited by A. Salvesen and T. L. Law. Oxford: OUP, 2021. Marcus, Joel. Mark 8–16. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 27A. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009. Margoliouth, George. ‘An Early Copy of the Samaritan-Hebrew Pentateuch.’ The Jewish Quarterly Review 15 (1903): 632–39. Marsh, Jr., Bradley. The Biblical Revision of Jacob of Edessa: Selections from the book of Numbers. MSt. Thesis, University of Oxford: 2010. Marsh, Jr., Bradley. ‘Jacob of Edessa’s Greek Manuscripts : The Case from his Revision of the Book of Numbers.’ Journal of Septuagint and Cognate Studies 44 (2011): 5–25. Marsh, Jr., Bradley. Early Christian Scripture and the Samaritan Pentateuch: A Study in Hexaplaric Manuscript Activity. DPhil thesis, University of Oxford: 2016. Marsh, Jr., Bradley. ‘Jacob of Edessa’s Witness to the “Theodotion” Daniel Text: Preliminary Observations.’ Journal of Septuagint and Cognate Studies 52 (2019): 197–215. Marsh, Jr., Bradley. ‘“Darius son of Ahasuerus, King of the Persians”: Textuality and Chronology in Jacob of Edessa’s Book of Daniel.’ Textus 28 (2019): 67–104. Marsh, Jr., Bradley. ‘The Samareitikon, the “κατά Σαμαρειτῶν” Marginalia in Codex M, and P. Carl 49,’ Vetus Testamentum 70/2 (2020): 285–97. Marsh, Jr., Bradley. ‘Quinta, Sexta, and Septima.’ Pages 481–88 in The Oxford Handbook of the Septuagint. Edited by A. Salvesen and T. L. Law. Oxford: OUP, 2021a.

728 | Bibliography

Marsh, Jr., Bradley. ‘The Samaritan Pentateuch in Greek.’ Pages 489–99 in The Oxford Handbook of the Septuagint. Edited by A. Salvesen and T. L. Law. Oxford: OUP, 2021b. Marsh, Jr., Bradley. ‘The “Afterlife” of Hexaplaric Samaritan Readings’ forthcoming. Marsh, Jr., Bradley. ‘Reading the Margins: The Role of “Marginal” Reading(s) in Jacob’s Bible,’ forthcoming. Marsh, Herbert. A Course of Lectures, Containing a Description and Systematic arrangement of the Several Branches of Divinity: Accompanied with an account, both of the principal authors, and of the progress, which has been made at different periods in Theological Learning. Part II. Cambridge: Printed by J. Smith, Printer to the University, 1810. Martyn, J. Louis. History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel. Edited by C. Clifton Black, John T. Carroll, and Beverly Roberts Gaventa. Third Edition. The New Testament Library. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003. McCarthy, Carmel. ‘Samaritan Pentateuch Readings in Deuteronomy.’ Pages 118–30 in Near Eastern Essays. Studies in Honour of Kevin J. Cathcart. Edited by Carmel McCarthy & J. F. Healey. London: T&T Clark, 2004. McCarthy, Dennis J. Treaty and Covenant. A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament. Rev. Ed. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981. McClurg, Andrew .H. A Critical Edition of the Hexaplaric Fragments of Numbers 19–36. PhD. Thesis, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary: 2011. McGiffert, Arthur. (transl.) Eusebius: Church History from A.D. 1–324. Pages 1–403 in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Series 2/1. Edited by P. Schaff and H. Wace. [Reprint] Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1995. McKane, William. ‘Benjamin Kennicott: An Eighteenth-Century Researcher.’ Journal of Theological Studies 28 (1977): 445–64. McKane, William. Selected Christian Hebraists. Cambridge: CUP, 1989. McLean, Norman. ‘The Lyons Old Latin Heptateuch’ (Review). Journal of Theological Studies 2 (1901): 305–08. Meade, John. A Critical Edition of the Hexaplaric Fragments of Job 22–42. Origen's Hexapla: A Critical Edition of the Extant Fragments. Louvain: Peeters, 2020. Meade, John. ‘The Dream for a ‘New Field’ Comes True. A Description and Defense of the New Critical Edition of Job 22–42.’ Pages 131–54 in Editing the Septuagint: The Unfinished Task. Papers presented at the 50th anniversary of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Denver 2018. Edited by Felix Albrecht and Frank Feder. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2022. Meeks, Wayne A. The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 14. Leiden: Brill, 1967. Metzger, Bruce M. Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Greek Palaeography. Oxford: OUP, 1981. Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Second Edition. Stuttgart : Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994. Mercati, Giovanni. ‘Di Varie Antichissime Sottoscrizioni a Codici Esaplari.’ Pages 1-48 in Nuove note di Letteratura Biblica e Cristiana Antica. Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1941. Miller, Matthew. The Aristarchian Signs of Codex Colbertinus-Sarrvianus. PhD. Thesis, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary: 2019.

Bibliography | 729

Miller, Peter N. ‘The “Antiquarianization” of Biblical Scholarship and the London Polyglot Bible (1653–57).’ Journal of the History of Ideas 62/3 (2001): 463–82. Miller, Peter N. ‘Making the Paris Polyglot Bible: Humanism and Orientalism in the Early Seventeenth Century.’ Pages 59–86 in Die europäische Gelehrtenrepublik im Zeitalter des Konfessionalismus/The European Republic of Letters in the Age of Confessionalism. Edited by H. Jaumann. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2001b. Miller, Peter N. ‘A philologist, a traveller and an antiquary rediscover the Samaritans in seventeenth-century Paris, Rome and Aix: Jean Morin, Pietro della Valle and N.-C. Fabri de Peiresc. Pages 123–46 in Die Praktiken der Gelehrsamkeit in der Frühen Neuzeit. Edited by Helmut Zedelmaier and Martin Mulsow. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2001c. Monferrer-Sala, Juan Pedro. Lecturas hexaplares y posthexaplares en la versión árabe del libro de Números de al-Ḥāriṯ b. Sinān b. Sunbāṭ (c. s. X AD). Madrid: Editorial Sindéresis, 2017. Monferrer-Sala, Juan Pedro. ‘Nine Post-Hexaplaric Readings in the Arabic Translation of the Book of Numbers by al-Ḥārith b. Sinān b. Sunbāṭ (10th c. CE).’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 130/4 (2018): 602–15. Montana, Fausto. ‘Anything but a marginal question. On the meaning of παρακείμενον σχόλιον and παραγράφεσθαι.’ Pages 24–38 in The Birth of Scholiography. From Types to Texts. Eds. F. Montana and A. Porro. Trends in Classics 6/1, 2014. Montgomery, James. A. The Samaritans: The Earliest Jewish Sect Their History, Theology and Literature. Philadelphia: John C. Winston Co., 1907. Montgomery, James. A. Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel. International Critical Commentary. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1927. Moss, Yonatan. ‘Versions and Perversions of Genesis: Jacob of Edessa, Saadia Gaon and the Falsification of Biblical History.’ Pages 207–29 in Jews and Syriac Christians: Intersections across the First Millennium. Edited by Aaron Butts and Simcha Gross. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 180. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020. Munnich, Olivier. ‘Les révision juives de la Septante. Modalités et fonctions de leur transmission. Enjeux éditoriaux contemporains.’ Pages 141–90 in La bible juive dans l’Antiquité. Edited by R. Gounelle and J. Joosten. Prahins: De Zebre, 2014. Murphy, Harold. ‘On the Text of Codices H and 93*,’ Journal of Biblical Literature 78 (1959): 228–37. Neuschäfer, Bernard. Origenes als Philologe. Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 18. 2 vols. Basle: Friedrich Reinhardt, 1987. Newman, Hillel. ‘How Should We Measure Jerome’s Hebrew Competence?’ Pages 131–40 in Jerome of Stridon: His Life, Writings, and Legacy. Edited by Andrew Cain and Josef Loessl. London: Ashgate, 2009. Newsom, Carol. With B. Breed. Daniel: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2014. Noja, Sergio. ‘The Samareitikon.’ Pages 408–12 in The Samaritans. Edited by A. D. Crown. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1989. Norton, Gérard. ‘Cautionary Reflections on a Re-edition of Fragments of Hexaplaric Material.’ Pages 129-155 in Tradition of the Text: FS Dominique Barthélemy. Edited by G. Gérard and Stephen Pisano. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 109. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag Freiburg, 1991.

730 | Bibliography

Norton, Gérard. ‘Observations on the First Two Columns of the Hexapla.’ Pages 103–24 in Origen's Hexapla and Fragments. Edited by Alison Salvesen. Tübingen : J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1998. Nünlist, René. The Ancient Critic at Work: Terms and Concepts of Literary. Criticism in Greek Scholia. Cambridge: CUP, 2009. Nutt, John. Fragments of a Samaritan Targum, edited from a Bodleian ms.: with an introduction, containing a sketch of Samaritan history, dogma, and literature. London: Trübner and Co., 1874. Olariu, Daniel. ‘Criteria for Determining the Common Basis of the Greek Versions of Daniel.’ Textus 28 (2019): 105–24. Olariu, Daniel. ‘The Mechanics of Recensional Process: The Treatment of the First-Found Equivalents.’ Journal of Septuagint and Cognate Studies 52 (2019) 177–95. Oppenheimer, Aharon. ‘Removing the Decalogue from the “Shema” and Phylacteries: the Historical Implications.’ Pages 97–105 in The Decalogue in Jewish and Christian Tradition. Edited by Henning Graf Reventlow and Yair Hoffman. New York: T & T Clark, 2011. Outhwaite, Ben. ‘The Sefer Torah and Jewish Orthodoxy in the Islamic Middle Ages.’ Pages 63– 90 in From Scrolls to Scrolling: Sacred Texts, Materiality, and Dynamic Media Cultures. Edited by Bradford A. Anderson. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2020. Parry, Jason. ‘18.3.4 Hexapla.’ Pages 561–65 in Textual History of the Bible. Volume 1C. General Editor Armin Lange. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Paton, Lewis Bayles. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Esther. International Critical Commentary. New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1908. Patrick, Joseph. Studies in the Archaeology and History of Caesarea Maritima: Caput Judaeae, Metropolis Palaestinae. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Perkins, Larry. The Place of the Syro-Hexapla in the Textual Tradition of the Septuagint of Deuteronomy. PhD. Thesis, University of Toronto: 1980. Petitmengin, Pierre and Flusin, Bernard. ‘Le livre antique et la dictée: Nouvelles recherches.’ Pages 247-62 in Mémorial André-Jean Festugière. Edited by Lucchesi Enzo. Genève: Patrick Cramer, 1984. Postel, Guillelmi. De Universitate Libri duo … Editio tertia. Lugduni Batauorum, Ex officina Joannis Maire. 1535. Propp, William. Exodus 19–40 : A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 2A. New York: Doubleday, 2006. Pummer, Reinhard. ‘The Samaritan Pentateuch and the New Testament.’ New Testament Studies 23 (1975–76): 441–43. Pummer, Reinhard. ‘New Evidence for Samaritan Christianity?’ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 41 (1979): 98–117. Pummer, Reinhard. ‘The Samaritan Manuscripts of the Chester Beatty Library.’ Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 6 (1982) 103–115; reprinted from Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review 68 (1979) 66–75. Pummer, Reinhard. ‘ΑΡΓΑΡΙΖΙΝ: A Criterion for Samaritan Provenance?’ Journal for the Study of Judaism 18 (1987): 18–25. Pummer, Reinhard. ‘The Greek Bible and the Samaritans.’ Revue des Études Juives 157/3–4 (1998): 269–358.

Bibliography | 731

Pummer, Reinhard. ‘Samaritanism in Caesarea Maritima.’ Pages 181–202 in Religious Rivalries and the Struggle for Success in Caesarea Maritima. Edited by T.L. Donaldson. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2000. Pummer, Reinhard. Early Christian Authors on Samaritans and Samaritanism: Texts, Translations and Commentary. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 92. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. Pummer, Reinhard. ‘The Samaritans and Their Pentateuch.’ Pages 237–69 in Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance. Edited by Gary N. Knoppers and Bernard M. Levinson. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Pummer, Reinhard. The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 129. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Pummer, Reinhard. Review of Robert T. Anderson, and Terry Giles, The Samaritan Pentateuch: An Introduction to Its Origin, History, and Significance for Biblical Studies. RBL 2013. Pummer, Reinhard. The Samaritans: A Profile. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016. Pummer, Reinhard. ‘Was There an Altar or a Temple in the Sacred Precinct on Mt. Gerizim?’ Journal for the Study of Judaism 47 (2016b): 1–21. Purvis, James D. The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin of the Samaritan Sect. Harvard Semitic Monographs 2. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968. Purvis, James D. ‘The Fourth Gospel and the Samaritans’ Novum Testamentum 17 (1975): 161– 198. Rankin, Oliver S. ‘The Extent of the Influence of the Synagogue Service upon Christian Worship.’ Journal of Jewish Studies 1–2 (1948–49): 27–32. Richard, Earl. ‘Acts 7: An Investigation of the Samaritan Evidence.’ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 39 (1977): 190–208. Resnick, Irven M. ‘The Codex in Early Jewish and Christian Communities.’ The Journal of Religious History 17/1 (1992): 1–17. Roberts, Colin and T.C. Skeat. The Birth of the Codex. London: OUP, 1983. Rogerson, John W. ‘Early Old Testament critics in the Roman Catholic Church: focusing on the Pentateuch.’ Pages 837–850 in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation. Vol. II: From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment. Ed. by Magne Saebø. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. Rösel, Martin. ‘The Reading and Translation of the Divine Name in the Masoretic Tradition and the Greek Pentateuch.’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 31/4 (2007): 411– 28. Rothschild, Jean-Pierre. ‘Samaritan Manuscripts. A Guide to the Collections and Catalogues.’ Pages 771–94 in The Samaritans. Edited A.D. Crown. Tübingen : J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1989a. Rothschild, Jean-Pierre. ‘Autour du Pentateuque Samaritain - Voyageurs, Enthousiastes et Savants.’ Pages 61–74 in Le Grand Siècle et la Bible. Edited by Armogathe JeanRobert. Paris : Éditions Beauchesne, 1989b. Rowley, Harold H. Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel. Cardiff: University of Wales, 1964. Saley, Richard. The Samuel manuscript of Jacob of Edessa: A Study in Its Underlying Textual Traditions. Monographs of the Peshitta Institute 9. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Saley, Richard. ‘The Textual Vorlagen for Jacob of Edessa’s Revision of the Books of Samuel.’ Pages 113–25 in Jacob of Edessa and the Syriac Culture of His Day. Edited by Bas Ter Haar Romeny. Monographs of the Peshitta Institute 18. Leiden: Brill, 2008.

732 | Bibliography

Salvesen, Alison. Symmachus in the Pentateuch. Journal of Semitic Studies Monographs, 15. Manchester: Journal of Semitic Studies, 1991. Salvesen, Alison. ‘Hexaplaric Readings in Iš‘odad of Merv’s Commentary on Genesis.’ Pages 230–52 in The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation: A Collection of Essays. Edited by Judith Frishman and Lucas van Rompay. Traditio Exegetica Graeca 5. Louvain: Peeters, 1997. Salvesen, Alison. ‘An Edition of Jacob of Edessa's version of I–II Samuel.’ Pages 13–22 in Symposium Syriacum VII: Uppsala University, 11–14 August 1996. Edited by René Lavenant. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1998. Salvesen, Alison. ‘Symmachus Readings in the Pentateuch.’ Pages 177–98 in Origen's Hexapla and Fragments. Edited by Alison Salvesen. Tübingen : J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1998. Salvesen, Alison. ‘The Authorial Spirit? Biblical Citations in Jacob of Edessa's Hexaemeron.’ Aramaic Studies 6 (1998): 207–25. Salvesen, Alison. ‘Did Jacob of Edessa know Hebrew?’ Pages 457–67 in Biblical Hebrews, Biblical Texts. Edited by Ada Rapoport-Albert and Gillian Greenberg. Journal for the study of the Old Testament Supplements 333. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Salvesen, Alison. ‘Jacob of Edessa’s version of Exodus 1 and 28.’ Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 8 (2005); cited by §: https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/article/hv8n1 salvesen. Salvesen, Alison. ‘Jacob Of Edessa’s Life And Work: A Biographical Sketch.’ Pages 1–10 in Jacob of Edessa and the Syriac Culture of His Day. Edited by Bas Ter Haar Romeny. Monographs of the Peshitta Institute 18. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Salvesen, Alison. ‘Was Jacob Trilingual? Jacob of Edessa’s Knowledge of Hebrew Revisited.’ Pages 93–105 in Studies on Jacob of Edessa. Edited by Gregorios Ibrahim and G. A. Kiraz. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2010. Salvesen, Alison. ‘Early Syriac, Greek, and Latin views of the Decalogue.’ Pages 47–66 in The Decalogue through the Centuries: From the Hebrew Scriptures to Benedict XVI. Edited by Jeffrey P. Greenman and Timothy Larsen. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2012. Salvesen, Alison. ‘Scholarship on the Margins: Biblical and Secular Learning in the Work of Jacob of Edessa.’ Pages 327–44 in Syriac Encounters :Papers from the Sixth North American Syriac Symposium, Duke University, 26–29 June 2011. Edited by M. Doerfler, E. Fiano & K. Smith. Leuven: Peeters, 2015. Salvesen, Alison. ‘A “New Field” for the 21st Century? Rationale for the Hexapla Project, and a report on its progress.’ Pages 286–309 in The Text of the Hebrew Bible and Its Editions. Studies in Celebration of the Fifth Centennial of the Complutensian Polyglot. Edited by Andrés Piquer Otero and Pablo A. Torijano Morales. Supplements to the Textual History of the Bible, Vol. 1. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Salvesen, Alison. [untitled monograph on Jacob of Edessa], forthcoming. Sanday, William, and Arthur C. Headlam. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of the Romans. 3rd ed. International Critical Commentary. New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1897. Sanderson, Judith. An Exodus Scroll from Qumran: 4QpaleoExod and the Samaritan Tradition. Harvard Semitic Studies 30. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1986.

Bibliography | 733

Sant, Carmel. ‘Eusebius of Caesarea’s Views on the Canon of the Holy Scriptures and the Texts he Used in his Works.’ Monuments Ecclesiae Liturgica 23/1–2 (1971): 23–33. Scarlata, Mark W. Outside of Eden: Cain in the Ancient Versions of Genesis 4.1–16. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 573. The Hebrew Bible and Its Version 8. London: T & T Clark, 2012. Schaper, Joachim. ‘The Origin and Purpose of the Fifth Column of the Hexapla.’ Pages 3–15 in Origen's Hexapla and Fragments. Edited by Alison Salvesen. Tübingen : J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1998. Schatkin, Margaret. ‘The Influence of Origen upon St. Jerome's Commentary on Galatians.’ Vigiliae Christianae 24 (1970): 49–58. Schattner-Rieser, Ursula. ‘Garizim versus Ebal. Ein Neues Qumranfragment samaritanischer Tradition?’ Early Christianity 1 (2010): 277–81. Schenker, Adrian. Hexaplarische Psalmenbruchstücke. Die hexaplarische Psalmenfragmente der Handschriften Vaticanus graecus 752 und Canonicianus graecus 62. FribourgGöttingen, 1975. Schenker, Adrian. ‘Le Seigneur Choisir-T-Il Le Lieu de Son Nom Ou L’a-T-Il Choisi? L’apport de La Bible Grecque Ancienne À L’histoire Du Texte Samaritain et Massorétique.’ Pages 339–51 in Scripture in Tradition: Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo. Edited by Anssi Voitila and Jutta Jokiranta. Vol. 126. Journal for the Study of Judaism: Supplement Series. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Schenker, Adrian. ‘Textgeschichtliches zum Samaritanischen Pentateuch und Samareitikon Zur Textgeschichte des Pentateuchs im 2. Jh. v. Chr.’ Pages 105-121 in Studia Samaritana: Samaritans – Past and Present. Edited by Menachem Mor and Friedrich V Reiterer. Berlin: Walter de Grutyer, 2010. Schenker, Adrian. ‘An original reading of the Samaritan Pentateuch in Deut 11,30: Yerushalmi, Eusebius’s Onomasticon, Jerome, 4QJosha.’ Pages 437–48 in A Pillar of Cloud to Guide: Text-critical, Redactional, and Linguistic Perspectives on the Old Testament in Honour of Marc Vervenne. Edited by H. Ausloosand B. Lemmelijn. Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses. Leuven: Peeters, 2014. Schironi, Francesca. ‘The Ambiguity of Signs: Critical σημεῖα from Zenodotus to Origen.’ Pages 85–112 in Homer and the Bible in the Eyes of Ancient Interpreters. Edited by M. Niehoff. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Schironi, Francesca. ‘P.Grenf. 1.5, Origen, and the Scriptorium of Caesarea.’ Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 52 (2015): 181–223. Schironi, Francesca. ‘Eusebius’ Gospel Questions and Aristarchus on Homer—Similar Strategies to Save Different “Sacred” Texts.’ Pages 193–226 in The Rise of the Early Christian Intellectual. Edited by Lewis Ayres and H. Clifton Ward. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2020. Schorch, Stefan. ‘The Significance of the Samaritan Oral Tradition for the Textual History of the Pentateuch.’ Pages 1.03–1.17 in Samaritan Researches, vol. V. Edited by V. Morabito, A. Crown, and L. Davey. Studies in Judaica 10. Sydney: Mandelbaum Publishing, 2000. Schorch, Stefan. ‘The Origin of the Samaritan Community.’ Linguistic and Oriental Studies from Poznań 7 (2005): 7–16. Schorch, Stefan. ‘Spoken Hebrew of the Late Second Temple Period According to the Oral and the Written Samaritan Tradition.’ Pages 175–91 in Conservatism and Innovation in the Hebrew Language of the Hellenistic Period: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls & Ben Sira. Edited by Jan

734 | Bibliography

Joosten and Jean-Sebastien Rey. Vol. 73. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Schorch, Stefan. ‘A Critical editio maior of the Samaritan Pentateuch: State of Research, Principle, and Problems.’ Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 2 (2013): 1–21. Schorch, Stefan. ‘The So-Called Gerizim Commandment in the Samaritan Pentateuch.’ Pages 77–97 in The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by M. Langlois. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology 94. Leuven: Peeters, 2019. Schorch, Stefan. ‘Where is the Altar? Scribal Intervention in the Book of Joshua and Beyond.’ Pages 231–43 in Yahwistic Diversity and the Hebrew Bible. Tracing Perspectives of Group Identity from Judah, Samaria, and the Diaspora in Biblical Traditions. Edited by Benedikt Hensel, Dany Nocquet and Bartosz Adamczewski. Forschungen zum Alten Testamentt 2. Reihe, 120. Tübinben: Mohr Siebeck, 2020. Schorch, Stefan. ‘The Value of the Samaritan Versions for the Textual History of the Samaritan Pentateuch.’ Textus 30 (2021): 64–85. Schorch, Stefan. ‘The Origins and Early History of Samaritan Theology.’ Pages 61–78 in Torah, Temple, Land: Constructions of Judaism in Antiquity. Edited by Markus Witte, Jens Schröter, and Verena M. Lepper. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 184. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021b. Schorch, Stefan. ‘Praying in the Countryside: Samaritanism as an Anti-urban Religion.’ Pages 329–44 in Prayer and the Ancient City. Influences of Urban Space. Edited by M. Patzelt, J. Ruepke, and A. Weissenrieder. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021c. Schorch, Stefan. ‘‫מקראות הרבה ותרגום אחד? מסירת התורה השומרונית ושאלת הסמריטיקון‬.’ Festschrift for Emanuel Tov. Edited by Moshe Bar-Asher. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, in preparation. Schur, Nathan. ‘The Samaritans, as Described in Christian Itineraries (14th–18th Centuries).’ Palestine Exploration Quarterly 118 (1986): 144–155 Segal, Judah B. The Diacritical Point and the Accents in Syriac. London: Oxford University Press, 1953. Segal, Michael. ‘Biblical Exegesis in 4Q158: Techniques and Genre.’ Textus 19 (1998): 54–62. Segal, Michael. ‘The Text of the Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls.’ Materia Giudaica 12 (2007): 5–20. Segal, Michael. ‘Reconsidering the Relationship(s) between 4Q365, 4Q365a, and the Temple Scroll.’ Revue de Qumran 30 (2018): 213–33. Shehadeh, Haseeb. ‘Some reflections on the Arabic translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch.’ Nordisk judaistik/Scandinavian Jewish Studies 14/1 (1993): 36–44. Shuger, Debora. The Renaissance Bible: Scholarship, Sacrifice, and Subjectivity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. Simon, Richard. Histoire Critique du Vieux Testament. Paris: Vve Billaine, 1678. = ET by ‘A Person of Quality’: A Critical History of the Old Testament. London: Walter Davis in Amen-Corner, 1682. Simon, Richard. Histoire Critique du Vieux Testament. Nouvelle Edition. Amsterdam: Pour la Compagnie des Libraires, 1685. Sipilä, Seppo. ‘The Tetrapla - Is It All Greek to Us?’ Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 10/2 (1996): 169–82. Skeat, Theodore C., H.J.M. Milne, and Douglas Cockerell. Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus. London: The Trustees of the British Museum, 1938.

Bibliography | 735

Skeat, Theodore C. ‘The Use of Dictation in Ancient Book-Production,’ Proceedings of the British Academy 42 (1956): 179–208. Reprinted in pages 3–32 of Collected Biblical Writings of T.C. Skeat. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 113. Edited by J.K. Elliot. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Skeat, Theodore C. ‘The Codex Sinaiticus, the Codex Vaticanus and Constantine.’ Journal of Theological Studies 50 (1999): 583–625. Reprinted in pages 193–237 of Collected Biblical Writings of T.C. Skeat. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 113. Edited by J.K. Elliot. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Skehan, Patrick. ‘Exodus in the Samaritan Recension from Qumran.’ Journal of Biblical Literature 74 (1955): 182–87. Skehan, Patrick. ‘Qumran and the Present State of Old Testament Text Studies: the Masoretic Text.’ Journal of Biblical Literature 78 (1959): 21–25. Skehan, Patrick. ‘The Divine Name at Qumran, in the Masada-Scroll, and in the Septuagint.’ Bulletin of the International Organization of Septuagint and Cognate Studies 13 (1980): 14–44 . Skinner, John. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis. International Critical Commentary. New York: Scribner, 1910. Soesilo, Daud. ‘Translating the Names of God: recent experience from Indonesia and Malaysia.’ The Bible Translator 52/4 (2001): 414–23. Stanton, Graham. Studies in Matthew and Early Christianity. Edited by M. Bckmuehl and D. Lincicum. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 309. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Stenhouse, Paul. ‘Samaritan Chronicles.’ Pages 218–65 in The Samaritans. Edited by A.D. Crown. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1989. Strugnell, John. ‘Notes en marge du volume V des “Discoveries in the Judean Desert of Jordan”.’ Revue de Qumrân 7 (1970): 163–276. Stuart, Moses. ‘Art. III. On the Samaritan Pentateuch and Literature.’ The Biblical Repository Volume Second, Nos. V–VIII (1832): 681–724. [reprinted from 1826]. Takahashi, Hidemi. Barhebraeus: a bio-bibliography. Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias Press, 2005. Tal, Abraham. ‘Samaritan Literature.’ Pages 413–67 in in The Samaritans. Edited A.D. Crown. Tübingen : J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1989. Tal, Abraham. ‘Divergent Traditions of the Samaritan Pentateuch as Reflected by Its Aramaic Targum.’ Journal for the Aramaic Bible 1/2 (1999): 297–314. Tal, Abraham. ‘The First Samaritanologist: Wilhelm Gesenius.’ Pages 139–51 in Hebräische Lexicographie und biblische Exegese: Das Werk von Wilhelm Gesenius. Edited by. S. Schorch and E.J. Washke. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 427. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2013. Tal, Abraham. ‘Tibåt Mårqe: A New Edition with English Translation.’ Religions 11 (2020); available: https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11010052 Tannous, Jack. Syria Between Byzantium and Islam: Making Incommensurables Speak. PhD. Thesis, Princeton University, 2010. Taylor, David. ‘The Coming of Christianity to Mesopotamia.’ Pages 68–87 in in The Syriac World. Edited by Daniel King. London: Routledge, 2019. Taylor, Joan E. ‘Introduction.’ Pages 1–8 in The Onomasticon: Palestine in the Fourth Century A.D. Edited by Joan E. Taylor; translated by G. S. P. Freeman-Grenville. Jerusalem: Carta, Jerusalem, 2003.

736 | Bibliography

Teeter, Andrew. ‘“You shall not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk”: the text and the law in light of early witnesses.’ Textus 24 (2009): 37–63. Tekoniemi, Timo. The Textual History of 2 Kings 17. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 536. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2021. ter Haar Romeny, Bas. A Syrian in Greek Dress: The Use of Greek, Hebrew, and Syriac Biblical Texts in Eusebius of Emesa’s Commentary on Genesis. Traditio Exegetica Graeca 6. Leuven: Peeters, 1997. ter Haar Romeny, Bas. ‘The Peshitta and its Rivals: On the Assessment of the Peshitta and Other Versions of the Old Testament in Syriac Exegetical Literature.’ The Harp 11–12 (1998–99): 21–31. ter Haar Romeny, Bas. ‘Biblical Studies in the Church of the East: The Case of Catholicos Timothy I.’ Studia Patristica 34 (2001): 503–10. ter Haar Romeny, Bas. ‘The Hebrew and the Greek as Alternatives to the Syriac Version in Išo‘dad’s Commentary on the Psalms.’ Pages 457–67 in Biblical Hebrews, Biblical Texts: Essays in Memory of Michael P. Weitzman. Edited by Ada Rapoport-Albert and Gillian Greenberg. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 333. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. ter Haar Romeny, Bas. ‘Procopius of Gaza and his Library.’ Pages 173–90 in From Rome to Constantinople: Studies in Honour of Averil Cameron. Edited by Bas ter Haar Romeny and Hagit Amirav. Leuven: Peeters, 2007. ter Haar Romeny, Bas. ‘Jacob of Edessa on Genesis: His Quotations of the Peshitta and His Revision of the Text.’ Pages 145–58 in in Jacob of Edessa and the Syriac Culture of His Day. Edited by Bas Ter Haar Romeny. Monographs of the Peshitta Institute 18. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Tigay, Jeffrey H. ‘Conflation as a Redactional Technique.’ Pages 53–95 in Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism. Edited by J.H. Tigay. Philadelphia: PSU Press, 1985. Tigay, Jeffrey H. Deuteronomy ‫דברים‬: the Traditional Hebrew text with the New JPS Translation. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1996. Tischendorf, Constantin. Notitia editionis codicis Bibliorum Sinaitici.... Lipsiae: F. A. Brockhaus, 1860. Todd, Henry J. Memoirs of the Life and Writings of the Right Rev. Brian Walton, Lord Bishop of Chester. 2 Vols. London: F. C. & J. Rivington, 1821. Tov, Emanuel. ‘Pap. Giessen 13, 19, 22, 26 : A Revision of the LXX?’ Revue Biblique 78 (1971): 355–83. Tov, Emanuel. “Une inscription grecque d’origine samaritaine trouvée à Thessalonique,” Revue Biblique 81 (1974): 43–48. [Reprinted in pages 513-18 in The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999.] Tov, Emanuel. ‘Pap. Giessen 13, 19, 22, 26: A Revision of the Septuagint?’ Pages 439–75 in The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Tov, Emanuel. ‘A New Edition of the Samaritan Pentateuch. Review Article.’ Pages 250–57 in Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, Septuagint: Collected Essays. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 167. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Tov, Emanuel. The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research. Third Edition. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015. Tov, Emanuel. ‘The Genealogical Lists in Genesis 5 and 11 in Three Different Versions.’ Pages 37–52 in From Author to Copyist: Essays on the Composition, Redaction, and Trans-

Bibliography | 737

mission of the Hebrew Bible in Honor of Zipi Talshir. Edited by Cana Werman. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015. Tov, Emanuel. ‘The Shared Tradition of the Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentateuch.’ Pages 277–93. Die Septuaginta: Orte und Intentionen. Edited by Siegfried Kreuzer et alii. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 361. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Tov, Emanuel. ‘Textual Harmonization in Exodus 1–24.’ TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism 22 (2017): 1–16. Tov, Emanuel. ‘From Popular Jewish LXX-SP Texts to Separate Sectarian Texts: Insights from the Dead Sea Scrolls.’ Pages 19–40 in The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by M. Langlois. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology 94. Leuven: Peeters, 2019. Tov, Emanuel. ‘The Tenth Commandment of the Samaritans.’ Pages 141–57 in Tempel, Lehrhaus, Synagoge. Orte jüdischen Gottesdienstes, Lernens und Lebens. Festschrift für Wolfgang Kraus. Edited by C. Eberhart, M. Karrer, S. Kreuzer, M. Meiser. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2020. Tov, Emanuel. ‘The Papyrus Nash and the Septuagint.’ Pages 33–50 in A Necessary Task: Essays on Textual Criticism of the Old Testament in Memory of Stephen Pisano (Analecta Biblica 14). Edited by D. Candido and L. Pessoa da Silva. Roma: Pontificia Università Gregoriana and Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2020b. Tsagalis, Christos. ‘Pisistratus.’ Pages 193–95 in The Cambridge Guide to Homer. Edited by C. Pache. Cambridge: CUP, 2020. Ulrich, Eugene. ‘Origen’s Old Testament Text: the Transmission History of the Septuagint to the third century, C.E.’ Pages 3–33 in Origen of Alexandria: His World and His Legacy. Edited by Charles Kannengiesser and William L. Petersen. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 1. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988. Reprinted pages 202–23 in The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans: 1999. Ulrich, Eugene. ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Biblical Text..’ Pages 79–100 in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years. Vol. 1. Edited by P. Flint and J. VanderKam. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 30. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Ulrich, Eugene. ‘The absence of “sectarian variants” in the Jewish scriptural scrolls found in Qumran.’ Pages 179–95 in The Bible as Book: the Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries. Edited by Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov. London: British Library, 2002. Reprinted: Pages 169–86 in The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 169. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Ulrich, Eugene. ‘The Old Latin, Mount Gerizim, and 4QJosha.’ Pages 361–75 in Textual Criticism and Dead Sea Scrolls Studies in Honour of Julio Trebolle Barrera Florilegium Complutense. Edited by Andrés Piquer Otero and Pablo A. Torijano Morales. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Ulrich, Eugene. ‘Rising Recognition of the Samaritan Pentateuch.’ Pages 215–27 in The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 169. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Ulrich, Eugene. ‘Shared Jewish Texts Related to the Samaritan Pentateuch.’ Judaïsme Ancien Ancient Judaism 7 (2019): 1–28.

738 | Bibliography

Van der Meer, Michaël. Formation and Reformulation: The Redaction of the Book of Joshua in the Light of the Oldest Textual Witnesses. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 102. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Van der Meer, Michaël. ‘Exclusion and Expansion: Harmonisations in the Samaritan Pentateuch, Pre-Samaritan Pentateuchal Manuscripts and Non-Pentateuchal Manuscripts.’ Pages 41–76 in The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by M. Langlois. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology 94. Leuven: Peeters, 2019. Van der Meer, Michaël. ‘Symmachus.’ Pages 469–79 in The Oxford Handbook of the Septuagint. Edited by A. Salvesen and T. L. Law. Oxford: OUP, 2021 Van Roey Albert. ‘Les études syriaques d’Andreas Masius’ Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 9 (1978): 141–58. Van Rompay, Lucas. ‘Jacob Of Edessa And The Sixth-Century Syriac Translator Of Severus Of Antioch’s Cathedral Homilies.’ Pages 189–204 in Jacob of Edessa and the Syriac Culture of His Day. Edited by Bas Ter Haar Romeny. Monographs of the Peshitta Institute 18. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Van Rompay, Lucas. ‘1.1.3 The Canonical History of the Deutero-Canonical Texts. The Syriac Canon.’ In The Textual History of the Bible. Vol. 2. Edited by Armin Lange and Matthias Henze. Leiden: Brill, forthcoming. Vasileiadis, Pavlos. ‘Aspects of rendering the sacred Tetragrammaton in Greek.’ Open Theology 1 (2014): 56–88. Vasileiadis, Pavlos. and Nehemia Gordon. ‘Transmission of the Tetragrammaton in JudeoGreek and Christian sources.’ Cahiers Accademia 12 (2021): 85–126. Veltri, Giuseppe (with A. Salvesen). ‘Aquila.’ Pages 459–67 in The Oxford Handbook of the Septuagint. Edited by A. Salvesen and T. L. Law. Oxford: OUP, 2021. Vergani, Emidio. ‘An Introduction To Ceriani's Reprint Of The Ambrosian Manuscript B 21 Inf. (Codex Ambrosianus 7A1).’ Pages VII–XIII in A Facsimile Edition of the Peshitto Old Testament Based on Codex Ambrosianus (7a1): Translatio Syra Pescitto Veteris Testamenti: Ex codice Ambrosiano, Sec. fere VI. Edited by Antonio Maria Ceriani. Piscataway, NJ, USA: Gorgias Press, 2013. Vollandt, Ronald. Arabic Versions of the Pentateuch: A Comparative Study of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Sources. Biblia Arabica 2. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Vollandt, Ronald. ‘The Status Quaestionis of Research on the Arabic Bible.’ Pages 442–67 in Studies in Semitic Linguistics and Manuscripts ; A Liber Discipulorum in Honour of Professor Geoffrey Khan. Edited by N. Vidro, R. Vollandt;, E.-M. Wagner, J. OlszowySchlanger. Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 30. Uppsala: Uppsala University Library, 2018. Voss, Isaac. De Septuaginta Interpretibus eorumque Tralatione & Chronologia Dissertationes Hagaecomitum: Ex Typographia ADRIANI ULACQ, 1661. Vööbus, Arthur. Discoveries of Very Important Manuscript Sources for the Syro-Hexapla: Contributions to the Research on the Septuagint. Estonian Theological Society in Exile 20: Stockholm, 1970. Vööbus, Arthur. The Hexapla and the Syro-Hexapla. Very Important Discoveries for Septuagint Research. Estonian Theological Society in Exile 22: Stockholm, 1971. Vööbus, Arthur. ‘The Discovery of the Pentateuch of the Syro-Hexapla.’ Journal of the American Oriental Society 93/3 (1973): 354–55. Vööbus, Arthur. 1983. See SHV.

Bibliography | 739

Wallace-Hadrill, D.S. Eusebius of Caesarea. London: A.R. Mowbray, 1960. Waltke, Bruce. Prolegomena to the Samaritan Pentateuch. PhD. Thesis, Harvard University, 1965. Waltke, Bruce. ‘The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Text of the Old Testament.’ Pages 212–39 in New Perspectives on the Old Testament. Edited by J. Barton Payne. Waco, TX: Word, 1970. Walton, Brian. The Considerator Considered: Or, a Brief View of Certain Considerations Upon the Biblia Polyglotta, the Prolegomena and Appendix Thereof. London: Tho. Roycroft, 1659. Wasserstein, Abraham and David Wasserstein. The Legend of the Septuagint: From Classical Antiquity to Today. Cambridge: CUP, 2006. Watt, John. ‘Syriac Philosophy.’ Pages 422–37 in The Syriac World. Edited by Daniel King. London: Routledge, 2019. Weitzman, Michael. ‘The Reliability of Retroversions of the Three from the Syrohexapla: A Pilot Study in Hosea’ Pages 317–59 in Origen’s Hexapla and Fragments. Edited by Alison Salvesen. Tübingen : J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1998. Weitzman, Michael. The Syriac Version of the Old Testament: An Introduction. University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Yale Bible 5. New York: Doubleday, 1991. Wevers, John W. ‘A Study in Vatapediou 600 in Numbers.’ Pages 706–20 in Mélanges Dominique Barthelemy: Études Bibliques Offertes à L’Occasion de son 60e Anniversaire. Edited by Pierre Casetti, Othmar Keel and Adrian Schenker. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 38. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag Freiburg, 1981. Wevers, John W. ‘The Rendering of the Tetragram in the Psalter and Pentateuch: A Comparative Study.’ Pages 21–35 in The Old Greek Psalter: Studies in honour of Albert Pietersma. Edited by R. Hiebert, C. Cox, and P. Gentry. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 332. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Whealey, Alice. ‘Quaestiones ad Marinum: Eusebius or Acacius of Caesarea?’ Revue Bénédictine 123/2 (2013): 193–213. Whiston, William. An Essay towards Restoring the True Text of the Old Testament, and for vindicating the citations thence made in the New Testament. London: Senex, 1722. White, Joseph, A letter to the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of London, Suggesting a Plan for a New Edition of the LXX. …, Oxford: Clarendon-Press, 1779. Wiener, Harold. M. ‘Samaritan, Septuagint, Massoretic Text.’ The Expositor 8/2 (1911): 200–19. Williams, Megan .H. The Monk and the Book: Jerome and the Making of Christian Scholarship. Chicago (Ill.): The University of Chicago Press, 2006. Wilson, Thomas. ‘The Swastika. The Earliest Known Symbol and Its Migrations.’ Pages 757– 1011 in Annual Report of … the … Smithsonian Institution for the Year Ending June 30, 1894. Vol. 30. Washington, DC, 1896. Witakowski, Witold. ‘The Chronicle Of Jacob Of Edessa.’ Pages 25–47 in Jacob of Edessa and the Syriac Culture of His Day. Edited by Bas Ter Haar Romeny. Monographs of the Peshitta Institute 18. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Yardney, Sarah. ‘The Use of Glossaries by the Translators of the Septuagint.’ Textus 28 (2019): 157–77. Young, Kyle. ‘Aquila’sSecundo Editio: Evaluating the Appropriation and Evolution of a Concept,’ forthcoming.

740 | Bibliography

Zuntz, Günther. The Ancestry of the Harklean New Testament. London: Humphrey Milford, 1945. Zahn, Molly. ‘The problem of characterizing the 4QReworked Pentateuch manuscripts: Bible, rewritten Bible, or none of the above?’ Dead Sea Discoveries 15/3 (2008): 315–39. Zahn, Molly. Rethinking Rewritten Scripture: Composition and Exegesis in the 4QReworked Pentateuch Manuscripts. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 95. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2011. Zahn, Molly. ‘The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Scribal Culture of Second Temple Judaism.’ Journal for the Study of Judaism 46 (2015): 285–313. Zahn, Molly. Genres of Rewriting in Second Temple Judaism. Scribal Composition and Transmission. Cambridge: CUP, 2020. Zissu, Boaz and Omri Abadi. ‘Paleo-Hebrew Script in Jerusalem and Judea from the Second Century B.C.E. through the Second Century C.E.: A Reconstruction.’ Journal for Semitics 23/2 (2014): 653–64. Zsengellér, József. ‘Origin or Originality of the Torah? The Historical and Text-critical Value of the Samaritan Pentateuch.’ Pages 189–202 in From Qumran to Aleppo: A Discussion with Emanuel Tov about the Textual History of Jewish Scriptures in honor of his 65th Birthday. Edited by A. Lange, M. Weigold, and J. Zsengellér. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 230. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck u. Ruprecht, 2009. Zsengellér, J. ‘The Samaritan Diaspora in Antiquity.’ Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 56 (2016): 157–75.

‫܀܀܀‬

‫ܘܐ‬

‫ ܐ‬.‫ܒ ܨ̈ܪܝ‬

‫ ܒ ܩ‬.‫ܒܐ ܗ ܐ‬

‫ܕ‬

‫ܒ‬

‫ܣ‬

‫܀܀܀ ܐ ܐ܆‬

Index of Biblical References * JRec is listed seperately Gen 1.7, 584 Gen 1.9, 635 Gen 1.14, 24, 584 Gen 3.17, 242 Gen 4.26, 400 Gen 4.8, 26, 38, 39, 40, 56, 71, 74, 91, 341, 360, 390, 509, 510, 513, 517, 577, 582, 584, 680 Gen 4.8, scholia, 514 Gen 5, 516, 520, 585, 590, 596, 610, 616, 617 Gen 5.25, 89 Gen 5.25–26, 71, 75, 510, 511, 514, 680 Gen 5.26, 39 Gen 5.26–27, 516, 517 Gen 10.19, 518 Gen 10.7, 595 Gen 11, 516, 520, 585, 590, 596, 610, 616 Gen 11.11–25, 518 Gen 12, 636 Gen 12.6, 456, 457 Gen 13.18, 456 Gen 14.13, 456 Gen 14.14, 26 Gen 15.18, 451 Gen 16.13, 81 Gen 18.1, 456 Gen 22, 636 Gen 22.13, 26 Gen 24.45+, 518 Gen 30.36‫א–ג‬, 518 Gen 37.4, 78 Gen 41.46, 353 Gen 42.1, 350 Gen 42.16‫א‬, 519 Gen 44.15, 71, 90 Gen 44.5, 38, 39, 71, 76 Gen 46.28, 71, 75 Gen 49, 623 Gen 49.14, 26, 54 Gen 49.15, 39, 54 Gen 49.23, 75 Gen 49.23–24, 54

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110760798-010

Gen 49.23–24, 54 Gen 49.24, 71 Gen 49.5–7, 650 Gen 50.19, 39, 71 Gen 50.5+, 519 Exod 3, 79 Exod 3.5, 80 Exod 3.6, 61 Exod 3.14, 413, 414 Exod 3.18, 80, 84 Exod 3.22, 76, 90, 648, 681 Exod 3.22+, 135, 137, 196, 236, 237, 238, 256, 257, 338, 502, 565, 572 Exod 4.22–23, 178 Exod 4.23, 140, 406, 557 Exod 5.3, 503 Exod 5.3mg, 156 Exod 6.8, 325 Exod 6.9‫א‬, 108, 109, 110, 111, 124, 133, 134, 135, 225, 273, 489, 522, 548 Exod 6.9‫א‬, attribution, 136 Exod 6.9‫א‬, attribution citation, 136 Exod 6.9‫א‬, later Syriac tradition, 136 PExod 7.10, 552 Exod 7.18‫א‬, 139, 143, 150, 151, 155, 162, 172, 183 Exod 7.18‫א–ג‬, 108, 133, 138, 139, 147, 160, 169, 175, 281 Exod 7.18‫א–ג‬, attribution, 142 Exod 7.18‫ב‬, 141 Exod 7.18‫ג‬, 141, 188 Exod 7.29(8.4)‫א‬, 133, 140, 142, 143, 150, 162, 321 Exod 7.29(8.4)‫א–ד‬, 133, 142, 143, 185, 367 Exod 7.29(8.4)‫ב‬, 176 Exod 7.29(8.4)‫ג‬, 220, 387, 446 Exod 7.29(8.4)‫ד‬, 219 Exod 7.29[8.4]‫ג‬, 164 Exod 7.29‫א‬, 53, 108, 150, 155 Exod 7.29‫א–ד‬, 161, 188 Exod 7.29‫ב‬, 144, 151 Exod 7.29‫ג‬, 144, 160, 322 Exod 7.29‫ד‬, 145, 552

742 | Index of Biblical References

Exod 8.1‫א‬, 147, 161 Exod 8.1‫א‬, attribution, 147 Exod 8.1(5)‫א‬, 111, 133, 146 Exod 8.5(9), 345 Exod 8.5(9)+, 133, 147, 148 Exod 8.5(9)+, attribution, 148 Exod 8.5(9)‫א‬, 291 Exod 8.6–7, 148, 225, 260 Exod 8.6–7(10–11), 108, 113, 229, 230, 231, 232, 257, 291, 576, 598, 621, 622, 644 Exod 8.14(10), 92 Exod 8.16(12), 90 Exod 8.17(21), 71, 75 Exod 8.19(23)‫א‬, 133, 140, 142, 148, 150, 155 Exod 8.19(23)‫א–ד‬, 133, 149, 150, 187, 260, 603 Exod 8.19(23)‫א–ד‬, attribution, 154 Exod 8.19(23)‫ב‬, 151, 347, 448, 658 Exod 8.19(23)‫ג‬, 111, 152, 185, 375 Exod 8.19(23)‫ד‬, 153 Exod 8.19‫ב‬, 311 Exod 8.19‫ג‬, 155 Exod 8.21(17), 54, 92 Exod 9.1–4, 260 Exod 9.4, 71, 153 SH Exod 9.4, scholion, 158 Exod 9.5‫א‬, 111, 134, 140, 150, 155 Exod 9.5‫א–ה‬, 111, 134, 154, 155, 171, 260 Exod 9.5‫ב‬, 151, 167 Exod 9.5‫ג‬, 155, 164, 168, 189, 222, 305, 387, 501, 502, 503 Exod 9.5‫ד‬, 153, 157, 159, 163, 387 Exod 9.5‫ה‬, 157, 160 SH Exod 9.14, Plague Scholion, 160, 163 Exod 9.17, LXX editions’ punctuation, 167 Exod 9.19‫א‬, 134, 140, 142, 150 Exod 9.19‫א–ז‬, 134, 160, 161, 162 Exod 9.19‫א–ז‬, attribution, 169 Exod 9.19‫ב‬, 160, 162 Exod 9.19‫ג‬, 156, 157, 164, 501, 502 Exod 9.19‫ד‬, 164, 220 Exod 9.19‫ה‬, 165 Exod 9.19‫ו‬, 167 Exod 9.19‫ז‬, 156, 168

Exod 10.(2)2‫א–ד‬, 134, 154, 169, 170, 171, 179 Exod 10.(2)2‫א–ד‬, attribution, 175 Exod 10.2, 171 Exod 10.2‫א‬, 140, 151, 171 Exod 10.2‫ב‬, 172, 176, 184 Exod 10.2‫ג‬, 156, 172 Exod 10.2‫ד‬, 174, 219 Exod 10.4‫ד‬, 555 Exod 10.7(a), 71, 91 Exod 10.7(b), 71 Exod 11, 557 Exod 11.3, 311 Exod 11.3–34–‫א‬4–‫א‬, 171, 177 Exod 11.3–34–‫א‬4–‫א‬, attribution, 185 Exod 11.3–34–‫א‬4–‫א‬, disordered in SH, 179 Exod 11.3a, 179, 557 Exod 11.3b, 180, 182, 355 Exod 11.3b–34–‫א‬4–3–‫א‬, comparative ET, 177 Exod 11.3b–34–‫א‬4–‫א‬a, 134, 175, 182, 262 Exod 11.3‫א‬, 153, 184 Exod 11.4‫א‬, 183, 398, 406 Exod 11.5, 262 Exod 12.36, 76 Exod 12.42, 84, 92 Exod 13.13, 71, 92 Exod 14.12, 136, 548 Exod 14.15, 91, 92 Exod 14.18, 255 Exod 14.20, 71 Exod 15, 623 Exod 16.31, 71, 90, 91, 92, 648 Exod 18.12, 255 Exod 18.24‫א‬, 188 Exod 18.24‫א–ג‬25–18.25—‫א–ג‬, 291 Exod 18.24‫א–ו‬, 134, 186, 187, 188, 191, 195 Exod 18.24‫א–ג‬25–18.25—‫א–ו‬, 195 Exod 18.24‫א–ג‬25–18.25—‫א–ו‬, attribution, 196 Exod 18.24‫ב‬, 554 Exod 18.24‫ד‬, 189 Exod 18.24‫ו‬, 157, 191 Exod 18.25, 188, 190, 193, 444 Exod 18.25–25‫א–ב‬, 188 Exod 18.25–25‫א–ג‬, 134, 136, 191, 192, 193, 292, 293, 328, 341, 376, 450

Index of Biblical References | 743

Exod 18.25‫א‬, 194 Exod 18.25‫א–ג‬, 90, 208, 214 Exod 18.25‫ב‬, 152, 157, 195, 222 Exod 18.25‫ג‬, 196, 219 Exod 19(23)‫א‬, 162 Exod 19(23)‫ב‬, 159 Exod 19(23)‫ג‬, 157 Exod 19.9–11, 37 Exod 20.(13)17‫א–ו‬, 179, 199 Exod 20.(13)17‫ג‬, 487 Exod 20.(15)19‫א–ד‬, 208, 210, 258 Exod 20.(15)19‫א–ד‬, attribution, 214 Exod 20.(17)21‫א–ט‬, 215, 217, 258 Exod 20.(17)21‫א–ט‬, attribution, 223 Exod 20.(17)21‫ד‬, 165 Exod 20.17(13)‫א‬, 202 Exod 20.17(13)‫א–ו‬, 22, 29, 33, 71, 201, 223, 421, 424, 455, 482, 623, 624, 626, 642 Exod 20.17(13)‫ב‬, 202 Exod 20.17(13)‫ג‬, 39, 202 Exod 20.17(13)‫ד‬, 205 Exod 20.17(13)‫ו‬, 206, 322, 637 Exod 20.17[13]‫א–ו‬, 2, 31 Exod 20.17‫א‬, 223 Exod 20.17‫א–ו‬, 31, 35, 58, 60, 96, 134, 214, 291, 367, 643 Exod 20.17‫ג‬, 153 Exod 20.17‫ד‬, 108 Exod 20.17‫ו‬, 374, 457 Exod 20.18, 211 Exod 20.19, 259 Exod 20.19(23)‫ג‬, 335 Exod 20.19‫א‬, 213 Exod 20.19‫א–ד‬, 29, 35, 62, 134, 212, 217, 291 Exod 20.19‫ב‬, 213 Exod 20.19‫ג‬, 214 Exod 20.19‫ד‬, 214 Exod 20.20, 37 Exod 20.21(17)‫א–ט‬, 29 Exod 20.21(17)‫ט‬, 370 Exod 20.21‫א‬, 217 Exod 20.21‫א–ט‬, 35, 62, 134, 214, 216, 291, 367 Exod 20.21‫ג‬, 223, 502 Exod 20.21‫ד‬, 108, 135, 196, 215, 305, 354

Exod 20.21‫ה‬, 220, 221 Exod 20.21‫ו‬, 221 Exod 20.21‫ז‬, 195, 221 Exod 20.21‫ח‬, 322 Exod 20.21‫ט‬, 223 Exod 20.24, 34, 35, 36, 638, 642, 643 Exod 20.24–26, 638, 639 Exod 20.24ff, 638 Exod 20.21‫ב‬, 218 Exod 20.21‫ג‬, 223, 502 Exod 20.21‫ד‬, 108, 135, 196, 215, 305, 354 Exod 21.28+, 257 Exod 21.30, 502 Exod 22.28(27), 606 Exod 22.4(5), 224, 226, 272, 577 Exod 23.19‫א‬, 56, 62, 104, 108, 153, 157, 182, 189, 227, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 242, 246, 257, 448, 501, 503, 521, 563, 565, 658 Exod 24.1, 256 Exod 24.4, 639 Exod 26.35‫א‬, 227 Exod 26.35‫א–י‬, 136, 224, 226, 229, 256 Exod 26.35‫א–י‬, attribution, 226 Exod 26.35‫ב‬, 218, 227 Exod 26.5, 56, 71 Exod 27.19‫א‬, 108, 181, 238, 247, 248, 249, 250, 253, 256, 257, 388, 522, 565, 567, 568 Exod 27.19‫א‬, reconstruction, 251 Exod 28.11, 71 Exod 28.4, 40, 56 Exod 28.9, 90, 91 Exod 29.20, 136, 225, 230, 233, 234, 376 Exod 29.20, SP “Omits” Notation, 108, 113, 125, 154, 228, 231, 233 SP Exod 29.28‫א‬, 228, 229 SH Exod 31.3, 671 Exod 32.10‫א‬, 109, 181, 236, 237, 251, 252, 253, 257, 392, 446, 521, 522, 563, 564, 565 Exod 32.18, 71 Exod 33.2, 109 Exod 34.26, 245 Exod 35–40, 563 Exod 36–39, 248 , 564 Exod 38.2 (37.2), 90

744 | Index of Biblical References

Exod 38.26 (38.8), 54 Exod 39.21‫א‬, 256 Lev 1.10, 94 Lev 1.15, 90 Lev 2.1, 94 Lev 3.5, 94 Lev 3.13, 94 Lev 3.16, 95 Lev 4.5, 76, 95 Lev 4.7, 95 Lev 4.17, 95 Lev 4.18, 95 Lev 4.27, 85, 95 Lev 4.28, 95 Lev 4.29, 95 Lev 4.34, 95 Lev 5.6, 95 Lev 5.8, 95 Lev 5.24 (6.5), 95 Lev 5.25 (6.6), 95 Lev 6.3(10), 77 Lev 6.26(27), 86 Lev 8.15, 56, 90 Lev 11.22, 76 Lev 14.3, 68 Lev 14.37, 77 Lev 15.3, 90 Lev 15.8, 54, 90 Lev 16.23, 77 Lev 16.26, 77 Lev 16.32, 76 Lev 16.4, 77 Lev 17.4, 94, 582 Lev 17.4+, 125 Lev 19.18, 77 Lev 25.25, 90 Lev 25.5, 39, 71 Lev 26.13, 77 Lev 26.16, 77 Lev 26.19, 77 Lev 26.24, 71, 90 Lev 26.31, 34 Lev 26.41, 90 Lev 26.43, 90 Lev 26.9, 77 Lev 27.23, 90

Num 1.24 (scholion), 118 Num 2.33, 569 Num 3.51, 569 Num 4.14, 582 Num 4.14‫א‬, 94, 125, 271 Num 4.25, 54 Num 6, 78 Num 6.22, 66, 78 Num 6.22–27, 301 Num 6.23, 66 Num 6.25(26), 66 Num 6.26(27), 66 Num 6.27(24), 66, 78 Num 7.86, 569 Num 10.10, 283 Num 10.10‫א‬, 305, 321 Num 10.10‫א–ג‬, 90, 115, 198, 226, 277, 290, 291, 293, 304, 320, 321, 327, 341, 343, 355, 358, 362, 371, 376, 383, 492, 521, 563, 564 Num 10.10‫א–ג‬, attribution and crossreference, 326 Num 10.10‫ב‬, 190, 207, 303, 322, 347, 436, 444 Num 10.10‫ג‬, 324, 348, 349, 354 Num 13.1‫א‬, 346, 379 Num 13.1‫א–ד‬, 198, 278, 282, 291, 293, 304, 313, 341, 343, 344, 345, 346, 360, 361, 367, 370, 371, 374, 376, 377, 383, 385, 394, 547 Num 13.1‫( א–ד‬scholion), 50, 53, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 70, 97, 575, 605 Num 13.1‫ב‬, 347, 349, 351, 368, 382, 391 Num 13.1‫ג‬, 152, 289, 348, 351, 355, 380, 387 Num 13.1‫ד‬, 152, 157, 183, 354, 387 Num 13.32, 352 Num 13.33, 91 Num 13.33(34), 286 Num 13.33‫א‬, 283, 315 Num 13.33‫א–ו‬, 95, 97, 100, 129, 136, 196, 198, 210, 226, 264, 278, 279, 281, 282, 293, 294, 296, 299, 304, 305, 307, 311, 317, 320, 326, 343, 356, 358, 360, 363, 382 Num 13.33‫ב‬, 284, 311

Index of Biblical References | 745

Num 13.33‫ג‬, 347 Num 13.33‫ד‬, 130, 183, 286, 382 Num 13.33‫ה‬, 192, 287 Num 13.33‫ו‬, 289 Num 14.40‫א‬, 264, 278, 291, 294, 299, 304, 314, 319, 362, 367 Num 14.45, 598 Num 14.45‫א‬, 50, 62, 95, 264, 278, 346, 359, 360, 361, 362, 366, 385, 598 Num 14.45‫א‬, attributions and crossreferences, 363 Num 14.45‫א‬, 343, 363 Num 14.45‫א‬b, 271, 361 Num 14.7, 352 Num 16.5, 401 Num 20.13‫א‬, 144, 278, 283, 295, 296, 297, 299, 304, 314, 319, 322, 367, 398 Num 20.13‫א–ה‬, cross-reference, 307 Num 20.13‫א–ט‬, 54, 278, 283, 296, 297, 299, 304, 314, 371 Num 20.13‫ב‬, 303, 323 Num 20.13‫ג‬, 206, 252, 295, 302, 304, 314, 319, 322, 347 Num 20.13‫ד‬, 183, 305 Num 20.13‫ה‬, 306 Num 20.13‫ו‬, 305, 307 Num 20.13‫ז‬, 308 Num 20.13‫ח‬, 309, 311, 368, 370 Num 20.14, 434 Num 20–21, 33 Num 21.(22+)22‫א–ב‬, 96, 278, 291, 293, 329, 340, 377 Num 21.11 ‫א‬, 341, 343, 383 Num 21.11‫א‬, 21, 50, 62, 154, 188, 223, 265, 266, 278, 293, 302, 304, 305, 342, 349, 359, 363, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 371, 372, 373, 374, 376, 377, 379, 559 Num 21.11‫א‬, attributions, 370 Num 21.11‫א‬, MS 343, 366 Num 21.12, 569 Num 21.12‫א–ב‬, 304 Num 21.12‫א–ג‬, 154, 314, 332, 341, 342, 359, 363, 367, 371, 377, 383 Num 21.1213–‫א–ג‬a, 50, 62, 180, 278, 314, 332, 343

Num 21.1213–‫א–ג‬a, 50, 62, 180, 278, 314, 332, 343 Num 21.12‫ב‬, 335, 369, 561 Num 21.12‫ג‬, 368, 370 Num 21.12‫ג‬, s-group, 374 Num 21.13a, 171, 375, 377 Num 21.18, 352 Num 21.20‫א‬, 314, 319, 322, 347, 368 Num 21.20‫א–ב‬, 278, 291, 293, 304, 312, 313, 320, 333, 336, 338, 343, 362, 377, 388, 548 Num 21.20‫ב‬, 315, 375 Num 21.21+, 22171 ,‫א–ב‬ Num 21.22, 566 Num 21.22+, 329, 372, 435, 437, 560 Num 21.22+, 329, 372, 435, 437, 560 Num 21.22‫א‬, 311, 333, 338 Num 21.22‫א–ב‬, 50, 54, 109, 317, 329, 333, 336, 339, 342, 435, 452, 522, 566, 567 Num 21.22‫ב‬, 334, 369, 561 Num 21.22‫א–ב‬, 50, 54, 109, 317, 329, 333, 336, 339, 342, 435, 452, 522, 566, 567 Num 21.23‫א‬, 278, 291, 293, 304, 309, 317, 318 Num 21.23‫א‬, attribution and crossreference, 320 Num 21.24+, 109, 237, 256, 264, 266, 278, 317, 318, 337, 338, 522, 565 Num 21.24+, attribution, 338 Num 21.24+, JNum, 338 Num 21.24+, SH, 338 Num 21.24‫א‬, 291, 320 Num 21.3, 569 Num 22.18, 569 Num 22.22, 401 Num 22.24, 401 Num 23.1, 90, 390 Num 23.22, 391 Num 23.4, 391 Num 23.5, 391 Num 25.12, 569 Num 25.4, 390 Num 26.10, 391 Num 26.50, 569 Num 26.62, 569

746 | Index of Biblical References

Num 27.12–23, 264 Num 27.23 ‫ב‬, 349 Num 27.23‫א‬, 183, 348, 379 Num 27.23‫א–ב‬, 50, 62, 188, 264, 266, 278, 304, 317, 343, 359, 363, 364, 365, 371, 378 Num 27.23‫ב‬, 172, 184, 287, 380 Num 29.1, 71 Num 29.35, 54, 90 Num 31.16, 54, 71 Num 31.16, Samareitikon reading, 353 Num 31.18, 54 Num 31.20‫א‬, 344, 385, 522, 546, 567, 568, 573 Num 31.20‫א–ד‬, 50, 62, 188, 250, 264, 266, 278, 304, 317, 330, 342, 343, 346, 359, 361, 383, 384, 385, 437 Num 31.20‫א–ד‬, attributions, 388 Num 31.20‫א–ד‬, f-group, 385 Num 31.20‫ב‬, 386 Num 31.20‫ג‬, 157, 387 Num 31.20‫ד‬, 388 Num 31.22, 569 Num 31.29+, 522 Num 31.30, 569 Num 32.1+, 54, 91, 98, 522, 566, 567 Num 32.1+ & 29+ (33+), 339 Num 32.12, 90 Num 32.13, 390 Num 32.29, 31, and 33, 71, 567 Num 32.29+, 75, 98, 566, 567 Num 32.31, 71, 569 Num 32.31+, 75 Num 32.33, 71, 566 Num 32.33+, 93, 328 Num 32.33+, catena scholion, 340 Num 32.34, 369 Num 32.35, 55 Num 33.14, 569 Num 33.23, 69 Num 33.24, 69 SP Num 33.32–33, 444 P Num 33.32–33, 443 P Num 33.34–35, 444 Num 33.38, 62 Num 34.2, 569 SH Num SP attributions, 291

SH Num colophon, 125, 128 SH Deut 1.6–8 cross-reference, 97, 376, 394, 605 Deut 1.21, 350 SH Deut 1.22, 353 Deut 1.44, 598 Deut 2.5, 309, 368 Deut 2.7‫א‬, 433 Deut 2.7‫א–ג‬, 196, 326, 351, 422, 425, 426, 429, 431, 432, 433, 442, 521, 563 Deut 2.7‫ב‬, 156, 331, 435, 446 Deut 2.7‫ג‬, 437 Deut 2.8, 447 Deut 2.9, 309, 368, 369 Deut 2.10–11, 21, 285 Deut 2.11, catena scholion, 286 SP Deut 2.11a, omission, 285 Deut 2.13–14, 375 PDeut 2.17, 559 Deut 2.18, 369 Deut 2.19, 309, 368 Deut 2.24, 368 Deut 2.29, 369 Deut 2.36, 369 Deut 2–3, 33 Deut 3.13, 369 Deut 4.48, 369 Deut 5.21(17)‫א‬, 202 Deut 5.21‫א–ח‬, 2, 31, 35, 71, 72, 74, 341, 421, 422, 424, 425, 427, 429, 452, 455, 482, 593, 683 Deut 5.21‫ג‬, 202 Deut 5.21‫ד‬, 487 Deut 5.21‫ו‬, 205, 206, 207 Deut 5.21‫ח‬, 200, 207, 208, 322 Deut 5.22–23, 211 Deut 5.27, 259 GDeut 10.6–7, 445 Deut 10.6, 443 Deut 10.6–66–‫א‬7–7–‫א‬, 62, 96, 145, 226, 233, 234, 326, 330, 383, 387, 425, 426, 429, 430, 431, 439, 440, 445, 452, 490, 500, 504, 521, 522, 524, 538, 563, 579 Deut 10.6‫א‬, 443, 445 Deut 10.7, 443, 446, 571

Index of Biblical References | 747

Deut 10.7‫א‬, 444, 447, 571 Deut 10.22, 55, 74, 90, 91 Deut 11.24, 453 Deut 11.29, 31 Deut 11.29a, 200 Deut 11.29–30, 489 (Barhebraeus) Deut 11.30, 31, 429, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 466, 471, 597, 637, 638, 642, 643 Deut 11.30+, 69, 179, 205, 208, 429, 454, 455 Deut 12.5, 31 Deut 14.20, 56 Deut 14.20(21)‫א‬, 239, 240, 242, 243, 244, 246 Deut. 14.21, 62 Deut 18.15, 61, 62, 258 Deut 18.15–16, 259 Deut 18.15–19, 597 Deut 18.18, 62, 502 Deut 18.18–22, 258 Deut 27, 35, 626, 639, 640, 643 Deut 27.2–6, 31 Deut 27.3, 639 Deut 27.4, 22, 31, 39, 54, 58, 71, 72, 73, 74, 91, 93, 96, 179, 197, 202, 205, 208, 262, 422, 425, 429, 431, 476, 482, 483, 484, 486, 487, 531, 571, 608 SP Deut 27.4, 204 Deut 27.8, 639 Deut 27.12, 23, 58, 73 Deut 27.26, 39, 54, 71, 74, 91, 93, 96, 425, 426, 431, 492, 517, 581, 583, 584, 600 Deut 31.8, 350 Deut 32.8, 56, 74, 91 Deut 34.(1b–)12–‫א‬, 233, 425, 429, 431, 442, 451, 452, 518 SH Deut colophon, 119, 427 SH Deut cross-references, 395 Josh 4.20ff, 639 Josh 8.30(9.2a), 486 Josh 15.10, 69 Josh 24.33a–b, 427 SH Josh colophon, 119, 427

Judg 1.16 (OL), 486 Judg 4.2, 398 Judg 21.3, 398 2 Sam 22, 27 2 Sam 24.13–14, 157 2 Kgs 4.35 (Lucianic reading), 542 2 Kgs 5.20ff, 667 SH 3 Kgdm 9.26, 445 SH 3 Kgdm 21(20).24–48, 506 SH 3 Kgdm 22.49, 445 SH 3 Kgdm colophon, 117 4 Kgdm 2.24 (SH), 242, 503, 577 4 Kgdm 21.4, 400 4 Kgdm 24.5 (SH), 418 4 Kgdm 8.15, 124 4 Kgdm 8.15 (SH), 418 SH 4 Kgdm, colophon, 274 1 Chron 1.9, 595 Ezra 1.1, 639 Job 14.14, 655 Job 42.17, 577 SH Job colophon, 428 Ps 1.1–2a, 403 Ps 8.1, 412 Ps 13(14).1, 594 Ps 17(18).32, 403, 411 Ps 17(18).42, 403 Ps 18, 27 Ps 26(27).11, 400 Ps 27(28).1, 400 Ps 27(28).6, 411 Ps 27(28).7, 411 Ps 27(28).8, 405 Ps 27(28).8, 405 Ps 28(29).1, 403 Ps 28(29).3, 411 Ps 29(30).5, 403 Ps 29(30).9, 404 Ps 29(30).11, 411

748 | Index of Biblical References

Ps 29(30).13, 403 Ps 30(31).2, 403 Ps 30(31).22, 411 Ps 30(31).24, 403, 411 Ps 34(35).17, 404 Ps 34(35).17, 404 Ps 34(35).22, 404 Ps 34(35).23, 404 Ps 34(35).27, 411 Ps 35(36).6, 403 Ps 48(49).2, 502 Ps 49(48).9–10, 655 Ps 52(53).2, 594 Ps 71(72).18, 400 Ps 72(71).10, 595 Ps 78.65, 410 Ps 82(83).8, 335 Ps 86.5, 272 Ps 88(89).50, 404, 409 Ps 88(89).51, 502 Ps 109(110).1, 398, 414, 416 Ps 111(112).1, 403 Ps 111.1a, 403 Ps 119(118).112, 655 Ps 139(138).18, 655 Ps 139.18, 655 Prov 22.28, 584 Prov 26.15, 141 SH Prov scholia at 2.9, 3.5, 10, 5.14, 6.22, 9.12, 26.8, 497 SH Prov colophon, 122 Qoh 3.14, 655 Isa 2.21, 272 Isa 6.13, 272 Isa 9.8(7), 410 Isa 9.17(16), 410 Isa 21.8, 401, 408, 410 Isa 26.8, 401 Isa 26.14, 655 Isa 26.19, 655 Isa 43.3, 595 Isa 52.5, 400 Isa 59.13, 400 Isa 60.1, 400

SH Isa colophon, 274 Jer 2.22, 415 Ezek 2.4, 400 Ezek 9, 585 Ezek 12.23, 401 Ezek 18.23, 415 SH Ezek 20.6, 82 Ezek 22.19, 415 Ezek 24.2, 130 Dan 2, 642 Dan 2.5, 87 Dan 7, 642 Dan 9.2, 399, 415 SH Dan colophon, 116, 120, 672, 677 Hos 1.1–2, 399 Hos 6.2, 655 Amos 6.1, 586 Mal 2.13, 400 2 Macc 5.23, 69 2 Macc 6.2, 69 PBel 22, 552 Matt 5.18, 627 Matt 10.5, 597 Matt 22.37–40, 627 Matt 25.11, 300 Matt 27.5, 667 Mark 7.18 (Hark), 674 Luke 9.35, 258 John 4, 455, 459, 461, 462, 467, 468, 469, 601, 602 John 4.20–24, 628 John 7, 258 John 8.47, 258 John 12.47–50, 258

Index of Biblical References | 749

Acts 3.22–23, 26, 258 Acts 3.23, 220 Acts 7.5 (Hark), 309 Acts 7.32, 61 Acts 7.37, 61, 63 Acts 7.37–38, 258 Acts 7.5, 309 Acts 8.25, 660 Acts 13.18, 288 Acts 23.5, 607 Rom 3.2, 586 1 Cor 6.10, 607 Gal 3.10, 96, 425, 494 Heb 9.4 (Hark), 225 Heb 11.37, 584 Rev 16.16 (Hark), 203 JRec JGen, 423, 456, 457, 517, 518, 519, 525, 526, 531, 534, 542, 543 JGen 12.6, 457 JExod, μόνον-attributions, 547 JExodmg, 184 JExod 4(‫א‬3/), 557 JExod 6.9‫א‬, 532, 533, 546 JExod 6.9‫ א‬attrib. 1°, 434 JExod 7.18‫א‬, 434 JExod 7.18‫א–ג‬, 532, 546 JExod 7.18‫ב‬, 419, 529, 530 JExod 7.26–29, 551 JExod 7.28, 551 JExod 7.29(8.4)‫א–ד‬, 528, 532, 534, 546, 549, 550, 551 JExod 7.29‫ד‬, 551 JExod 8.1(5)‫א‬, 261, 532, 546 JExod 8.5(9)‫א‬, 261, 546, 547 JExod 8.19(23)‫א–ד‬, 261, 532, 546 JExod 9.5‫א–ה‬, 261, 532, 546 JExod 9.19‫א–ז‬, 261, 532, 546 JExod 10.(2)2‫א–ד‬, 262, 431, 532, 546 JExod 10.(2)3, 554

JExod 10.(2)3–6, 549, 552, 554, 557 JExod 10.5, 173, 554 JExod 11.3–34–‫א‬4–‫א‬, 262, 546 JExod 11.3–7, 549, 555, 557, 694 JExod 11.3b, 557 JExod 11.4, 529 JExod 15, 433 JExod 18, 559 JExod 18.24‫א–ו‬, 532, 546 JExod 18.25–25‫א–ג‬, 532, 546 JExod 18.25‫א‬, 434 JExod 18.25‫ג‬, 188 JExod 20, 533, 549 JExod 20.17‫א–ו‬, 431, 546 JExod 20.17‫ג‬, 545 JExod 20.17‫ו‬, 200, 457, 462 JExod 20.19–19‫א–ד‬, 210 JExod 20.19‫א–ד‬, 546 JExod 20.19‫ג‬, 529, 530 JExod 20.21‫א‬, 434 JExod 20.21‫א–ט‬, 546 JExod 20.21‫ד‬, 215 JNum 10.10‫א‬, 434 JNum 10.10‫א–ג‬, 423, 441, 528, 546 JNum 13.1‫א‬, 347 JNum 13.1‫א–ד‬, 423, 528, 546 JNum 13.1‫א–ד‬, attribution, 355 JNum 13.1‫ב‬, 529, 530 JNum 13.1‫ג‬, 352 JNum 13.33‫א–ו‬, 423, 528, 546 JNum 13.33‫ב‬, 434 JNum 13.33‫ד‬, 529, 530 JNum 14.23b, 433 JNum 14.40‫א‬, 546 JNum 14.45‫א‬, 546 JNum 20.13‫א‬, 529 JNum 20.13‫א–ט‬, 423, 528, 546, 548 JNum 20.13‫ו‬, 434, 529, 557 JNum 20.13‫ח‬, 559 JNum 20.14, 434 JNum 20.17–18, 438 JNum 21.11‫א‬, 546, 559 JNum 21.12‫א‬, 434 JNum 21.12‫א–ג‬, 373 JNum 21.1213–‫א–ג‬a, 546 JNum 21.12‫ב‬, 561

750 | Index of Biblical References

JNum 21.12‫ג‬, 559 JNum 21.20‫א‬, 559 JNum 21.20‫א–ב‬, 317, 366, 546, 548, 549, 558, 559, 561, 695 JNum 21.20‫ב‬, 559 JNum 21.21+, 22317 ,‫א–ב‬ JNum 21.22+, 436, 560 JNum 21.22‫ב‬, 561 JNum 21.23‫א‬, 546 JNum 21.24+, 546 JNum 21.26, 561 JNum 21.27–31, 433 JNum 21.28, 561 JNum 27.23‫א–ב‬, 546 JNum 31.20‫א‬, 557 JNum 31.20‫א–ד‬, 546 JNum 31.20‫ג‬, 529 JNum 33.32–33, 443 JNum 33.35–36, 445 JNum colophon, 542 JNum μόνον-attributions, 547 JNummg, 286 JDeut 1.7, 304 JDeut 2.7‫א‬, 434 JDeut 2.7‫ב‬, 332 JDeut 2.7‫א–ג‬, 326, 430, 438

JDeut 2.8, 445 JDeut 3.25, 304 JDeut 5.21‫א–ח‬, 431 JDeut 10.6, 443 JDeut 10.6–66–‫א‬7–7–‫א‬, 326 JDeut 11.24, 304 JDeut 11.30 scholion, 455 JDeut 11.30mg, 521 JDeut 27, 626 JDeut 27.4, 423, 431, 442, 528, 544, 545, 549 JDeut 27.4 (scholion), 204, 423, 455, 484, 531, 545 JDeut 27.26, 431 JDeutmg, 245 JEzekmg 20.6, 457 JJosh 8.30, 487, 545 JJosh 8.30–35, 544 JDan 1.21, 545 JBel-Drag 22–23, 552 JBel-Drag 23, 552

Index of Modern Authors Achelis, H., 458 Adabi, O. 104, 104 Adler, W., 126, 584, 597, 604 Aejmelaeus, A., 611, 645 Aitken, J., 657 Albright, W., 633 Aldrich, H., 264 Alger, J., 525 Albrecht, F., 39, 403 Anderson, R., 15, 16, 17, 18, 34 Antin, P. 514, 510 Arad, P., 481 Arbeitman,Y., 460, 456 Auvrey, P., 17 Avi-Yonah, M., 477, 478, 479, 480 Baars, W., 2, 5, 7, 52, 107, 109, 110, 136, 263, 264, 421, 424, 425, 670 Baillet, M., 34, 64, 99, 203, 247, 301, 324, 633 Ball, C., 405 Barag, D., 103, 104, 105, 632, 633 Bardy, G., 126 Barnes, T., 463, 647 Barrett, C., 258, 309, 392 Barthélemy, D., 119, 124, 239, 455, 513 Ben-Dov, J., 26, 31, 32, 33, 34 Ben-Ḥayyim, Z., 21, 34, 76, 81, 82, 86, 88, 92, 140, 141, 151, 152, 153, 169, 170, 172, 185, 203, 209, 211, 213, 219, 221, 223, 227, 239, 241, 243, 248, 281, 289, 301, 303, 308, 311, 315, 316, 318, 335, 345, 347, 350, 352, 369, 370, 375, 378, 381, 391, 444, 453, 467, 634, 638, 643, 649, 659 Ben-Zvi, I., 633 Berner, C., 30, 180, 211, 212, 217 Bernstein, M. 30, 30 Billen, A., 485 Blake, R., 465, 461, 472, 473, 474 Blowers, P., 600 Bogaert, M., 484 Böhm, M., 258, 462, 659 Bóid, I., 35, 88, 105, 212, 301, 302, 455, 601, 623, 638, 640, 644, 645, 646, 647, 648, 650, 658 Borrie, M., 110 Bossina, L., 90 Bouwman, G., 63 Bowman, J., 624, 631, 633 Braun, O., 273 Brent, A., 459

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110760798-011

752 | Index of Modern Authors

Brière, M., 413, 416 Brock, S.P., 6, 7, 13, 113, 122, 137, 415, 416 Brockelmann, C., 121, 144, 225 Brooke, A., 30, 58, 59, 102, 110, 111, 112, 167, 228, 235, 244, 535 Brooks, R., 600 Browning, R., 128 Bruneau, P., 203 Bruns, J., 258 Buck, E., 265 Bugati, C.,529, 525 Bull, G., 15 Bülow-Jacobsen, A., 84 Bundy, D., 12 Burgess, R., 590 Burkhardt, E., 629, 630 Burkitt, F., 402 Burn, J., 51 Burnett, S., 18, 21, 22 Burris, K., 266, 281, 282, 283, 291, 292, 320, 323, 324, 325, 326, 343, 344, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 363, 399 Butts, A., 13, 415, 416 Buxtorf, J., 18, 19 Carbajosa, I., 421 Carriker, A., 270, 271, 463, 467, 587, 588, 589, 592, 598, 615, 647 Castell, E., 16, 39, 41, 42, 53, 55, 59, 85, 87 Ceriani, A.M., 3, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 70, 88, 107, 108, 109, 110, 119, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125, 129, 130, 132, 135, 136, 139, 141, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 151, 152, 155, 156, 158, 159, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 171, 172, 173, 174, 178, 181, 183, 185, 188, 189, 190, 191, 193, 194, 196, 202, 205, 206, 207, 208, 210, 214, 215, 218, 221, 222, 224, 225, 226, 228, 229, 230, 232, 233, 234, 235, 256, 261, 263, 264, 265, 270, 272, 280, 282, 399, 400, 406, 408, 410, 412, 421, 423, 424, 430, 497, 525, 531, 532, 533, 534, 539, 550, 551, 576, 598, 625, 665 Ceulemans, R., 12, 13, 132, 401, 514, 515, 516, 578, 583, 612, 678 Chabot, J., 304 Chambers, T., 630, 626 Charlesworth, J., 24, 643 Chia, P., 512 Childs, B.S., 224 Clarke, E., 285 Clauser, C., 327, 483, 492, 493 Clements, R., 10, 577, 578 Clines, D., 316 Coakley, J., 165, 166, 526 Cockerell, D., 325 Coogan, J., 114, 268, 491, 492, 588, 598, 609, 610, 626 Cowley, A., 301

Index of Modern Authors | 753

Cranfield, C., 165 Cross, F.M., 28, 104 Crown, A., 19, 96, 618, 619, 621, 622, 643, 644, 645, 646 Crowther, C., 203 Dalglish, E., 51 Dar, S., 660 Daryaee, T., 5 Dayfani, H., 35, 36, 37, 103, 104, 200, 216, 483, 623, 638, 643 de Halleux, A., 276 de Lagarde, P.A., 107, 110, 111, 113, 124, 136, 186, 228, 232, 235, 264, 265, 266, 282, 296, 299, 312, 336, 373, 376, 398, 418, 424, 427, 516, 665, 666, 667 de Montfaucon, Bernard, 38, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 74, 88, 93, 97, 186, 265, 294, 343, 357, 358, 362, 378, 388, 483, 510, 514, 516, 566, 680 De Lange, 401, 515, 516, 583, 586, 600, 601 de Sacy, A. S., 423, 424, 484 de Vis, 461, 472, 473, 474 de Robert, P., 4, 15 De Rossi, G., 596 De Troyer, K., 346, 389, 523 Dean, J., 653 Debié, M., 526 Devreesse, R., 9, 63, 64, 71, 113, 357, 418, 493, 495, 514, 522, 590, 591, 610 Dewing, H., 461 Dexinger, F., 34, 96, 99, 631, 632, 633, 636, 638, 642, 644 Di Segni, L., 477, 660 Dickey, E., 499, 611 Dines, J., 7, 7, 8, 575 Dogniez, C., 194, 219, 220, 222, 258, 288, 289, 300, 305, 308, 310, 316, 323, 354 Donner, H., 479, 480, 481 Dorival, G., 364, 385, 386 Downey, G., 587 Drenas, A., 113 Driver, S.R., 285 Drusius, J., 680 Dunkle, B., 626 Dupin (Du-Pin), L., 40, 41, 44 Dušek, J., 642

Eichhorn, J. 51, 51 Eisenstein, J., 84 Elliott, C., 580 Enelow, H., 527 Eshel E., and Eshel, H., 30, 31, 642

754 | Index of Modern Authors

Fernández Marcos, N., 5, 7, 8, 9, 14, 61, 63, 82, 90, 125, 136, 344, 357, 358, 405, 450, 486, 493, 501, 513, 534, 575, 578, 580, 602, 652, 653 Ferrar, W., 603 Field, F., 7, 9, 12, 13, 37, 38, 39, 42, 48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 62, 63, 67, 70, 82, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 94, 100, 102, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 113, 115, 121, 124, 125, 130, 134, 135, 136, 138, 141, 142, 146, 147, 149, 152, 154, 156, 158, 159, 160, 161, 163, 165, 167, 169, 170, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 178, 186, 187, 190, 191, 192, 199, 200, 202, 207, 209, 214, 215, 220, 225, 226, 227, 228, 232, 240, 244, 252, 263, 264, 265, 266, 272, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 290, 291, 294, 296, 297, 299, 302, 306, 308, 309, 310, 312, 314, 315, 318, 319, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 328, 333, 334, 335, 336, 338, 339, 341, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 357, 359, 361, 365, 368, 370, 373, 376, 377, 378, 384, 385, 388, 391, 398, 400, 418, 422, 423, 424, 425, 428, 452, 484, 495, 501, 505, 506, 510, 512, 513, 514, 516, 566, 575, 595, 607, 648, 652, 653, 655, 680, 681 Fincati, M., 90, 191, 286, 306, 309, 310, 391 Firmin, G., 15, 41, 528 Fitzmyer, J., 217, 639 Florentin, M., 2, 86, 140, 352, 616 Flusin, B., 13, 273 Forbes, P. 128, 128 Forrest, R., 1, 1 Fossum, J., 301, 302, 618, 619 Fraenkel, D., 58, 67, 68, 69, 76, 79, 159, 244, 390, 402, 405, 563 François, W., 1 Freeman-Grenville, G., 464 Fremantle, W., 513 Gallagher, E., 11, 34, 35, 118, 255, 398, 402, 405, 407, 408, 483, 484, 496, 507, 580, 583, 612, 623, 638, 642 Gallandi, A., 495 Gamble, H., 588, 589 Gaster, M., 113, 634, 659 Geiger, A., 75, 79, 89, 241, 243, 513, 602 Gentry, P., 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 67, 74, 111, 113, 127, 128, 266, 577, 578, 609, 611, 674 Gesenius, W., 16, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 88, 226, 613 Gibert, P., 17, 18 Giles, T., 15, 17, 18, 34 Glaue, P., 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 64, 65, 69, 71, 73, 91, 94, 357 Glorie, F., 585 Gold, V., 477, 478, 479 Gordon, N., 401, 402, 404, 408, 409, 415 Goshen-Gottstein, M., 24 Graf, G., 263 Grafton, A., 8, 128, 575, 578 Graham, W., 262, 489 Grant, R., 627 Graves, M., 580, 611, 612 Greenslade, S., 469, 470

Index of Modern Authors | 755

Gressmann, H., 468, 469 Griffin, S., 85 Gross, S., 415, 416 Gwynn, J., 5, 6, 7 Gzella, H., 656 Hainthaler, T., 1 Hall, B., 645, 659 Hamilton, A., 15, 16, 40, 43 Hanhart, R., 679 Hanson, P., 515 Harl, M., 194, 219, 220, 222, 258, 288, 289, 300, 305, 308, 310, 316, 323, 354 Harlé, P., 206 Harviainen, T., 4 Hayward, R., 510, 511, 512, 513 Headlam, C., 165 Heidenheim, M., 241 Hendel, R., 29, 30, 104, 143, 486, 511, 513, 514, 518 Hepner, G., 34 Hick, R., 127 Hiebert, R., 5, 6, 10, 11, 12 Hjelm, I., 3, 34, 260 Hjelt, A., 443 Hody, H., 566 Hogue, T., 639 Hollerich, M., 408, 580, 594, 595, 596, 599, 603, 604, 605, 610 Holmes, R., 566 Hooker, M., 403, 585 Horne, T., 41 Houbigant, C., 25 Houtman, C., 224 Hritzu, J., 589 Isser, S., 618, 619, 620, 621 James, M., 358 Jastram, N., 30, 37, 281, 294, 297, 312, 318, 329, 339, 344, 361, 367, 378, 379, 384, 385 Jellicoe, S., 7, 9, 357, 402, 405 Jenkins, R., 8, 9, 10, 13, 113, 116, 119, 120, 121, 122, 577 Johnson, A., 595 Joosten, J., 47, 49, 66, 67, 69, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 83, 84, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 96, 341, 390, 510, 513, 647, 648, 653 Josling, W.J., 627 Juckel, A., 5, 6, 268, 549 Kahle, P., 51, 60, 61, 62, 63, 70, 72, 82, 88, 98, 100, 113, 236, 240, 246, 263, 357, 394, 605 Kamesar, A., 515, 584

756 | Index of Modern Authors

Kamin, S., 257 Kantor, B., 238, 405, 496, 499, 502, 577, 578, 580, 594, 596, 611 Kappler, W., 70 Karst, J., 597, 604 Kartveit, M., 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 103, 203, 461, 466, 480, 483, 486, 624, 631, 632, 633, 642, 643, 646 Kauhanen, T., 399 Keener, C., 258 Kelly, J., 510 Kennicott, B., 148, 172, 222, 228, 235, 316, 404, 410, 411, 527 Kim, K., 27, 34, 94, 141, 144, 147, 173, 178, 224, 226, 255, 285, 309, 337, 365, 368, 391, 444, 453, 455, 511, 513, 518, 582 King, N., 194 Kippenberg, H., 462, 655 Kiraz, G., 1 Klostermann, E., 466, 469 Knoppers, G., 2, 25, 27, 29, 31, 34, 35, 99, 105, 202, 455, 480, 483, 490, 623, 633, 638, 642 Kohn, S., 152, 240, 241, 243, 244, 245, 353, 357, 512, 513 Koster, M., 23, 625 Kraemer,C., 627 Kraft, R., 67 Kreuzer, S., 9, 602 Ladvocat, J.B., 423, 424, 525, 526, 527, 528, 531, 532 Lake, K, 126, 392 Lambe, P., 19, 20 Langlois, M., 29, 104, 105, 203 Law, T.M., 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 23, 38, 48, 51, 52, 108, 257, 506, 583, 596, 597 Lawlor, H., 126, 590 Le Boulluec, A., 152, 153, 195, 227, 437 Leal, B., 480 Lee, S., 467, 468, 598 Lemmelijn, B., 139 Leroux, E., 525 Levine, L., 589, 660 Levine, B., 589, 660 Lieber, L., 87 Lightfoot, J., 459, 647 Liljeström, M., 5, 7, 9 Lim, T., 455, 643 Longacre, D., 37 Loop, J., 16, 17, 18, 19, 40 Loopstra, J., 521, 530 Lossen, M., 2 Lowy, S., 301, 302 M’Clintock, J.38, 527, 528

Index of Modern Authors | 757

MacDonald, J., 152 Macuch, R., 352 Magen, Y., 99, 103, 104, 469, 632, 633, 634, 641, 650, 661, 662, 663 Mai, A., 497 Mandelbrote, S., 16, 17, 40, 43, 45 Marcus, J., 609 Margain, J., 25, 60 Margoliouth, G., 629, 630 Marsh, B., 9, 79, 80, 81, 82, 88, 89, 285, 374, 391, 401, 402, 415, 430, 457, 489, 525, 530, 531, 532, 539, 541, 544, 545, 681 Marsh, H., 1 Martyn, J., 258 Masius, A., 199, 205, 206, 207, 234, 341, 421, 422, 424, 427, 428, 441, 442, 451, 452, 453, 626 Mattingly, G., 285 McCarthy, C., 4, 22, 28, 35, 62, 99, 194, 202, 204, 207, 208, 218, 222, 223, 239, 281, 284, 285, 287, 289, 302, 305, 308, 309, 311, 315, 316, 319, 330, 347, 352, 354, 365, 381, 382, 440, 451, 453, 455, 456, 467, 471, 483, 486, 488, 639 McCarthy, D., 4, 22, 28, 35, 62, 99, 194, 202, 204, 207, 208, 218, 222, 223, 239, 281, 284, 285, 287, 289, 302, 305, 308, 309, 311, 315, 316, 319, 330, 347, 352, 354, 365, 381, 382, 440, 451, 453, 455, 456, 467, 471, 483, 486, 488, 639 McClurg, A., 266, 297, 299, 302, 313, 314, 318, 334, 335, 336, 338, 341, 349, 365, 367, 370, 371, 376, 377, 383, 384, 385, 391, 399, 434 McGiffert, A., 593 McKane, W. 19, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24 McLean, N., 58, 59, 102, 110, 111, 112, 167, 228, 235, 246, 484, 535 Meade, J., 9, 11, 113, 398, 399, 507 Meeks, W., 113, 258 Mercati, G., 9, 11, 64, 71, 113, 114, 115, 120, 121, 122, 123, 129, 132, 274, 275, 402, 403, 404, 497, 674, 675, 679 Metzger, B.M., 62, 166, 288, 399, 401, 405, 406, 407, 591, 609 Metzler, K., 90, 483, 514 Michaelis, J.D., 1 Middeldorpf, H., 424 Migne, J. 498, 494 Miller, P., 16, 17, 18, 40, 43, 44 Miller, M., 16, 17, 18, 40, 43, 44 Milne, H., 325 Monferrer-Sala, J., 263, 264 Montgomery, J., 86, 89, 301, 399, 653 Morin, J., 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 38, 39, 41, 43 Morin, P., 38, 39 Moss, Y., 534 Mosshammer, A., 597 Moutsoulas, E., 602, 651 Munnich, O., 389, 399 Muraoka, T., 141, 144, 165 Murphy, H., 590

758 | Index of Modern Authors

Nautin, P., 577, 580, 606 Needham, P., 111 Neuschäfer, B., 74, 578 Newman, H., 105, 580, 611 Newsom, C., 642 Nobilius, F., 152 Noja, S., 647 Nöldeke, 7, 295 Norton, G., 8, 38, 42, 51, 52, 53, 91, 108, 279, 359, 402, 423, 424, 428, 499, 566, 577, 578 Nünlist, R., 126 Nutt, J., 25, 28 Olariu, D., 84 Oulton, J. Outhwaite, B., 617, 618 Parsons, J., 566 Paton, L., 680 Patrick, J., 660 Perkins, L., 7, 93, 115, 125, 135, 138, 145, 149, 153, 160, 161, 162, 170, 172, 176, 186, 187, 192, 200, 207, 208, 209, 213, 215, 225, 268, 271, 279, 280, 281, 283, 287, 296, 297, 303, 304, 305, 306, 312, 314, 323, 324, 332, 334, 349, 354, 362, 363, 368, 379, 380, 386, 387, 388, 425, 426, 435, 436, 437, 446, 556, 671 Perrone, L., 127 Petermann, J., 68 Peters, M.K., 194, 284 Petit, F., 510, 512, 514, 515 Petitmengin, P., 13, 273 Philips, G., 166 Pietersma, A., 67 Pococke, E., 264, 428 Porter, S., 268 Pralon, D., 206 Propp, W., 224 Pummer, R., 4, 15, 16, 17, 31, 34, 53, 55, 57, 58, 60, 63, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 79, 83, 85, 88, 90, 91, 92, 94, 99, 103, 104, 105, 112, 159, 198, 203, 205, 235, 258, 263, 269, 271, 301, 309, 324, 341, 346, 353, 357, 360, 368, 369, 383, 390, 455, 458, 459, 460, 461, 462, 463, 464, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, 472, 473, 474, 476, 477, 479, 481, 483, 492, 510, 512, 513, 585, 586, 596, 597, 600, 601, 602, 604, 618, 621, 624, 629, 633, 634, 635, 636, 638, 641, 643, 645, 648, 649, 650, 651, 652, 653, 654, 655, 658, 659, 660, 661, 662, 663 Purvis, J., 35, 103, 633, 642 Quast, U., 67 Quasten, J., 129 Quell, G., 252

Index of Modern Authors | 759

Rahlfs, A. , 111, 167, 222, 244, 272, 346, 357, 389, 400, 402, 403, 405, 415, 421, 424, 425, 494, 522, 563, 564, 566, 569 Rankin, O., 627 Resnick, I., 617, 618 Richard, E., 63 Robert, U., 482, 484, 486 Roberts, C., 618 Rogerson, J., 19 Rösel, M., 401, 405, 407 Roth, R., 335 Rothschild, J.-P., 4, 17, 19, 21 Rowley, H., 642 Saley, R., 430, 529, 530, 534, 535, 536, 537, 538, 539, 540, 541 Salvesen, A., 9, 112, 137, 266, 272, 274, 374, 413, 414, 415, 430, 443, 457, 459, 513, 523, 530, 536, 537, 538, 539, 540, 541, 543, 602, 627, 651, 652, 653, 654, 656 Sanday, W., 165 Sanderson, J., 138, 139, 141, 143, 146, 147, 170, 187, 188, 229, 239, 247, 248, 257, 258, 259 Sandevoir, P., 152, 153, 195, 227, 240, 437 Sant, C., 575, 580, 603, 604, 605 Sassoon, J., 381 Scarlata, M., 513 Schaper, J., 8, 128, 501, 577, 578 Schatkin, M., 495 Scheck, T., 586 Schenker, A., 24, 31, 64, 72, 73, 77, 83, 202, 204, 455, 471, 483, 486 Schironi, F., 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 126, 128, 492, 678 Schmidt, M., 128 Schorch, S., 2, 15, 24, 25, 28, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 61, 75, 82, 83, 86, 88, 92, 99, 200, 203, 235, 301, 331, 352, 455, 481, 483, 622, 623, 628, 629, 630, 635, 636, 637, 638, 640, 641, 642, 649, 650, 653, 658 Schöter, R., 422 Schur, N., 4, 15, 16 Scobie, C., 63 Segal, M., 30, 31, 33 Segal, J., 211 Shehadeh, H., 4, 61 Siamake, K., 588 Siegel, J., 411, 412 Simon, R., 641, 647, 652, 653 Sipilä, S., 119 Skeat, T., 12, 126, 325, 618 Skehan, P., 29, 30, 34, 36, 37, 170, 200, 401, 405, 407, 408, 455 Skinner, J., 456 Smyth, H., 115, 197 Soesilo, D., 85

760 | Index of Modern Authors

Sokoloff, M., 121, 144, 225 Spicq, C., 119 Sprengling, M., 262, 489 Stanton, G., 627 Stec, D., 404 Stenhouse, P., 15, 302, 619, 620, 621, 634, 635, 644, 645, 646, 650, 660 Stone, M., 203 Strange, J., 84 Strong, J., 503 Strugnell, J., 216 Stuart, M., 357, 358 Swete, H., 5, 7, 8, 9, 38, 40, 127, 132, 244, 357, 399, 522, 625, 665 Tal, A., 2, 15, 24, 25, 27, 68, 75, 76, 77, 81, 82, 83, 87, 88, 98, 141, 144, 151, 152, 153, 164, 167, 168, 172, 173, 222, 227, 241, 248, 278, 301, 316, 329, 331, 333, 344, 350, 352, 357, 362, 366, 391, 456, 519, 613, 636, 637, 645, 650, 656 Talmon, S., 203, 451, 624, 631, 633 Talshir, D., 55 Tannous, J., 5, 519 Taylor, C., 51, 402, 405, 463, 464, 479, 653 Taylor, J., 51, 402, 405, 463, 464, 479, 653 Taylor, D., 544 Teeter, A., 69, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 246, 247 Tekoniemi, T., 486 ter Haar Romeny, 6, 13, 14, 90, 137, 291, 412, 511, 512, 523, 529, 534, 648 Thackeray, H., 323, 387 Tigay, J., 259, 323 Tischendorf, C., 497 Todd, H., 41 Tov, E., 3, 24, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 58, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 77, 78, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 99, 139, 144, 173, 203, 204, 227, 238, 246, 255, 300, 301, 330, 409, 483, 511, 518, 582, 596, 623, 638, 642, 643 Townley, J., 38 Trigg, J., 127 Tscheu, M., 56, 83, 168, 219 Tsedaka, B., 86, 140, 141, 147, 152, 153, 162, 164, 165, 167, 180, 185, 219, 247, 281, 285, 289, 301, 316, 319, 345, 391, 444, 629 Tuffin, P., 597, 604 Ulrich, E., 29, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 112, 170, 202, 204, 239, 288, 312, 451, 455, 482, 483, 486, 577 van den Eynde, C., 137, 407 van der Horst, P., 90 van der Meer, M., 9, 26, 32, 485, 651, 653, 654, 655 van Roey, A., 1, 2, 422 Van Rompay, L., 1, 5, 6, 107, 412, 416, 494, 544

Index of Modern Authors | 761

Vasileiadis, P., 401, 402, 404, 407, 408, 409, 415 Veltri, G., 9, 602 Venables, E., 587, 589 Vergani, E., 107, 109 Vollandt, R., 263, 264 von Gall, A., 2, 15, 24, 30, 78, 99, 165, 187, 203, 227, 235, 285, 289, 303, 312, 315, 352, 369, 381, 391, 437, 444, 622, 623, 628, 629, 630, 631 Vööbus, A., 5, 6, 7, 70, 111, 113, 116, 119, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125, 130, 203, 260, 265, 269, 271, 272, 273, 275, 296, 405, 425, 433, 666 Voss, I., 44, 45, 47, 74, 93 White Crawford, S., , 24, 30, 34, 52, 263, 264, 428, 483, 623, 638, 642 Wallace-Hadrill, D., 580, 590, 598 Wallraff, M., 43, 512 Walton, Brian, 17, 22, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 53, 55, 59, 85, 87, 102, 483 Wasserstein, A. & D., 544, 657 Watt, J., 489 Weinfeld, M., 323 Weitzman, M., 7, 153 Wevers, J.W., 39, 58, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 76, 79, 80, 90, 91, 102, 108, 111, 112, 115, 121, 136, 141, 142, 144, 145, 147, 151, 152, 153, 156, 157, 158, 159, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 167, 168, 169, 172, 173, 174, 176, 178, 179, 182, 183, 184, 185, 189, 190, 193, 194, 195, 196, 199, 202, 205, 206, 207, 211, 212, 213, 214, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 227, 229, 230, 235, 237, 243, 244, 248, 250, 251, 252, 253, 256, 265, 266, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 293, 295, 297, 299, 300, 302, 303, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 314, 316, 319, 322, 323, 325, 329, 330, 333, 334, 335, 336, 338, 340, 341, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 362, 364, 365, 366, 369, 370, 371, 379, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 391, 392, 400, 405, 425, 426, 435, 437, 444, 446, 447, 448, 452, 457, 483, 484, 485, 486, 495, 496, 509, 512, 522, 534, 551, 563, 564, 565, 566, 567, 568, 607, 648, 680 Whealey, A., 598 Whiston, W., 22, 25 Wiener, H., 27, 226 Williams, M., 8, 128, 496, 575, 578 Williams, F., 472 Wilson, T., 313 Witakowski, W., 518 Wright, J., 491 Wright, W., 5, 54, 57, 107, 113, 115, 117, 119, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125, 130, 133, 264, 265, 272, 275, 276, 398, 399, 400, 414, 423, 427, 516, 626, 665, 666, 667, 668, 670, 672, 678 Yadin, Y., 203, 451 Yardney, S., 499, 610 Yohanna, S., 268 Young, K., 82 Zahn, M., 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 37, 200, 209, 216, 217, 223, 248, 638

762 | Index of Modern Authors

Zephyro, F., 495 Ziegler, J., 112, 116, 124, 125, 272, 310, 353, 399, 400, 410, 411, 415, 577, 671, 677 Zissau, B., 104 Zotenberg, H., 525 Zsengellér, J., 15, 67, 649, 650, 662 Zuntz, G., 6, 12, 113, 116, 117, 120, 270

Index of Cited MSS and other Ancient Sources *Göttingen MSS are prefixed with “MS” or “CODEX” “XQDeut”, 482, 483 1Q4, 239, 246, 247, 455 1Q5, 455 1QIsaa, 410, 411 11Q19, 216, 221, 222, 246 17a3, 23 2Q2, 176, 185 2Q3, 247 2Q10, 324 4Q1, 135, 138 4Q11, 149, 170, 173, 176, 185, 187, 192 4Q14, 138, 143, 146, 147, 152, 161, 170 4Q17, 30, 33, 256 4Q20, 143, 146 4Q22, 29, 35, 36, 37, 96, 112, 136, 138, 139, 140, 141, 143, 146, 147, 149, 152, 154, 161, 170, 176, 187, 188, 192, 194, 200, 209, 216, 224, 225, 229, 236, 247, 252, 254, 255, 259, 395, 616, 623, 640, 644 4Q23, 321 4Q26, 30 4Q27, 29, 30, 97, 141, 254, 281, 294, 297, 312, 313, 318, 329, 339, 344, 361, 366, 367, 368, 369, 371, 373, 375, 378, 379, 384, 385, 391, 395, 435, 616 4Q30, 440 4Q31, 319, 330, 381 4Q33, 482 4Q35, 288, 289, 432 4Q40, 381 4Q41, 30, 213, 217 4Q42, 432 4Q45, 239, 451, 455 4Q47, 455 4Q87, 404 4Q120, 85 4Q135, 213, 217 4Q137, 217 4Q158, 30, 180, 200, 209, 211, 212, 216, 217, 221, 223, 224, 254 4Q175, 33, 216, 217, 218, 220, 254 4Q270, 246 4Q364, 30, 432, 439, 440, 446, 518 4Q365, 30, 151, 152

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110760798-012

764 | Index of Cited mss and other Ancient Sources

4Q366, 30, 224 4Q367, 30 4Q418, 224 4QDeutn, 30 4QExod-Levf, 30 4QLevd, 30 4QMMT, 238, 246 4QNumb, 30 4QpaleoExodm, 29 4QRPa, 30 4QRPb, 30 4QRPc, 30 4QRPd, 30 4QRPe, 30 4Q87, 404 5b1, 166, 625 6b1, 436 6Q2, 104 7a1, 107, 166 8a1, 166 8ḤevXIIgr, 402, 415 ABD7 (von Gall), 331 Acts of Pilate prol., 358 Adnot. in Deut (Origen), 493 Adv Haer, 3.12.3, 258 Adv. Haer. (Hippolytus), 458 Adv. Ruf. (Jerome) 2.27 2.27, 8, 12, 589; 2.9, 589 Against the Anomoeans (Chrysostom), 12.5, 258 Against the Pelagians 3.2 (Jerome), 588 Ant (Josephus) 1.10, 1.10, 358; 2.5–6, 335; 3.5.5, 626; 13.396, 335 Apo. (Justin Martyr) I:53.3, 658 Aristeas Letter/Legend, 544 Asaṭir (Samaritan work) §11, 634 Athos, Λαύρα, 352, 569 Athos, Λαυρα, 603, 563 b group, 256 b. Sanhedrin 90b, 646 b. Sota 33b, 467 b. Soṭah 33b, 601, 643

Index of Cited mss and other Ancient Sources | 765

Bell. Iud. (Josephus), 205 bl add. 12133, 427 bl add. 12134, 107, 110, 606 bl add. 12159, 414 bl add. 12168 (London Collection), 5, 118, 147 bl add. 12172, 275 bl add. 14429, 536 bl add. 14437, 6, 264, 265, 279, 506, 667 bl add. 14442, 400, 516 bl add. 14668, 399 bl add. 17103, 276, 398 bl add. 22369, 629, 630, 697 bl or. 1443, 630 bl or. 6461, 629, 630 bm mus. orient 8732, 670 BnF, Coisl. 2, 566 BnF, Coisl. 5, 494 BnF, Coisl. 6, 490, 493 BnF, Coisl. 202, 590 BnF grec. 164, 400 BnF Syr. 26, 525, 549, 552, 555, 558, 559, 694, 695 BnF Syr. 27, 6, 418, 668 BnF Syr. 27B, 101 BnF Syr. 54, 268 BnF, Sam. 2, 15 Bodl. Lib. Oriental 141, 23 BSB Cod.gr. 358, 491, 493 C1 (SCHORCH ED. MS), 86 CAM UL ADD 1846, 86 Carl 49, 49, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 90, 98, 301, 647, 648 Catena Nicephori (= MS 474), 54, 422, 484 Cathedral Homilies (Severus of Antioch), 412, 415, 416, 417 CatSev (= Vat. Syr. 103), 272, 454, 487, 489, 531, 544, 545 Chamberlain-Warren 2484 (SP MS), 630 Chester Beatty Library 751, 628 CHRON. ECCL. (Barhebraeus) 1.291, 127 Chron., (George Syncellus, Eusebius, Jerome), 462 Chronicle (Samaritan), 302 Chronicon (Eusebius and/or Jerome), 46, 104, 105, 466, 519, 573, 578, 585, 586, 589, 592, 596, 597, 598, 599, 603, 604, 605, 608, 610, 616, 644, 661 Chronographica (George Syncellus), 512 Codex 118–19 (Photius), 587 CODEX A, 69, 191, 551, 625

766 | Index of Cited mss and other Ancient Sources

CODEX B, 38, 69, 199, 220, 265, 325, 355, 625 CODEX F, 69, 244, 374, 491, 625 CODEX Fa, 239, 243, 244, 245, 247 CODEX Fb, 90, 183, 191, 286, 306, 309, 310, 335, 348, 351, 374, 390, 567 CODEX G, 236, 253, 277, 286, 325, 444, 447, 625 Codex Justinianus 1.5.17, 641 CODEX M, 48, 64, 68, 74, 76, 81, 90, 158, 159, 189, 239, 244, 245, 389, 390, 444, 451, 491, 518, 625, 681 CODEX Mmg, 76, 243, 246, 551 CODEX Q, 13, 48, 96, 117, 118, 119, 120, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 132, 133, 264, 300, 496, 670, 677, 678 codex Qmg, 399 CODEX Qmg2, 400, 401, 410, 411 CODEX S, 123, 124, 127, 128, 129, 269, 280, 679 CODEX W, 625 CODEX WI, 245, 247, 319

Cathedral Homilies (Severus of Antioch), 412, 415, 416, 417 Comm. on Pss (Origen), 594, 596 Comm. on Josh (Ps.-Ephrem), 531 Comm. on Ezek (Origen), 105 Comm. on Deut 27.4 (Procop), 491 Comm. on Deut (Procop), 102, 327, 328, 441, 461, 483, 493 Comm. on Octateuch (Procop), 516 Comm. on Pss (Eusebius), 594, 596 Comm. on Isa (Eusebius), 594, 603 Comm. on Josh (Jacob in CatSev), 531 Comm. on Deut (Procop) Comm. Gal. I, preface (Jerome), 495 Comm. on Amos (Origen) 2.4.1, 586 Comm. on Eccl. (Jerome), 611 Comm. on Ezek 3.9 (Jerome), 585 Comm. on John (Origen), 44 Comm. on Matt (Origen), 288 Comm. on Ps 1.4 (Origen), 578 Comm. on Rom. 2.14 (Origen), 586 Comm. on Amos (Cyril’s comment in SHCmg), 314 Comm. on Gal. (Jerome), 494, 495 Comm. on Gal. (Origen), 494, 496 Comm. on Pss (Eusebius), 594, 596 Comm. on Sus (Hippolytus), 276 Contra Cel. (Origen), 212 Contra Mani. (Titus Bostra) 3.18, 115 Critici sacri (Maius), 421, 424 cul add 1846, 635 D.E. (Eusebius); 3.2–3, 258, 597, 652

Index of Cited mss and other Ancient Sources | 767

De Dec. (Philo) 51–52, 626 De Gemmis, 461 De Mens et Pond (Epiphanius), 653, 669 De Vir. Ill. (Jerome); 3, 96, 587; 75, 587, 588; 54, 602 d-group, 145, 425, 429, 439, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 524, 571 Dial. contra Luc (Jeorme) 23, 586 Didascalia Apostolorum 1.26, 627 DSS F.Deut2 (DSS F.154), 482 Dublin, Chester Beatty Lib. 751, 623 Eclogae Propheticae (Eusebius), 1.15, 258 Ep. 25 (Jerome), 406 Ep. 34.1 (Jerome), 587, 588 Ep. 108 (Jerome), 460, 469, 470, 471, 479 Ep. 119.11 (Jerome), 593 Ep. 121.5.4 (Jerome), 586 Ep. 47 (Timothy I to Sergius), 273 Ep. ad Africanum (Origen), 577, 583, 584 Ep. ad Titus (Jerome) 3.9, 578 Ep. to Carpianus (Eusebius), 268, 273 f1 (NT MSS), 609 f-group, 236, 247, 250, 278, 330, 343, 384, 385, 523, 566, 567, 568 G6 (SP MS, von Gall ed.), 2 Gen Rab. 3:4, 637 Geneva 99, 65, 66, 74, 77, 78 Geog. (Strabo) 13.1.54, 119 Gie, 58, 60, 64, 65, 66, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 77, 78, 80, 83, 84, 90, 98, 102, 129, 203, 204, 205, 206, 301, 424, 425, 429, 482, 484, 486, 647, 648 Gießen fragments, 58, 59, 63, 71, 72 Gospel Canons (Eusebius), 626 Gospel Questions and Solutions (Quaestiones ad Marinum), 598 *H 015 (NT MS), 590 H.E (Eusebius), 44, 590, 122, 126, 602, 604, 584, 8, 575, 578, 118, 651, 615, 592, 594, 589, 587, 588, Haer. (Epiphanius), 460, 9.2.1, 655; 9.2.2–4, 655; 9.3.1–5, 655; 9.5.4, 655; ;14.2.2, 655 Hammurabi Prol., 639 Hebr. Quaest. in Gen. (Jerome), 39 Hist. Laus. (Palladius) 64, 651 Hom. 123 (Severus of Antioch), 412, 416, 418 Hom. 124 (Severus), 412 Hom. in Num. (Origen) 25.1, 659 Hom. in Pss. (Origen) 77.1.1, 126, 127, 577 Hom. VIII on Exod (Origen), 626

768 | Index of Cited mss and other Ancient Sources

j. Sota 29a–b, 467 Jerusalem National Library Sam. 2° 6, 628, 696 Jerusalem Syriac 10, 407 John Rylands Sam. 1, 629, 630 Lat

cod 100, 429, 438, 482 Laud. A. 146, 422 Leiden UNI.-BIBL. OR. 6, 630 Leningrad, Gr. 124, 512 Letter About Joakim, Susanna, and Daniel (Jacob of Edessa), 276 Lexicon (of Bar Bahlul), 493 Liber Graduum, 627 Life of Isidorus (Damascius of Damascus), 461 Life of Pamphilus (Eusebius), 588, 590 Little Labyrinth (in Eusebius’ H.E. 5.28.15), 126 London Collection, 147 London, Arch. Libr. 1214, 54 m. Sota 7:5, 467 M. Pal. (Eusebius) 11.1–2, 587 Martyrdom of Isaiah, 584 Mas1o, 104, 203 MasDeut, 451 Med. Laur. Or. 230, 411, 412 Midyat Codex, 265 Monacensus arab. 235, 459 Moses (Philo) 2.36–37, 544 MS 15, 50, 109, 264, 278, 328, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 363, 367, 369, 392,

397, 422, 425, 429, 435, 451, 452, 453, 518, 519, 524, 539, 566, 572 MS 17, 39, 89, 512, 513 MS 25, 54 MS 53, 385, 447 MS 56, 250, 385, 567, 568, 625 MS 57, 39, 490, 493 MS 58, 62, 77, 102, 108, 109, 135, 236, 237, 238, 240, 241, 242, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251,

252, 253, 264, 265, 278, 286, 309, 329, 337, 338, 363, 388, 392, 519, 564, 566, 567, 568, 571, 572 MS 62, 415 MS 73, 39 MS 85, 50, 53, 241, 264, 265, 278, 347, 351, 366, 372, 392 MS 86, 399, 400 MS 88, 114, 118, 120, 121, 122, 124, 264, 267, 399, 415, 671, 672, 677 MS 106, 390 MS 108, 399 MS 127, 73, 389, 515, 516 MS 128, 391

Index of Cited mss and other Ancient Sources | 769

MS 129, 568 MS 130, 53, 264, 265, 370, 374, 384, 391, 392 MS 135, 59, 91, 159 MS 243mg, 399 MS 264, 399, 400 MS 271, 403 MS 314, 255, 256 MS 318, 181, 236, 251, 252, 253, 392, 524 MS 319, 253 MS 321, 392 MS 343, 326, 342, 361, 363, 366, 372, 373, 384, 388, 392, 519, 524, 569, 570, 571, 572 MS 343mg, 569 MS 344, 157, 233, 253, 265, 283, 345, 346, 351, 359, 364, 367, 370, 371, 373, 378, 379, 385,

389, 390, 391, 392, 505, 515, 523, 564, 569, 570, 572 MS 344 (sigla), 344, 345, 385, 388 MS 344mg (incl. scripts used), 389 MS 346, 392 MS 376, 91, 399, 415, 444 MS 416, 76, 90 MS 417, 54, 286 MS 527, 236, 247, 250, 253, 564 MS 528, 494 MS 529, 490 MS 537, 255, 256 MS 619, 255 MS 628, 512 MS 707, 236, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 388, 568 MS 708, 248 MS 730, 495 MS 739, 494, 495, 510 MS 767, 100, 145, 236, 240, 242, 245, 246, 252, 253, 277, 284, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325,

326, 330, 332, 348, 349, 351, 363, 367, 392, 425, 426, 429, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 452, 519, 521, 523, 524, 539, 563,571, 572 MS 767 (irregular orthography), 100, 145, 236, 240, 242, 245, 246, 252, 253, 277, 284, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 330, 332, 348, 349, 351, 363, 367, 392, 425, 426, 429, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 452, 519, 521, 523, 524, 539, 563,571, 572 MS 848, 402, 408, 415, 486 MS 911, 457 MS 963, 283, 284, 286, 287, 288, 308, 374 MS 1098, 9, 132, 402, 403, 404, 405, 409, 411, 496, 502, 578 MS 1140, 400 MS 1173, 410 MS 1739 (NT MS), 392 MS 2005, 9, 132, 405 MS A (ST), 76, 77, 83, 140, 144, 147, 151, 152, 155, 168, 172, 173, 177, 188, 203, 208, 217, 219, 221, 222, 227, 241, 242, 324, 329, 334, 335, 345, 350, 352, 362, 369, 379, 381, 386

770 | Index of Cited mss and other Ancient Sources

MS A (SP MS, von Gall ed.), 381 MS B (ST), 77, 156, 164, 168, 173, 185, 219, 221, 222, 227, 285, 329, 335, 345, 352, 362, 373,

381, 386 MS B (von Gall), 381 MS B1 (ST), 335 MS C (ST), 77, 83, 173, 221, 227, 350, 352, 353, 354, 381, 386, 444 MS C (von Gall), 289, 381 MS D5 (von Gall), 285 MS E (ST), 77, 156, 164, 173, 211, 227, 331, 332, 345, 350, 352, 353, 354, 381, 386 MS E (H.E. MS), 129 MS G (von Gall), 381 MS H (von Gall), 352 MS I (von Gall), 315 MS J (ST), 68, 75, 76, 77, 81, 83, 140, 144, 151, 152, 159, 168, 203, 208, 211, 219, 221, 222, 227,

241, 242, 244, 282, 289, 316, 324, 329, 333, 334, 335, 345, 350, 352, 362, 369, 379, 381, 386, 391 MS Laud. Or. 243, 422, 438 MS M (ST), 77, 83, 110, 135, 136, 139, 140, 144, 207, 211, 345, 350, 352, 362 MS Monacensis arab. 235, 458 MS N (ST), 77, 185, 227, 241, 311, 324, 329, 369, 370, 381, 386 MS oS-1, 402, 405 MS oS-2, 402, 405 MS oS-3, 402 MS P (von Gall), 352 MS V (ST), 77, 140, 147, 221, 222, 227, 329, 350, 352, 381, 386 MS Vat. Syr. 103, 272 MS Vm (ST), 141 MS W3 (von Gall), 165 MS δ1 (von Gall), 381 MS θ* (von Gall), 381 MS μ (von Gall), 381 MS υ (von Gall), 381 MSS 321′, 391 MSS 85΄-344, 118 MSS 85′-321′-344s, 77 MSS STAVNECB (ST grouping), 333

n-group, 448, 563 Nablus, Synagogue 6 (SP), 68, 458, 459, 462, 631, 632, 645, 659 Nash Papyrus, 31 Nat. Hist. (Pliny) 5.25, 205 Novella 144, 481, 641 Onomasticon (Eusebius), 205, 463, 464, 466, 467, 469, 473, 479, 480, 482, 490, 605, 608, 626 Onomasticon (Jerome), 464

Index of Cited mss and other Ancient Sources | 771

OSS, 667 P.E. (Eusebius), 238, 604 Panarion Haer. (Epiphanius), 9.2.4–6, 472, 473; 64.3.5–7, 578 Pedagogue (Clement of Alex.), 1.60.3, 258 Philocalia (Origen), 594 PMag.Leid W.18.5, 162 Prefatory Epistle (al-Ḥārith), 422, 428 Prol. in Libro Ezrae (Jerome), 8 Prol. in Libro Iosue (Jerome), 8 Prol. in Libro Paralip (Jerome), 8, 12 Prol. in Libro Regum (Jerome), 401, 407, 512 Prol. in Pent (Jerome), 8 Ps.-Athanasius Synopsis §77, 655 Ps.-Philo Liber antiq. 25.10, 473 PUL Scheide Library MS 150, 111 Quaest. 45, (Anastasius Sinaita), 474 Quaest. in Exod 15 (Theodoret), 648 Quaest. in Exod 23, 648 Quaest. in Exod 30, 648 Quaest. in Judg 2, 491 Quaestiones ad Marinum 1.2 (Eusebius), 609 Quaestiones in Libro Geneseos (Jerome), 510 Quaestiones in Octateuchum (Theodoret), 648 s-group, 50, 53, 62, 68, 70, 91, 92, 101, 181, 183, 236, 245, 253, 263, 264, 265, 266, 276, 278, 283, 294, 302, 326, 327, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 370, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380, 382, 383, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 398, 505, 507, 515, 523, 539, 564, 566, 568, 569, 570 s-group, attributions, 359 s-group, scholia, 359 s-group, unmarked Samareitikon readings, 391 Samaritan Book of Joshua, 19 Samaritan piyyutim no. 4, 86 Sanh. 21b, 103 Šarḥ al-Asaṭir, 634, 635 Scholia on Pss (Barhebraeus), 411 Scholia of Barhebraeus, 262, 265 Scholion on the Divine Name (Jacob of Edessa), 272, 544 Sel. in Gen (Origen) 4.8, 583 Sel. in Ezek (Origen) 7.27, 403 Sel. in Ps (Origen), 401, 403 SHB, 136, 425, 426

772 | Index of Cited mss and other Ancient Sources

SHC, 121, 125, 264, 300, 314, 325, 421, 665, 670, 671, 672, 673, 674, 675, 676 SHL, 2, 54, 111, 113, 116, 127, 133, 134, 136, 138, 139, 142, 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 153, 154, 156, 158, 159, 160, 163, 164, 166, 169, 171, 175, 177, 178, 186, 188, 199, 208, 210, 215, 224, 228, 232, 234, 264, 265, 278, 279, 282, 283, 294, 295, 296, 299, 302, 303, 305, 307, 308, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 323, 328, 332, 333, 337, 338, 343, 352, 360, 362, 365, 367, 371, 373, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 383, 505, 506, 507, 520, 536, 552, 553, 555, 557, 558, 559, 560, 606, 665, 666, 667, 668 SHM, 2, 3, 47, 51, 53, 93, 199, 200, 201, 206, 221, 222, 233, 234, 263, 337, 341, 421, 422, 423, 425, 426, 427, 429, 451, 452, 453, 500, 518, 530, 566, 581 SHV, 95, 100, 111, 113, 114, 115, 116, 123, 134, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 154, 155, 156, 159, 160, 163, 166, 169, 171, 175, 186, 194, 197, 198, 199, 200, 207, 208, 215, 224, 228, 232, 233, 234, 260, 261, 262, 266, 267, 273, 275, 276, 278, 279, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 298, 299, 302, 303, 304, 305, 307, 308, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 320, 321, 323, 327, 328, 337, 338, 340, 343, 352, 356, 358, 360, 361, 363, 364, 365, 371, 372, 373, 375, 376, 377, 378, 383, 422, 425, 426, 429, 432, 433, 438, 439, 440, 441, 442, 445, 451, 454, 482, 487, 493, 494, 495, 496, 500, 505, 516, 519, 550, 552, 558, 559, 665 SHVmg, 429 Sifre Deut §56, 467 Stanza 11.81–82 (Marqe liturgical poem), 87 Stromata (Clement of Alex.), 6.16, 627 Syrorum peculium (Masius), 424 Scholia (Barhebraeus), 678 Scholia on Pss (Barhebraeus), 411 Sel. in Ezek. 8.1, 403 Sel. in Ps, 401, 403 Sel. in Ps 2.2, 401, 403, 585 t-group, 145, 330, 425, 429, 439, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 524, 571 Teaching of Addai (Syriac work), 544 Temple Scroll, 35 The Birds (Alfred Hitchcock film), 152 Theoph. (Eusebius), 460; 4.12, 590; 4.23; 467, 469, 470, 597; 4.35, 258 Thess, 65, 66, 74, 77, 78, 84, 85, 86, 102 Tībåt Mårqe, 98, 152, 624, 635, 637, 644, 650, 656, 658 Tulida (Samaritan chronicle), 645 Vat. gr. 746, 39, 493 Vat. gr. 747, 39, 490 Vat. gr. 752, 410 Vat. gr. 1747, 403 Vat. gr. 2125, 677 Vat. Reg. 179, 591 Vat. Sir. 5, 457 Vat. Syr. 103, 454

Index of Cited mss and other Ancient Sources | 773

Vat. Syr. 143, 416, 417 Vat. Syr. 152, 493 Vat. Syr. 256, 416, 417 Vat., Regin. gr. 10, 564 Vit. Phil. (Diogenes L.), 3.65–66, 126, 9.113, 126 XQDeut, 643 Y. Abod. Zar. 1.2, 39c, 660 Y. Dem. 2.1, 22c, 660 y. Soṭah 7.3, 584, 643 y-group, 250 𝕰 (von Gall), 289

Index of Subjects Aaron, 62, 86, 139, 143, 146, 149, 150, 154, 155, 161, 230, 231, 251, 252, 257, 261, 440, 448, 450, 598 Aaronic Blessing, 84 Abraham, 597, 604 Abu Alsaud, 641 Abū l-Fatḥ, 302, 618, 619, 620, 645, 650, 660 Abū l-Ḥasan, 301 Acacius (student of Eusebius), 598, 599 Achille Harlay de Sancy, 15, 16 Aleppo, 521 Alexander the Great, 41 Alexandria, 5, 6, 222, 311, 459, 521, 522, 587, 668, 669, 673 Alfred Hitchcock (filmmaker), 152 al-Ḥārith ibn Sinān ibn Sunbāṭ al-Ḥarrānī, 47, 51, 52, 94 Allah, 85 Amalek, 364 Ambrose of Alexandria, 589, 592 Ammonites, 336, 366, 371 Amorite, 304, 315, 319, 345, 364, 365 Amram Dare (Samaritan liturgical poet), 635 Amsterdam, 2 Anak, 285, 286 Anakim, 279, 282, 284, 285, 286 Anastasius Sinaitica Anastasius Apozygatius, 5 Anastasius Sinaita, 461, 463 Antediluvian Patriarchs, 518 (in JGen) Antilebanon, 303, 304, 323 Antioch, 288, 459, 460 Antoninus (Christian martyr), 12, 120, 274, 679 Antwerp Polyglot, 2 Aphrahat, 88, 627 apocrypha, 584 Aquila, 8, 9, 77, 78, 82, 83, 136, 137, 153, 156, 157, 163, 164, 168, 182, 183, 184, 186, 189, 191, 194, 195, 207, 209, 221, 227, 249, 250, 284, 288, 289, 295, 305, 306, 307, 309, 316, 322, 352, 354, 369, 374, 388, 390, 400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 410, 418, 438, 454, 457, 501, 502, 507, 514, 515, 516, 556, 569, 577, 580, 583, 595, 602, 605, 607, 610, 611, 648 Arabic, 4, 5, 47, 50, 52, 61, 83, 85, 92, 522 Aramaic, 141, 147, 173, 243, 350, 590, 609, 610 Arpaschshad (patriarch), 518 Artemon (Christian heretic), 126 asterisk (hexaplaric sigla), 9, 45, 56, 134, 138, 148, 176, 178, 182, 233, 235, 283, 299, 310, 343, 344, 346, 361, 385, 388, 389, 500, 505 Athanasius of Alex., 593, 607

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110760798-013

776 | Index of Subjects

Athanasius I Gamala, 5 Athanasius Sinaita, 471, 474, 476 Athanasius the Athonite, 393 Athens, 650 Athos, Mount, 251, 253, 342, 389, 392, 393, 394, 448, 521, 522, 564, 569 Augustine, 484, 511 Baba Rabba, 500, 633, 635, 642, 644, 646, 648, 656, 660, 663 Babylon, 276 Bar Kochba Revolt, 661 Barhebraeus, 5, 54, 96, 127, 134, 137, 166, 197, 204, 262, 265, 411, 412, 415, 422, 423, 488, 489, 492, 520 “basic Caesarean layer,” 14, 14 BCP, 627 Behnam, 525 Beirut, 587 Beit al-Mā inscription, 99, 203, 632, 633 Benjamin (patriarch), 519 Bilingualism (Samaritan), 656 Bodleian Library, 109, 422 Caesarea, 71, 522, 615, 624, 633, 647, 659, 660, 661 Caesarean library, 13 Cain (biblical), 470, 471, 495, 513, 514, 515, 516 Cairo Genizah, 402, 617 Canaanite, 364 Cardinal F. Barberini, 16 catechesis, 627 catena/-ae, 5, 13, 39, 45, 54, 59, 74, 89, 90, 92, 93, 96, 98, 212, 425, 458, 459, 460, 462, 483, 486, 489, 490, 492, 494, 496, 509, 510, 514, 566, 567, 607 Ceriani’s Fifth Fascicule, 109 Christ, 459, 627 Christianity, 621, 627, 643, 657, 658, 659, 660, 661 Christians (people group), 459, 467, 470, 471, 480, 482, 484, 500, 580, 601, 606, 609, 618, 621, 638, 641, 646, 654, 658, 660, 661 Chrysostom, 258 Church of Mary the Theotokos, 460, 461, 480, 641, 662, 662, 641 (Syriac) Church of the East, 1, 12, 136, 522 Clement of Alexandria, 258, 627 Clementine Vulgate, 148 colophon(s), hexaplaric, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 123, 124, 126, 127, 129, 130, 131, 132, 136, 181, 206, 208, 214, 224, 231, 233, 240, 246, 254, 257, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 279, 290, 307, 317, 357,359, 377, 395, 396, 401, 405, 422, 425, 427, 428, 431, 452, 496, 497, 504, 507, 509, 516, 519, 520 colophons, hexaplaric (SH Dan and MS 88), 226 Commodus, 650 Constantine, 594, 609, 660, 661

Index of Subjects | 777

Constantinople, 15, 90, 460, 461 converts to Christianity (Jewish or Samaritan), 658 Council of Nicaea, 661 cross-references (at Deut 1.42 and 44), 383 Cyprian of Carthage, 588 Cyril of Alexandria, 41, 44, 90, 98, 314, 513, 647 Cyrus of Persia, 545 Damascius of Damascus, 461 Damascus, 4, 15 Daniel, (biblical) book of, 83, 507, 545 Darius, son of Vishtaspa, 545 Decalogue/Ten Commandments, 3, 24, 34, 35, 36, 69, 199, 201, 209, 211, 212, 216, 217, 226, 231, 257, 259, 623, 624, 625, 626, 627, 628, 629, 631, 632, 633, 634, 635, 636, 637, 638, 639, 640, 643, 644, 659 Decalogue inscriptions, Samaritan, 586, 628, 634 Decalogue inscriptions,Samaritan Decian persecution, 587 Delos inscriptions (Samaritan), 203, 649 Demetrius of Phalerum, 588 Didymus, 288 Dio Cassius, 542 Diocletian persecution, 647 Diodore of Tarsis, 44 Diogenes Laertius, 126 diple periestigmene, 126 Dositheans (Samaritan sect)301, 302, 600 (Dositheus), 618, 619, 620 Dura-Europus, 617 Dūsīs (Samaritan heretic), 620 Dustån sectarians (Samaritan sect), 301 Ebal, Mount, 22, 22, 31, 73, 96, 204, 458, 467, 472, 475, 476, 477, 478, 479, 483, 484, 485, 486, 487, 488, 492, 493, 522, 523, 531, 545, 626, 640 Eber, 518 Ebionite/-ism, 602, 651, 652 Edict of Toleration, 588 Edom, 296, 308, 432, 433, 438 Egypt, 7, 9, 15, 16, 58, 59, 80, 83, 91, 522, 555, 556, 615, 617, 643, 647, 649, 656, 657, 661 Eleazar, 440 El-Fayyum, 402 emendation of SH, 164, 170, 173 Emim, 285 Emperor Zeno, 459, 460, 461, 480, 481, 640, 641, 642, 662 Enaton, 5, 6 Enumeration of the Decalogue, 3, 24, 34, 35, 36, 69, 199, 201, 209, 211, 212, 216, 217, 226, 231, 257, 259, 623, 624, 625, 626, 627, 628, 629, 631, 632, 633, 634, 635, 636, 637, 638, 639, 640, 643, 644, 659

778 | Index of Subjects

Ephrem, 88 Ephron, 285 Epiphanius of Salamis, 8, 9, 40, 43, 45, 56, 79, 118, 460, 461, 471, 472, 473, 474, 476, 507, 544, 578, 585, 586, 593, 602, 647, 649, 651, 652, 653, 654, 655, 656, 659, 669 Euphrates (river), 451, 452, 453, 454 Eusebius of Caesarea, 1, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 64, 74, 97, 99, 100, 101, 103, 104, 105, 266, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 277, 300, 322, 395, 396, 575, 576, 578, 580, 581, 584, 585, 586, 587, 588, 589, 590, 591, 592, 593, 594, 595, 596, 597, 598, 599, 600, 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606, 607, 608, 609, 610, 611, 612, 615, 616, 617, 618, 621, 622, 623, 624, 626, 628, 633, 636, 640, 642, 643, 644, 645, 646, 647, 648, 649, 651, 652, 653, 655, 656, 657, 658, 659, 661, 662, 663, 664, 669, 670, 673, 674, 675, 676, 677, 678 Eusebius of Emesa, 511 Eusebius Pamphili (specifically discussed), 269, 270, 271, 273, 274, 275, 277, 452, 666, 669 Eusebius, as suspected of heresy, 129 Eustochium, 470 Exod colophon (analysis), 131 (MS stemma), 133, 230, 678 Ezra, 585 “ex par” readings, 330, 338, 339, 340 first column (Hebrew in Hebrew characters) of the Hexapla Maior, 576, 577, 578, 580, 593, 595, 596, 606, 609, 610 flies, 658 Flood, 511, 518 four columns, 672, 676 François Combefis, 510 French Revolution, 525 Gaibal (= Ebal), 464, 465, 475, 490 Galgala, 464, 465, 473, 474 Gallienus (son of Valerian), 588 Garizein (= Gerizim), 464, 465 Garizin (= Gerizim), 461, 464, 465, 466, 475 Garshuni (Arabic written with Syriac letters), 458 garzin (= Gerizim), 482, 485 Gebal (= Ebal), 464, 465, 466, 486, 487, 488, 491 Gehazi (Elisha’s servant), 667 George Syncellus, 462, 512, 597, 604 George, Bishop of the Arabs, 519 Gerizim, Mount, 3, 22, 23, 24, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 39, 73, 78, 84, 91, 96, 103, 104, 201, 202, 203, 204, 208, 262, 301, 423, 429, 431, 454, 455, 458, 459, 460, 461, 462, 463, 464, 466, 467, 468, 469, 471, 472, 475, 476, 477, 478, 479, 480, 482, 483, 484, 485, 486, 487, 488, 489, 490, 491, 492, 493, 522, 523, 528, 531, 544, 545, 571, 597, 598, 600, 601, 605, 608, 623, 624, 626, 627, 628, 630, 632, 635, 636, 637, 638, 640, 641, 642, 643, 644, 646, 649, 650, 657, 659, 660, 661, 662, 663 Gerizim, scholion from the Catena, 490

Index of Subjects | 779

Giants (exegetical traditions), 284, 285, 286 Gilgal, 455, 483 Golgol, 465, 466 Gospel Canons (Eusebius), 626 Gospel of Matthew, 588 Göttingen Septuaginta Unternehmen, 58, 236, 400 (editorial policies) Gottlob Carpzov, 23 Graeco-Babyloniaca, 610 Great Monastery of Tell ʿAda, 521 Greek Samaritan synagogue inscriptions from Delos, 203 Gregory of Nazianzus, 626 Hadrian, 467, 468, 650 halakha, 242 Harklean NT, 6, 7, 14, 590 Ḥasan Bar Bahlul (Syriac lexicographer), 412 Ḥdatta, 136, 522 Hebrew, early Christian views of, 612 Hebraism, ancient Christian, 497, 580 Hebron, 285, 455, 456, 457 Henry de Beauvau, 15 heptapla, 117, 669 Hermon, Mount, 304 Hesychius, 128, 163 “hexapla,” 1, 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 55, 56, 57, 60, 72, 74, 79, 101, 104, 107, 112, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 124, 127, 128, 132, 133, 213, 246, 266, 269, 270, 428, 516, 575, 576, 577, 578, 579, 580, 581, 582, 592, 593, 594, 595, 596, 599, 603, 606, 609, 610, 611, 612, 613, 616, 633, 651, 653, 666, 668, 676, 677, 678, 679 Hexapla Maior, 9, 12, 74, 124, 127, 128, 132, 133, 157, 174, 182, 185, 213, 228, 233, 234, 242, 246, 254, 270, 274, 310, 316, 396, 401, 402, 403, 404, 408, 410, 411, 415, 423, 424, 448, 451, 464, 497, 498, 499, 500, 501, 502, 503, 507, 513, 527, 671, 674, 678 Hexapla Maior, μόνον-translator(s) use of, 501 Hexapla Project, 266 Hippolytus, 276, 458, 459, 460, 462 Homer, 26, 32, 126 Horeb, 259, 320 hypolemniscus (hexaplaric siglum), 311, 346, 506 John Hyrcanus, 302 Incense Altar, 224, 256, 376 index marker (hexaplaric siglum), 399 Inscriptions (Samaritan), 631, 634, 640, 649 Irenaeus, 258, 544, 602, 604, 627 Ishoʿdad of Merv, 522, 523, 545 Islam, 85 Istanbul, 4 Italy, 522

780 | Index of Subjects

Jacob b. Aaron, 68 Jacob of Edessa, 93, 96, 100, 101, 107, 127, 140, 146, 155, 163, 164, 171, 174, 178, 188, 189, 194, 204, 206, 210, 226, 234, 239, 261, 262, 264, 272, 275, 276, 279, 280, 282, 283, 285, 287, 290, 299, 304, 307, 308, 314, 315, 317, 321, 326, 331, 333, 337, 338, 350, 352, 356, 363, 373, 374, 396, 398, 405, 411, 412, 423, 458, 460, 461, 477, 484, 487, 488, 489, 517, 523, 524, 526, 529, 545, 561, 570, 571, 572, 626 Jacob of Edessa, JRec editorial policy, 562 Jacob of Edessa, knowledge of Hebrew, 536, 537 Jacob of Edessa, use of OG, 541 Jacob of Edessa, view of SP, 542, 544, 562 Jacob (patriarch), 518 “Jacobite”, 1 Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet, 19, 20 Jean Capperonnier, 527 Jean Michel de Venture de Paradis, 525 Jehoiachin, 276, 418 Jehoiakim, 418 Jeremiah (prophet), 276 Jericho, 452, 460, 461, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 472, 475, 476, 477, 478, 479, 480 Jerome, 8, 12, 39, 44, 74, 82, 89, 105, 124, 157, 160, 173, 300, 322, 401, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 415, 418, 425, 433, 437, 460, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 469, 470, 471, 473, 474, 477, 479, 480, 484, 494, 495, 496, 497, 509, 510, 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 516, 517, 530, 537, 543, 578, 580, 581, 583, 585, 586, 587, 588, 589, 593, 597, 602, 611, 612, 647, 659 Jerome, use of the obelus, 507 Jerusalem, 27, 78, 467, 468, 478, 491, 492, 615, 637, 643, 645, 649 Jesus of Nazareth, 657, 660 Jesus, name connected to Decalogue, 627 Jews (people group), 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 44, 45, 46, 52, 57, 59, 62, 63, 71, 78, 85, 104, 428, 462, 467, 468, 495, 499, 500, 511, 514, 583, 584, 585, 596, 597, 598, 600, 601, 602, 603, 604, 617, 618, 621, 634, 637, 645, 648, 649, 651, 658, 661 Joakim, 276 Johann H. Hottinger, 19, 20, 40, 41 Johannes Buxtorf, 16, 18 Johannes Drusius, 38, 39, 40, 48 John Hampden, 20 John Owen, 42, 43, 44 John, Gospel of, 258 Joseph (biblical), 519 Joseph Justus Scaliger, 16 Joseph White, 263 Josephus, 19, 22, 205, 335, 358, 479, 626, 643, 649 Joshua, the son of Nun, 458 JRec, 285, 430, 443, 457, 521, 524, 527, 530, 531, 534, 535, 536, 537, 538, 540, 541, 543, 544, 545, 549, 552, 554, 555, 561 Judas (biblical), 667 Julius Africanus, 43, 44 Justin II, 481, 641

Index of Subjects | 781

Justin Martyr, 459, 658, 659 Justinian I, 481, 482, 633, 641, 642, 663 Karaites, 618 Kenan II (biblical patriarch), 518 Keteph Hinnom burial plaques, 86 Kethib, 17, 20 Khosrau II (Persian shah), 5 King Abgar, 544 King Louis XIV, 19 King Louis XVI, 525 Lamech (biblical), 511, 512 Latin Sixtine, 17 Lazarus (Syriac scribe), , 165, 166, 506 , 536 Lebanon, 304 Leeds (Samaritan) Decalogue inscription, 586 lemniscus (hexaplaric siglum), 314 (in JPent), 433, 505, 506, 548 Levi (Baba Rabba’s nephew), 660 Levi (Dosithean martyr), 302 library (contextually determined), 269, 270, 291, 392 London Polyglot, 16, 22, 39, 40, 41, 48, 92, 102, 165, 167, 652 Louis Cappel, 18 Lucianic recension of LXX, 13, 14, 65, 533, 534, 535, 538, 539, 540 Luke (Gospel or author thereof), 63 Madaba Mosaic Map, 461, 477 Malalas, John (Christian chronographer), 460, 461, 663 Malaysia, 85 Marcella, 406, 407 Marcionites, 655 Mark (Gospel of, longer ending), 609 Marqe (Samaritan liturgica poet), 87, 88, 98, 201, 301, 467, 633, 635, 636, 637, 645, 656 Masoretic Text (MT), 8, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 34, 64, 66, 68, 71, 75, 76, 78, 79, 80, 81, 84, 85, 94, 95, 99, 104, 124, 125, 132, 135, 138, 141, 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 157, 161, 163, 167, 170, 172, 175, 176, 179, 180, 181, 182, 185, 187, 190, 192, 193, 199, 200, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 216, 217, 218, 219, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 230, 231, 233, 237, 238, 239, 242, 247, 248, 252, 256, 271, 281, 283, 285, 288, 289, 294, 297, 303, 308, 310, 311, 312, 315, 316, 318, 319, 321, 324, 329, 330, 335, 336, 337, 339, 344, 346, 350, 361, 366, 368, 371, 378, 381, 384, 386, 391, 431, 432, 433, 434, 437, 440, 444, 447, 451, 453, 455, 456, 467, 471, 473, 482, 484, 497, 500, 501, 505, 511, 512, 518, 529, 569, 572 “Matthew”, book of, Semitic version?, 590, 592 Mesha Stela, 639 Methuselah (patriarch), 511, 512, 518 Metobelus (hexaplaric siglum), 136, 138, 148 miaphysite, 1, 522 Midyat, 265

782 | Index of Subjects

Milan, 107 Moab, 259, 637, 640 Moabites, 329, 330, 336, 365, 366, 560, 561 Mor Athanasius, Patriarch of the Faithful, 669 “monophysite”, 1 Moses, 1, 5, 19, 21, 29, 32, 33, 34, 62, 78, 86, 87, 116, 135, 137, 139, 143, 146, 149, 154, 155, 161, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 182, 186, 187, 190, 196, 197, 210, 211, 212, 215, 216, 248, 252, 253, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 282, 287, 291, 293, 294, 296, 298, 299, 307, 313, 318, 321, 344, 345, 355, 361, 366, 370, 371, 372, 376, 378, 379, 383, 384, 385, 397, 413, 414, 433, 434, 450, 452, 455, 458, 464, 468, 470, 487, 617, 634, 636, 638, 640, 646 “Moses layer”, 33 Moses, redivivus, 258 Moses bar Kepha, 5 Moses of Mardin, 1 Mosul, 522, 525 Muslim, 85 Nablus (Samaritan city), 68, 458, 459, 462, 631, 632, 645, 659 Nahor (patriarch), 518 Nazi regime, 313 Neapolis (Samaritan city), 459, 460, 461, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 471, 473, 475, 477, 478, 479, 491 Nebuchadnezzar (evil emperor), 276 Nephilim, 286 “Neo-Hebrew” (Magen’s terminology), 103 “Nestorian”, 1 Nicephorus (Greek scholar), 54, 90, 450, 484, 493 Nile, 454 Nina (Marqe’s son), 635 nomen sacrum, 143, 252, 253 NT, influence on μόνον-translation, 165 NT, references to Samaritans, 258 oak at Shechem, 208 oak of Mamre, 456, 457 obelus (hexaplaric siglum), 8, 45, 198, 224, 230, 233, 234, 283, 299, 500, 505, 506, 507, 671 Old Greek/LXX, book of Daniel, 540 Old Latin (OL), 69, 73, 280, 283, 306, 309, 315, 330, 370, 373, 425, 485, 486, 513, 514 Origen of Alexandria/Caesarea (Father of Christian Textual Criticism), 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 20, 26, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 64, 70, 71, 72, 74, 93, 96, 98, 101, 105, 122, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 212, 224, 230, 231, 258, 270, 274, 288, 319, 357, 396, 401, 402, 403, 404,406, 408, 409, 410, 411, 416, 418, 423, 424, 451, 452, 464, 493, 494, 495, 496, 497, 502, 505, 513, 514, 515, 516, 527, 543, 575, 576, 577, 578, 579, 580, 581, 582, 583, 584, 585, 586, 587, 588, 589, 590, 591, 592, 593, 594, 596, 597, 598, 599, 600, 601, 602, 603, 605, 607, 611, 612, 616, 626, 627, 644, 645, 646, 647, 648, 651, 658, 659, 670, 671, 674, 677, 678, 679 Origenist controversies, 129

Index of Subjects | 783

pagan/-s, 658, 661 paleo-Hebrew, 103, 104, 105 Palestine, 16, 90, 647, 648, 649, 657, 661, 662 Palladius (Christian historian), 651 Pamphilus, 1, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 120, 122, 127, 128, 129, 133, 270, 271, 273, 274, 581, 587, 588, 589, 590, 591, 592, 593, 599, 605, 609, 644, 646, 647, 661, 663, 669, 670, 673, 674, 675, 676, 678, 679 parallel texts in antiquity, 499 parashot, 143 Paris, 522, 524, 525, 527, 533 Paris Polyglot, 15, 16 Parisian Congregation of the Oratory, 15, 16, 19, 20 Påsôqå (Syriac punctuation), 116, 232, 267, 296, 454, 552, 694 Paul (Apostle), 165, 584, 600, 607, 611 Paul of Kallinikos, 416 Paul of Tella, 5, 7, 13, 14, 123, 166, 181, 227, 257, 270, 274, 287, 297, 307, 314, 317, 337, 412, 417, 428, 483, 504, 506, 509, 523, 530, 542, 625, 669 Paula (comrad of Jerome), 470, 471 Paulinus, bishop of Tyre, 463 Payne Smith (Syriac lexicographer), 190 Peshitta, 23, 88 Peter, Apostle, 258 Pharan, 447 Philo, 544, 626 Photius, 69, 205, 461, 587 phylacteries and mezzuzot, 31 Pierius (teacher of Pamphilus), 587 Pietro della Valle (“discoverer” of SP), 15, 40 Pilgrim of Bordeaux, 69, 205, 460 Pisistratus (Greek libarian), 588 Plague Narrative, 29, 134, 140, 143, 150, 151, 171, 179, 180, 183, 184, 186, 197, 231, 233, 256, 260, 261, 262, 385, 431 Pliny, 69, 205, 627 Postdiluvian Patriarchs, in JGen, 518 Postel, Guillaume, 4, 15, 16 pre- vs. proto-Samaritan, terminology, 29 preaching, early Christian, 258 pre-/proto-Masoretic Text (pre-MT), 125, 204 (emendation), 486, 505, 577, 584, 585, 609 pre-Samaritan (pre-SP), 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 63, 94, 96, 97, 112, 139, 141, 143, 179, 180, 188, 200, 202, 204, 212, 217, 254, 367, 337, 378, 379, 385, 395, 440, 446, 453, 529, 623, 616, 624, 638, 640, 646, 649, 663 Priestly Blessing, 65, 78, 86 priestly vestments, 248 (Greek description in Exod), 249, 251 Procopius of Gaza, 43, 44, 54, 81, 90, 93, 95, 102, 196, 197, 198, 208, 212, 266, 293, 326, 327, 328, 339, 340, 341, 342, 426, 429, 440, 441, 450, 460, 461, 462, 471, 472, 474, 475, 476, 480, 483, 484, 490, 491, 492, 493, 495, 516, 599, 647, 648 Prophet like Moses, 258

784 | Index of Subjects

Protestant Reformation, 16 Ps.-Athanasius, 655 Ps.-Eupolemos, 205 Qere, 17, 20, 65, 66, 84, 299, 300, 301, 302, 403 qiṣṣa (Samaritan punctuation mark), 294, 622, 635 question mark in Syriac and Greek MSS, 165 Quinta, 9, 81, 157, 273, 400, 402, 403, 404, 579 Qumran, 15, 28, 643 quššoyo dots (Syriac diacritics), 140 R. Eliezer, 467 R. Hisda, 103, 105 R. Judah, 467 R. Judah ha-Nasi, 602 R. Meir, 602 Rabbis/Rabbinic, 16, 18, 21, 84, 211, 246, 455, 467, 585, 600, 602, 611, 617, 627, 638, 643, 652, 654, 657, 565, 658, 659, 662 ravens, (Samaritan) plague of, 603, 658 recentiores, 56, 64, 65, 77, 78, 82, 92, 125, 131, 156, 157, 163, 164, 168, 183, 184, 195, 208, 213, 218, 221, 223, 224, 230, 238, 242, 247, 249, 272, 286, 295, 305, 306, 307, 310, 322, 354, 359, 369, 388, 446, 453, 501, 502, 503, 504, 527, 537, 541, 564, 566, 569, 572, 576, 586, 593, 601, 602, 603, 605, 608, 612, 648, 651, 658, 669, 671, 673, 676, 678 Rephaim, 285, 286, 559 resurrection, Samaritan/Christian views of, 600, 601, 609 retroversions of SH, Field’s, 108 Richard Hampden, 20 Robert Curzon, 670 Robert Huntington, 16 Roman Catholic Catechism, 627 Roman Empire, 459 Romans (people), 661 Rome, 392, 407, 471, 650, 661 Rufinus (friend then enemy of Jerome), 118 Sakta (Samaritan sectarian), 618, 619, 620, 621 Samareitikon, 13, 26, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97, 98, 101, 102, 152, 155, 159, 164, 197, 238, 240, 244, 245, 247, 299, 335, 340, 341, 342, 351, 353, 354, 359, 360, 390, 393, 396, 426, 429, 476, 482, 483, 490, 492, 503, 509, 510, 511, 512, 513, 516, 517, 529, 530, 566, 567, 575, 605, 615, 646, 647, 648, 650, 652, 653, 656, 657, 663, 665, 680 Samareitikons (i.e., multiple versions?), 82 Samaria, 103 Samaritan Arabic, 61, 83, 152 Samaritan Aramaic, Greek loanwords, 656 Samaritan column in the Hexapla Maior, 234

Index of Subjects | 785

Samaritan Decalogue Inscriptions, 99 Samaritan exegesis, 57, 65, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 83, 85, 87, 89, 140, 141, 151, 153, 164, 201, 202, 222, 235, 240, 241, 242, 243, 250, 254, 285, 286, 316, 396, 510, 602, 603, 642, 648, 658, 660 “Samaritan Itinerary,” 145, 145, 171, 234, 426, 443, 452 Samaritan liturgy, 33 Samaritan orthographic practices, 352 Samaritan parallel texts(?), 500 Samaritan Passover, 459 Samaritan reading tradition, 75, 76, 77, 78, 81, 92, 97, 150, 152, 153, 169, 172, 183, 184, 185, 203, 213, 219, 223, 227, 241, 242, 243, 244, 254, 281, 289, 303, 308, 311, 347, 350, 352, 353, 369, 375, 391, 444, 453 “Samaritan Renaissance,” 29, 29 Samaritan script, EXCURSUS A, 17, 19, 103, 104, 105, 139, 145, 179, 193, 194, 195, 207, 223, 241, 244, 284, 306, 324, 326, 331, 348, 370, 373, 375, 379, 381, 435, 438, 498, 499, 512, 578, 585, 586, 596, 597 Samaritan Targum (ST), 15, 16, 40, 41, 42, 46, 53, 55, 57, 58, 59, 61, 65, 66, 68, 69, 71, 72, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 92, 97, 98, 139, 140, 141, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 150, 151, 152, 153, 155, 156, 159, 162, 164, 165, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 177, 178, 183, 184, 185, 188, 190, 193, 194, 195, 201, 203, 208, 210, 211, 213, 214, 217, 219, 221, 222, 223, 225, 227, 237, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 254, 278, 281, 282, 285, 289, 290, 294, 298, 301, 306, 313, 315, 318, 321, 324, 325, 329, 331, 334, 335, 338, 341, 345, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 362, 366, 368, 369, 370, 372, 373, 375, 378, 379, 381, 382, 385, 386, 391, 394, 433, 434, 436, 437, 438, 440, 444, 452, 453, 484, 512, 635, 648, 650, 652, 658 “Samaritan Tenth Commandment” (STC), 22, 23, 24, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 60, 96, 199, 201, 431, 615, 622, 623, 624, 628, 629, 630, 631, 632, 633, 634, 635, 637, 638, 639, 640, 641, 642, 643, 644, 646, 659, 663 Samaritan-Christian relations, 615, 622, 657, 664 Samaritans (people group), 4, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 56, 59, 65, 71, 72, 78, 79, 84, 85, 91, 92, 99, 103, 104 Samaritans, later Christian attitudes, 261 Sargon II, 639 schism, 624 scriptio continua, 175, 214, 220, 275, 325, 326, 362, 373, 382, 445 Second Temple, 21, 31, 33, 92, 103, 643 Secunda, 8, 233, 234, 400, 402, 403, 404, 405, 418, 496, 499, 502, 503, 576, 578, 594, 596, 606, 610, 611 Secunda, μόνον-translator(s) use of, 502 šēmå, 301, 302, 394 Senir, 304 Septima, 401 septuagintism (technique in the μόνον-translation), 135, 136, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 150, 151, 152, 155, 157, 158, 162, 163, 164, 165, 167, 168, 174, 182, 183, 184, 189, 193, 194, 195, 196, 201, 205, 206, 207, 213, 214, 217, 218, 221, 226, 227, 235, 238, 250, 251, 254, 283, 287, 288, 289, 294,295, 298, 303, 304, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 314, 318, 321,

786 | Index of Subjects

322, 324, 332, 333, 335, 347, 348, 349, 351, 353, 354, 355, 360, 362, 367, 368, 372, 373, 374, 378, 382, 388, 435, 437, 453, 502, 550, 554, 559 Sergius (Syriac churchman), 121 serto (Syriac script), 141 “Seven Columns,” 673, 669 Severus of Antioch, 124, 408, 412, 415, 416, 417, 418, 457 Sexta, 9, 81, 273, 400, 402, 579 SH, Jacob of Edessa’s use of, 540 SH, reconstructed reading, 181 SH’s treatment of proper names, 335 Shechem, 2, 3, 4, 83, 201, 208, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460, 462, 467, 469, 471, 477, 479, 482, 633, 645, 659 Shelah (patriach), 518 Shem (patriarch), 518 sigla (hexaplaric), 8, 9, 12, 30, 45, 52, 102, 124, 176, 178, 188, 231, 233, 234, 275, 279, 283, 292, 299, 314, 320, 326, 338, 346, 361, 385, 389, 433, 442, 501, 549, 565, 575, 576, 577, 582, 589, 592, 605, 606 sigla (SP in JPent), 541 Sihon (biblical king), 312, 313, 318, 433, 434 Simeon B. Eleazar, 646 Siméon de Muis, 18 Simeon Metaphrastes, 587 Simeon of Ḥsin Manṣur (Syriac scribe), 272 Sin (location), 440, 447 Sinai, 211, 250, 259, 617, 626, 637, 639, 640 Sir Frederic Madden, 110 “Six Columns,” 678, 674, 676 Sixtine, 4, 38, 39, 48, 88, 151, 387, 680 Sixtine, Greco-Latin, 17 Song of the Sea, 433 Sophronius (friend and translator of Jerome), 513 Sorbonne, 525 SP/ST, gutteral confusion, 21, 147, 153, 241, 352, 369, 381 Stephen (Christian martyr), 258 Subscriptions (hexaplaric), 10, 12, 14, 97 Susanna (biblical), 583, 584 swastika, 313, 314, 343 Sychar, 469, 471 Symmachus, 8, 9, 14, 39, 53, 56, 65, 73, 77, 79, 82, 83, 130, 137, 153, 156, 157, 163, 164, 168, 184, 189, 191, 194, 195, 223, 224, 225, 249, 250, 284, 286, 288, 289, 311, 316, 322, 348, 351, 352, 353, 354, 369, 377, 388, 390, 400, 402, 404, 405, 410, 418, 434, 438, 446, 456, 457, 501, 502, 516, 595, 602, 607, 648, 649, 651, 652, 653, 654, 655, 656 Symmachus’ translation of Qere, 300 synagogue(s), 617, 619, 641, 645, 650, 660, 662, 663 Syria, 521, 522 Syriac “Masora,” 497, 493 Syriac Orthodox, 1, 5, 101, 136

Index of Subjects | 787

Syriac scribal correction dots, 323 Syrotetrapla, 10 Taheb (Samaritan “Messiah”), 636 tāksā (Syriac punctuation), 165, 166 Tel ʿAda /ʿAdda, 521, 526, 537, 542 temple (contextually indicated), 458, 459, 461, 468, 469 Terah (patriarch), 518 Tetragrammaton, EXCURUS C, 295, 300, 301, 398, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 411, 648 “tetrapla,” 9, 9, 10, 12, 118, 119, 128, 133, 428, 516, 672, 673, 676, 677, 678 “Tetrapla Maior,” 678, 673 Theodoret, 65, 118, 491, 516, 607, 647, 648 Theodoret of Cyrrhus, 90, 302 Theodotion, 8, 9, 18, 20, 73, 77, 78, 82, 83, 124, 137, 153, 157, 163, 164, 182, 183, 189, 191, 224, 225, 227, 231, 242, 249, 250, 256, 284, 286, 288, 354, 388, 390, 400, 402, 418, 438, 501, 502, 503, 507, 516, 556, 576, 577, 578, 602, 605, 606, 607, 655 “Theodotion”, book of Daniel, 540 Theodotion’s translation of Qere, 300 Theodotion, used by μόνον-translator(s), 182 Theodotos, 645 Theodotus (“the Cobbler”, Christian heretic), 126 Thessaloniki, 64, 72 Thessaloniki, Samaritan inscription, 301 Thomas of Harkel, 6, 166, 506, 549, 669 Thomas the Deacon, 166 Timon (blind Greek philosopher), 126 Timothy I, Catholicos in the Church of the East, 12, 121, 137, 273, 412, 489 Titus Bostra, 115 Titus Vespasian, 467, 468 Trajan, 627 Trinity, 87 Valerian, 588 Valérien de Flavigny, 18 Valesius, 593 verse divisions in biblical MSS, 361 Vienna, 392 Vulgärtexte (Kahle’s theory), 61, 63, 98 Vulgate (V), 148, 471, 513, 514 Walton–Castell hypothesis, 652 Western Text, of the NT, 62 Wiederaufnahme, 180 yod doubled for gentilic in 4Q22, 139

788 | Index of Subjects

Zamzummim, 285 zawgā ʿelāyā (Syriac punctuation), 165 μόνον-collation data (selected indexing) μόνον-collation in Gen, EXCURSUS D, 509 μόνον-collation representaion of transposition, 229 μόνον-integration(s), CHAPTER 5, TABLE 5.1, 522, 523 μόνον-passages in s-group, summary, 342 μόνον-septuagintism, principl characteristics, 144 μόνον-translation: μόνον-translator’(s) treatment of ‫איש‬, 139, 140, 141, 143, 145, 147, 150, 153, 156, 164, 165, 173, 174, 182, 185, 193, 204, 208, 217, 219, 220, 222, 223, 227, 240, 241, 242, 251, 284, 285, 286, 299, 306, 314, 316, 319, 322, 323, 335, 347, 348, 350, 353, 354, 355, 360, 362, 375, 379, 385, 386,394, 501 μόνον-translator’(s) use of recentiores, 242 μόνον-translator’s use of Hexapla Maior as an analytical lexicon, 174 μόνον-translator’(s) use of own translation, 184 μόνον-translator(s), profile, 395

Greek, Hebrew/Aramaic, and Syriac Words ἄλλος, 55 ἀνάγνωσις, 125 ἀνδρίζω, 542 ανερχομαι, 354 ανηρ, 502 ἀντιβάλλω, 119, 128, 271 ἀντίγραφ-ω/-ον, 98, 101, 117, 118, 124, 226, 267, 269, 274, 275, 290, 317, 318, 327, 328, 341, 366, 371, 441, 490, 492, 592, 617, 677, 678, 679 Αντιλιβαν-ος/-ον, 304, 323, 444 Αντωνινος, 679 αποκρυφος, 583 Αραβα, 322 Αργαριζιμ, 59, 60, 61, 66, 70, 74 Αρ[?]γαριζειμ, 203 ασ-π/φ-αλαξ, 241, 243 βάσταγμα, 191 βιβλιοθηκη, 270 βιβλ-ίον/-λος, 269, 275, 441, 617 βισγα, 306 Γαβαλα, 335 Γαριζεί-μ/-ν, 199, 202, 203, 204, 422, 429, 482, 483 Γεβαλ, 335 γιγας, 285 γοβα, 77 γραμματοεισαγωγεις, 190, 193, 444 δεδιορθωμενον, 679 διαστολη, 153 διαστροφη, 653, 654, 655 (meaning of) διατριβη, 587 διορθόω, 13, 126, 127, 128, 678, 679 ἑβραικ-ον/-ῷ, 366, 371 εἰκός, 492 εισερχομαι, 354 εισπορευομαι, 354 εκδοσει σαμαρειτικη εβραικη, 200, 208, 209, 216 ἔκδοσις, 1, 4, 10, 12, 15, 27, 64, 93, 98, 101, 114, 124, 125, 128, 132, 133, 136, 146, 198, 208, 231, 254, 258, 260, 265, 269, 271, 272, 277, 290, 292, 317, 328, 356, 360, 363, 366, 369, 371, 372, 376, 378, 408, 442, 450, 496, 498, 504, 509, 517, 520, 523, 543, 544, 564, 575, 578, 579, 591, 592, 616, 624 εν τω Σαμαρειτικω, 342

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110760798-014

790 | Greek, Hebrew/Aramaic, and Syriac Words

εν τω σαμαρειτων, 365 Ενακειμ, 286 ἔνᾰτος, 5 ἑξαπλ-ᾶ/-οῦν, 114, 117, 118, 119, 127, 677 ἑξαπλῶν, 114, 117, 118, 119, 120, 127, 133, 267, 270, 677, 678 ἔξωθεν, 674 επικειμεν-, 321 εσχολιογραφητο, 13, 678 ευρομεν-, 377 ευσεβειος/Ευσεβιος, 678, 680 η των σαμαρειτων, 297, 377 ΗΕΗΕ, 410, 415 Ιαβε, 65 ἰάσασθαί, 8, 126 Ιαω, 85 ιχνος, 309 και, abbreviation, 325 και, Greek abbreviation, 306 καιγε, 82, 238 κατά Σαμαρειτῶν (annotations), 64, 80 κατορθόω, 126 κεῖμαι, 138, 142, 146, 149, 154, 161, 170, 229, 328, 383, 496 κλίμα, 525 κόρακα, 58, 60, 152 κυνόμυια, 58, 60, 151, 603 λέξις, 124, 125 λοιμός, 156, , 502 μαχβαρ, 418 μεταβαλλω, 358 μετεβαλομεν, 396 μετεβάλομεν, 49, 50, 51 μετώπιον, 674 μέτωπον, 268, 272 μηνιμα, 243 μιασμα, 243 μολιβδου, 387 μολιβου, 386 μόνον, 93 οʹ, 202, 677 οʹ-text, 344, 351, 354, 358, 359, 361, 362, 388, 438, 501 ὁ ἑβραῖος, 125

Greek, Hebrew/Aramaic, and Syriac Words | 791

οʹ ερμηνεια, 344, 358 ὁ συρʹ, 14 ὀβελίζω, 671 οἱ γ΄, 516 οἱ λʹ, 183, 202, 206, 221, 224, 286, 351, 391, 453, 516 οι περι Ακυλαν, 516 (meaning of) οκνεω, 350 ομοιως, 268, 274 οχλησιν, 189 Παμφιλος, 127, 678, 679, 680 παντες, 401 παράβασις, 153, 242, 244, 503 παρατιθημι, 121, 268, 273, 675 πέτασμα, 391 πινακες, 588 ΠΙΠΙ, EXCURSUS C, 302 (changes in G MSS), 307, 322 προσηλυτοι, 597 προσθηκαι, 272 προτίθημι, 116, 129 ρητον, 158, 159 σάδη, 595 Σαμαρειτικοις αντιγραφοις, 341 (τὸ) Σαμαρειτικόν, 38, 40, 42, 46, 48, 51, 53, 54, 56, 58, 59, 60, 66, 68, 82, 83, 90, 91, 92, 129, 152, 297, 328, 341, 327, 342, 422, 425, 492, 514 σὲν (Hebrew letter), 595 σημείωσις, 45, 46 συμφωνία, 596, 597 συναντηματα, 162 συναπτω w/out πολεμος, 369 τα εξαπλα, 679 τα σχολια, 678 τετραπλ-ῶν/-οῦν, 118, 127, 677, 678 το εβρʹ, 418, 511, 512, 513 τουρ γαριζιν, 481 τουρ γωβηλ, 481 τροποφορέω, 288 τροφοφορέω, 288 τω των σαμαρειτων, 281, 294 τω των σαμαρειτων εβραικω, 229 ὑποσημείωσις, 114, 122 υποστασις, 190, 191,

792 | Greek, Hebrew/Aramaic, and Syriac Words

φερομεν-, 135, 142, 176, 181, 192, 200, 209, 216, 281, 294, 297, 360, 383, 496 χολ, 496, 502 χολ scholion, 39, 55, 72, 75, 97, 197, 376, 377, 426, 429, 431, 493, 495, 511, 516, 581, 584, 596, 600, 601 χρονογραφια, 519 χωλ, 496 ωβελισται, 677 ωρʹ, 401, 410 ωριγενους, 127, 678, 679

‫אדני‬, 300 (translation of), 301 (Samaritan vacalization of) ‫אנקילה‬, 656 ‫אנשהו‬, 244 ‫בגד‬, 251 ‫בהרגר)י(זים‬, 203, 205, 483 ‫בקדש‬, 251 ‫גרה‬, 368 ‫דּ ֶבר‬,ֶ 502 ‫השׁם‬, 85 ‫והוה‬, 418 ‫זידון‬, 221 ‫חתת‬, 350 ‫טור גובל‬, 479 ‫טור גריזין‬, 479 ‫טכח‬, 656 ‫טרח‬, 186, 189 ‫יהוה‬, 300 (original translation of in GPent), 301 (treatment of) ‫מול שכם‬, 429, 455, 456, 466, 476 ‫מטט‬, 656 ‫מיסטה‬, 656 ‫מיר‬, 656 ‫נפלים‬, 285, 286

Greek, Hebrew/Aramaic, and Syriac Words | 793

‫סימה‬, 656 ‫סמק‬, 366 (ST) ‫ע ֵב ָרה‬, ֲ 242 ‫ע ְב ָרה‬, ֶ 242, 243, 244 ‫עול‬, 595, 696 ‫עוֹרב‬, ֵ 152 ‫עלילה‬, 595, 596 ‫ערוֹב‬, ָ 152 ‫פלא‬, 152 ‫פלה‬, 152 ‫פרסיאת‬, 656 ‫שואי‬, 87 ‫שמא‬, 65, 85 ‫שמלה‬, 251 ‫תו‬, ָ 585 ‫תועפות‬, 391

Î ŴƇŨĄ, 442, 500 ėŴƇŨĄ, 671 ťƐƀƇŨĄ, 671 ėŴƠƐƀƇŨĄ, 671 ėŴƀũƏČĄ, 665, 670, 674, 675 ƑƀũƏČĄ, 128, 668, 670, 673, 676 ƑƀƍūĞČĄ, 674, 676 ƑƀƍŬſĞČĄ, 670 ŧƢƠſĄ, 137, 267, 268, 271, 272, 273, 578, 674 ťƇƘŤƐƃĄ, 114, 117, 118, 132, 665 ĖŴƇƘŤƐƃĄ, 118, 671 ťƇƙƐƃĄ, 118 ėČĞűƍƐƄƆĄ, 668 ťſĞűƍƐƄƆĄ, 668, 672, 673 ėŴƌŤũƀƇƀźƌĄ, 303, 323, 430 ėŴƠƐſƢźƏĄ, 233 ťƇƘŤźƘĄ, 668 ƑƆŴƀƟĄ, 137 Î ƁƖƀŨƭĄ, 667, 672 ŦƞƘ ƑƀƍūĞĄ, 670 ŦĠĄ (ettafal = φέρω), 146 ƋŷƘĠĄ, 114, 119, 120, 121 ƋƀƏĠĠĄ, 14, 114, 120, 121, 129, 320 ŦĠŴƉűŨ, 267, 275

794 | Greek, Hebrew/Aramaic, and Syriac Words

ťſƮƊƣűŨ, 271, 290, 291, 293, 312, 317, 318, 328, 336, 337, 342, 384, 388 Í 274, 275, 276 ŦĠŴƉűŨ ųŨ, Í 124, 129, 271, 279, 290, 294, 317, 361, 439, 441, 442, 453 ťſƮƊƣĉ ČųŨ, Í 124, 133, 134, 136, 137, 138, 146, 149, 154, 160, 169, 176, 232, 260, 290, 296, 328, ťſƮƊƣĉ đųŨ, 365, 371, 376, 378 ĉŴŷƇŨ, 93, 114, 133, 134, 136, 137, 138, 142, 146, 149, 154, 160, 169, 171, 176, 192, 199, 205, 209, 215, 260 ťƌČƭŤū ťſƢũƖŨ, 232 ťſƮƊƣĉ ťſƢũƖŨ, 290, 343, 360 Î ƢŨ, 225, 227 ťƊƐŨ ťƌČĞŤū, 224, 228, 229, 230, 232, 233, 576, 666 ƑźƌŴŬƀū, 280 ťƐū, 144, 551 ƈƖū, 671 ťũƇƃ ŪŨĉ, 149, 151, 159 ŦƦƃĞČĉ, 309 ťƌŴƊūċ, 187 ťſƮƊƣĉ ČċÍ , 441, 442, 488 Í 114, 129, 442 ťſƮƊƣĉ đċ, ĕč ĕč, 407 (representation of ‫)ܦܝܦܝ‬ ŦŤŶ forma anom, 209, 530 ĖŴƇƘĄƢźŹ, 118, 665 ƑƄŹ, 675 ųſųſ, 304, 405, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 418, 529 ťƌŴũƃŴƃ, 233 ťŨƦƃ, 267, 269, 270, 271, 275, 441, 453, 468, 494 İ Čĉ İ İ ėŴƄ ĭſČ ŴƆ (Ludovīcos), 525 ťƌĠŴƉ, 156 ťƇƀƇƉ, 158 ťƍƀƍƉ, 158 ŦĠŴƌƢũƀƐƉ, 190, 191 Î ťƍƊſųƉĉ ťƃƢſƢźƘ ėŴƀƐƌĠĄ đƢƉ, 668 ŧĞČĉĄĠ đƢƉ, 668 ťƉČĄĠ đƢƉ, 668 ŦĠŴƍƊƇƤƉ, 113, 114, 116, 120, 121, 124, 136, 668, 673 ŦƦſƢƊƣ ŦĠŴƍƊƇƤƉ, 199, 208, 209, 215 ŦĠŴƍƊƇƤƉ ŦƦſƢƊƣ ŦƦſƢũƕ, 129, 341

Greek, Hebrew/Aramaic, and Syriac Words | 795

ťſƦſĠƦƉ, 496 Î ƎſƦſĠƦƉ, 134, 142, 176, 192, 199, 209, 215, 279, 292, 294, 296, 343, 360, 378, 383 ėŴƄƉŴƏ, 137 ƚŷƏ, 552 ƋƀƏ (for κεῖμαι), 119, 142, 146, 666, 668, 670, 671, 674, 676 Î 138, 146, 149, 154, 160, 169, 228, 229, 260, 328 ƎƊƀƏ, ÎđČċ ƎƊƀƏ, Î 365, 371, 383, 666 Î ťƀƆŴƄƏ, 674 ƋƏ, Ð 273 (use in SH Num colophon) ťſƢũƕ, 124, 224, 225, 290, 441, 453, 468, 519 ťſƮƊƣĉ ťſƢũƕ, 129, 136, 228, 229, 267, 271, 441 ŦƦſƢũƕ, 114, 124, 192, 199, 208, 209, 215 űƕ, 561 ƢƀƕČƢƕ, 561 ƁƘŤƘ, 417 ťƖŬƘ, 162, 163 Î ťƍƊſųƉĉ ťƘŴƠƐƀƘĄ ťƆŴƘ, 668 ťƣĞŴƘ, 153 ƋŷƘ, 14, 119, 120, 277, 590, 591, 665, 666, 667, 668, 672, 673, 674 ƁƙƀƘ, 111, 138, 140, 142, 143, 149, 154, 160, 169, 175, 184, 186, 199, 206, 208, 215, 252, 265, 279, 283, 295, 296, 299, 300, 302, 304, 305, 312, 314, 321, 365, 367, 379, 394, 430, 305 (replaced by ťſƢƉ), 314 (change to ťſƢƉ), 417 (used in-text!) ƑƀƆŴƙƊƘ, 128, 665 ėŴƇƀƙƊƘ, 668, 670, 673, 674, 675, 676 Ħ Ƙ (“Pentateuch”), 525 ėŴƃ ĭ ČƦ ĭ źƍ ĩ ŦƦƖƐƘ, 296, 309 ơƤƘ, 114, 117 ťŷŶĜ, 113, 117, 118, 122, 124, 129, 137, 204, 225, 226, 267, 269, 270, 271, 290, 291, 318, 428, 441, 442, 451, 453, 490, 494, 531, 545, 547, 558, 581, 590, 591, 665, 666, 667, 668, 670, 672, 673, 674, 675, 676 ťſƮũƕĉ ťŷŶĜ, 262 ťſƮƊƣĉ ťŷŶĜ, 137, 290, 320, 327 ťũƀƆĜ, 229, 231, 232, 233 Í 279 ƋƀƏĠĠĄ ĕűƟ, İ ėŴƊ ĭƀƇƟ, 525 Î ƁƖƀŨƭ, 118, 666, 672, 673, 676 ŦƞƘ ťƊƣČĞ, 114, 118, 122, 123 Î 668 ŦƞƘÎ Ɨũƣ, ťƕĉČŴƣ, 122 Î Î đƦſƦƣ, ŦƞƘ 114, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 267, 270, 273, 666, 668, 674, 676

796 | Greek, Hebrew/Aramaic, and Syriac Words

ĖŴƀŹČĉĄĠ, 137 ĖŴźſĉČĄĠ, 124 Î ŦƦƙƏČĠ, 267, 271, 277 ĜĞĠ, 14, 116, 119, 121, 125, 127, 542, 591, 668, 670, 673, 674, 675, 676