Samaritan Pentateuch and Documentary Hypothesis

Polycarp66 at Polycarp66 at
Mon Dec 20 10:32:53 EST 1999

In a message dated 12/20/99 5:12:24 AM Central Daylight Time, 
peter_kirk at writes:

<< The extract below puzzles me. Can anyone explain its relevance to the 
 Samaritan Pentateuch? What evidence does the SP provide for the 
 existence of separate documents, or how the Pentateuch might be 
 assigned to different documents? (Point taken about Gilgamesh and the 
 Diatessaron - but what are the other examples in the middle of the 
 from...through range?) >>

A good question.  Perhaps he is referring back to a preceding section of the 

d.  Sam. Pent. and the Book of Jubilees. The book of Jubilees was dated by R. 
H. Charles between 135 and 105 b.c.e. (1917:xxix–xxx), but by Zeitlin 
(1939:3–8), with Albright’s approval (FSAC, 346–47), “in the early time of 
the Second Jewish Commonwealth in the pre-Hellenistic period.” According to 
Charles’ statistics (1917:xxxiii–xxxix) it has affinities with the Sam. 
Pent. and even more striking affinity with the LXX against the MT. In sum, 
its affinities are similar to those of 4QNum, suggesting once again that the 
earlier proto-Samaritan text-type had more affinity with the LXX and less 
with the MT than the Sam. Pent.

e.  Sam. Pent. and The Book of Chronicles. The similarities between 
Chronicles and the LXX, and QL of Samuel in contrast to MT of Samuel put 
beyond reasonable doubt that the Chronicler did not revise his sources but 
relied on sources already differing from the MT (cf. Gerleman 1948:34; Cross 
1964:293). Gerleman (1948:9) found that the genealogies and lists of names in 
1 Chronicles 1–9 “show greater resemblance to the Samaritan Pentateuch than 
to the Massoretic.” Elsewhere he wrote: “It is . . . not only in 
morphological and syntactical details that the textual tradition of the 
Chronicler shows affinity with the Samaritan Pentateuch. The resemblance 
extends also to the actual composition, the arrangement of the material, the 
form of the narrative” (1948:21). Finally, he observed that the 
correspondence pertains to the LXX as well: “We have seen that the texts from 
which the lists of names in 1 Chronicles 1–9 have been taken show remarkable 
correspondence not only with Samaritanus, but also with the Septuagint” (28). 
If Gerleman’s analysis is valid, one finds in the light of QL and other 
Jewish literature strong evidence for positing a very early, though already 
modernized, recension from which the LXX and proto–Sam. Pent. independently 

Freedman, David Noel, ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary, (New York: Doubleday) 
1997, 1992.

Possibly also more.  I haven't analyzed it too carefully.


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list