The Bible of the Woman at the Well

John 4 relates the now-famous story in which Jesus has an involved conversation with a Samaritan woman at Jacob’s Well just outside of the Samarian town of Sychar. In the ensuing discussion, both Jesus and the unnamed woman describe several theological beliefs which he and his fellow Jews, and she and her fellow Samaritans, do not share. As John explains in a narrative aside: “Jews do not share things in common with Samaritans.” Among other matters, they discussed the correct location for worship (vv. 20–24) and Jesus’ status as a (or, “the”) prophet (John 4:19, 25–26).

Lurking beneath the surface of this exchange, however, is one major difference which they do not discuss: Samaritans and Jews at the time differed—and still do—on the number of books accepted in their biblical canon. Moreover, even the very text contained often reads very differently.

So, who are the Samaritans and why does their Bible differ from that of the Jews?

The Samaritan’s and their canon

The group known today as the “Samaritans” amounts to approximately 850 people, most of whom live in the modern cities of Nablus (ancient Shechem) and Ḥolon (a city south of Tel Aviv). This group, who call themselves “Observant Ones,” formerly a much larger group, holds only the first five books of the Bible or Torah as Scripture. As such, they differ greatly from wider Judaism in a number of beliefs. Most especially, they maintain that the proper location for worship (see John 4:20), including any associated temple or sacred precinct, should be on Mount Gerizim near biblical Shechem not on Mount Zion in Jerusalem. Early Church Fathers (e.g., Origen, Epiphanius of Salamis) would occasionally point out some of these disagreements, especially the Samaritans’ putative rejection of the resurrection of the dead (akin to the Sadducees); although this is a doctrine that they would eventually accept (documented from the 14th c. onwards).

Perhaps most pointedly, the Samaritans’ rejection of the remainder of the Hebrew canon (or Old Testament) meant that Moses alone is their foremost prophetic figure. Indeed, Samaritan theology holds that post-Mosaic “prophecy” cannot really exist as such. Nevertheless, since the Pentateuch records Moses predicting that the Lord would raise up a prophet for Israel like himself (Deut. 18:18), the Samaritans also believe in a prophet subsequent to Moses, one whom they call the Taheb (Aramaic for “Returning One”). This prophet is an eschatological figure, akin to but not identical with the Jewish or Christian concept(s) of the Messiah, who will restore all things, uniting the tribes of Israel and reestablishing proper worship on Mount Gerizim. It is in this broader context that the Samaritan woman’s words with Jesus in John 4:25 should be read.

In summary, the differences in the Samaritan Bible are substantive. But how was this distinct Bible recovered by Western scholars?

The study of the Samaritan Pentateuch

From the 17th c. until 1947

The Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) was first “discovered” by westerners in 1616 when an Italian traveler named Pietro della Valle (1586–1652) acquired a manuscript of the Samaritan Hebrew Pentateuch when traveling in Damascus. This manuscript made its way to Europe in 1623 and would eventually be published in the famed Paris and London polyglots, the latter of which gained a very wide circulation. Scholars immediately noticed the many textual variations which the Samaritan Pentateuch bore when compared with the traditional Jewish Hebrew or Masoretic Text.

Since the flames of the Protestant Reformation were still roaring when the Samaritan Pentateuch arrived, naturally the previously unknown text was deployed in debate by both sides of the Catholic–Protestant divide. Initially, some Roman Catholics defended the Samaritan Pentateuch as a means to prop up the Septuagint (with which the Samaritan Pentateuch bears many shared readings against the Masoretic Text) so as to bolster ecclesiastical authority; Protestants, on the other hand, severely depreciated the Samaritan Pentateuch for the sake of fortifying the Masoretic Text in service to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Eventually, however, the Samaritan Pentateuch would gain admirers and detractors on both sides.

Nevertheless, after less-than-purely-scientific disputation, H. F. Wilhelm Gesenius (1786–1842) published a short, seminal study in 1815 which seemingly ended the debate. Gesenius argued much more forensically that the Samaritan Pentateuch indeed formed a different recension of the Hebrew Pentateuch and agreed it bore much resemblance to the Septuagint (LXX).

Related

• 
  Illustration by Peter Gurry. Images from iStock
  The Most Important Bible Translation You’ve Never Heard of

  Used by the Apostles and the early church, the Greek translations of the Old Testament may be the most important ever.

  William A. Ross

However, according to his analysis, this SP-LXX recension was secondary to the Masoretic Text in every conceivable way, especially textually, as many of these variations appeared to remove textual or grammatical difficulties or were literarily harmonistic in nature. Furthermore, he claimed that the textual branch represented by the Samaritan Pentateuch had been further corrupted by “half-learned scribes” who added long sections from parallel passages and other more nefarious changes, such as reading “Gerizim” rather than “Ebal” in Deuteronomy 27:4, 12 as a means of promoting their sacral temple mount over and against Jerusalem. Gesenius’s arguments won the day, and, with very few exceptions, scholars subsequent to him more or less followed suit.

Research since 1947

Then in 1947 the textual landscape of the Hebrew Bible completely changed with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The caves of Qumran revealed ancient Hebrew scrolls that were not Samaritan but still agreed textually with the Samaritan Pentateuch against the later Masoretic Text. These included a scroll with the expanded Plague Narrative in Exodus, such as 4QpaleoExodus^m (4Q22), and others evincing passages from Deuteronomy inserted into the parallel accounts in Numbers, as in 4QNumbers^b (4Q27).

As a result, Gesenius’s thesis had to be reconsidered. Although the last 30 years have seen much debate amongst specialists as to precise nature of these scrolls and their exact textual relationship to the Samaritan Pentateuch, since these manuscripts (and others like them) were Jewish, they are now, as a group, generally described as “pre-Samaritan” (some prefer “proto-”) since they are not sectarian in nature. Apparently, the Samaritans adopted a recension of the Pentateuch, which had a much wider circulation in the Judaism of the Second Temple period, and only added a “thin layer” of sectarian readings favoring Gerizim as the proper location of worship.

However, many questions remain involving the proper descriptor of this recension (was it a “popular” or “academic” version?); the nature of the Samaritans’ adoption of it (was it intentional or incidental?); and the number of readings belonging to the “thin layer” (they differ from scholar to scholar). Most pointedly, based on the trends of the last few years, scholars may dispense with even this “thin layer” in the near future.

A somewhat inelegant English translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch was published in 2013 by Benyamim Tsedaka, himself a native Samaritan, entitled The Israelite Samaritan Version of the Torah: First English Translation Compared with the Masoretic Version. The differences from the Masoretic Text, against which it is set in parallel columns, are printed in bold.

At present, a new critical edition of the Samaritan Pentateuch is being issued under the editorial leadership of Prof. Dr. Stefan Schorch. The volumes for Leviticus (2018) and Genesis (2021) have been published so far. The volume for Exodus is due to be published next.

Yet while the Dead Sea Scrolls greatly add to our knowledge of the Samaritan Pentateuch, the primary witnesses to it remain those from the Middle Ages.

Get new articles and updates in your inbox.

Leave this field empty if you're human:

The text of the Samaritan Pentateuch

Today, the Samaritan Pentateuch exists in codices from the 12th century. Written in a distinctive form of ancient Hebrew script, its text has a number of features which are no longer deemed unique or sectarian. Many shared readings with LXX do exist, although scholars now believe the agreement with the Greek and disagreement with the Masoretic Text is far less so than was previously described. We can list just a few of the more noteworthy features.

Expansions and harmonizations

As noted above, throughout the Plague Narrative (Exod. 7–12) the narrative is “expanded” by means of repetition, in order to explicitly describe Moses’ execution of each of God’s commands. Thus, at Exodus 7:18, the Samaritan Pentateuch has seven additional verses that detail Moses actually going to Pharaoh and relating God’s exact words. Insertions of parallel materials are also prevalent. For instance, at Numbers 27:23, the Samaritan Pentateuch supplies the dialogue with which Moses commissions Joshua as recorded in Deuteronomy 3:21–22, seemingly shaping the former as the source for the latter. The result is a kind of harmony of the two passages. Altogether, there are approximately 40 such passages from the Samaritan Pentateuch that either seem to expand or harmonize the text.

Altogether, there are approximately 40 passages from the Samaritan Pentateuch that either seem to expand or harmonize the text.

Yet, Qumran manuscripts also record most of these same passages (or can be reconstructed as containing them), and indeed some textual evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls show expansions or harmonizations beyond those found in the Samaritan Pentateuch.

Scholarly explanations for these sorts of passages known from the “pre-Samaritan” recension differ. Some contend that they are merely formalistic editorial devices, while others argue they are meant to increase the credibility of prophetic speech and/or action. It has even been suggested that these passages form a “Moses layer” (this is Magnar Kartveit’s terminology) which reinforces Moses’ position as the prophet par excellence over and against the later prophetic corpus. Since the Samaritans reject post-Mosaic prophecy, this could explain why they would adopt the pre-Samaritan recension as their preferred Bible text.

The Samaritan tenth commandment

One of the “expansions” or “harmonizations” found in SP Exodus 20 merits special consideration, the so-called Samaritan Tenth Commandment. Immediately after the Commandment against coveting, the Samaritan Pentateuch contains a passage comprised of Deuteronomy 11:29, 27:2–7, and 11:30. Together, it states that, after entering the Holy Land, the Israelites are to write the Law (= the Decalogue) on stones, set them up, build an altar on Mount Gerizim, and celebrate before the Lord. The rendition also specifically locates Gerizim as “opposite Shechem” reading with SP Deuteronomy 11:30 (all other versions lack this specific locative).

This passage, also recorded in SP Deuteronomy 5, is traditionally understood by the Samaritan community to be the Tenth Commandment, and indeed it is marked as such in some, though not all, Samaritan codices. (The earlier Commandments are differently numbered to achieve this effect; it is not an Eleventh Commandment as it is sometimes called.)

Initially, the modern editors of the Dead Sea Scrolls insisted that any reconstruction of 4Q22, which is fragmentary at this point, could not possibly be reconstructed as containing the passage. After all, based on the traditional Samaritan exegesis, the passage was then presumed to be the chief part of the “thin layer” which the Samaritans added to the pre-Samaritan recension, specifically meant to justify their worship on Gerizim. Such has been the consensus in the majority of recent scholarship.

However, most recently scholars have begun to question this, and a recent article by Hila Dayfani argues, based on a digital reconstruction of 4Q22, that the scroll did originally contain the passage.¹See her, ‘4QpaleoExod^m and the Gerizim Composition’, Journal of Biblical Literature 141.4 (2022): 673–698. If her ground-breaking, new study persuades other scholars, then it may very well be that there is really nothing Samaritan about the Samaritan Pentateuch after all.

The Samaritan Pentateuch and Christian Bibles

Today, the majority of Christian English translations stick rather closely to the Masoretic Text. Nevertheless, these translations utilize the Samaritan Pentateuch to varying degrees to emend the Masoretic Text, most often in conjunction with other witnesses (e.g., LXX, Dead Sea Scrolls). For example, the NRSV reads at Genesis 4:8: “Cain said to his brother Abel, ‘Let us go out to the field.’” The footnote explains that this translation comes from the Samaritan Pentateuch, LXX, Syriac Peshitta, and Latin Vulgate while the Masoretic Text lacks the phrase Let us go out to the field. This means that the Samaritan Pentateuch is cited as the only direct Hebrew evidence for the reading, even though it is reflected by other versions.

The ESV, however, treats this verse in the opposite manner, omitting Cain’s words to Abel but supplying them in a footnote: “Samaritan, Septuagint, Syriac, Vulgate add Let us go out to the field.” (The NET Bible follows NRSV with a more comprehensive textual explanation in the footnote.) Altogether the footnotes of the first edition of the ESV cite the Samaritan Pentateuch thirteen times. The Samaritan Pentateuch’s reading is preferred in eight of these cases,²Gen. 47:21; Exod. 1:22; 13:19; 14:25; 20:18; Num. 21:30; Deut. 11:14; 33:17 again mostly in conjunction with other evidence. By contrast, the NRSV cites the Samaritan Pentateuch 25 times (five times in Deut. 32 alone), preferring it over the Masoretic Text each time, again largely in conjunction with other witnesses.

Conclusion

Whether Christians may or should adopt Samaritan Pentateuch readings for their Bibles is an interesting question, and a number of theological considerations must be taken into account, especially if a given ecclesial community explicitly vests authority in one text or another. However, in light of recent research, the Samaritan Pentateuch certainly merits consideration when weighing textual variants. In any case, the Samaritan Pentateuch represents a fascinating chapter in the history of the Bible and one that sheds light on key biblical episodes like Jesus’ encounter with a woman in need of living water.

Notes

• 1
  See her, ‘4QpaleoExod^m and the Gerizim Composition’, Journal of Biblical Literature 141.4 (2022): 673–698.
• 2
  Gen. 47:21; Exod. 1:22; 13:19; 14:25; 20:18; Num. 21:30; Deut. 11:14; 33:17