The samaritan pentateuch pdf free download

This second layer is relatively thin and if we could remove it, we would clearly see the pre-Samaritan text, upon which the Samaritan text was based. Consequently, the criteria identified by Tov as decisive for each of the two subsequent layers, in terms of literary history, focus on quite different dimensions of the textual corpus: while the pre-Samaritan substratum is above all characterized by literary features, the Samaritan adstratum is determined predominantly by references to Samaritan beliefs.

Nevertheless, from a methodological point of view, the application of two different reference frames for the separation of two presumed textual layers found within one textual body is problematic, since the procedure requires in fact two separate analytical operations that lack a common denominator, and it is thus rather susceptible for misinter- pretation of data.

In the third edition of , the first case of this list is revoked, as a consequence of new textual evidence.

This dem- onstrates that a reading which supposedly fits into the Samaritan mindset was not necessarily born out of a Samaritan mind. Above all, however, the attribution of a certain reading or a whole passage to an alleged Samaritan adstratum inevitably requires proof that this respec- tive case does not belong to the pre-Samaritan substratum, according to the criteria determining the latter. Following this insight, the present article approaches the so-called Tenth Gerizim- commandment from the Samaritan Pentateuch from a literary point of view, and applies a comparison with literary techniques found in the pre-Samaritan texts.

In the following presentation of the text, the verses of the additional passage are numbered with letters a — h , for convenience and further reference, in accordance with the verse division of the Masoretic text in their respective original co-texts. None of the textual blocks used for the composition of this passage is new or original, on the contrary: Except for the omission of some verse parts and some minor modifications in wording, the text is generally composed of verses taken from other parts of the Book of Deuteronomy, forming in fact a florilegium of verses dealing with Mount Gerizim.

Most noteworthy, however, the sequence of these verses in the new composi- tion does not follow their original order in Deuteronomy, but the verses are rearranged see below, 4. The focal point of the text is without any doubt Mount Gerizim and its central importance for Israel, and it seems from the outset that the inser- tion that followed aimed at connecting this passage with the Decalogue, although this first impression will have to be analyzed more in depth in the following.

The Gerizim composition is known, above all, from the manuscripts of the Samaritan Torah, the oldest of which date to the 12th century. Since none of the manuscripts from the Judean Desert preserves any part of this passage, we have very few sources that could provide insights into its internal textual history before the 12th century, a perspective which should be carefully kept apart from the question of the text-historical origin of the Gerizim composition.

This inter- pretation has been contested by Ferdinand Dexinger, who pointed out, in accordance with the genre characteristics of these inscriptions as mezu- zot, that lines 8—10 of the Leeds inscription were not conceived as part of the Decalogue, but as a complementary closing of the inscription as a whole. According to a recent detailed examination by Bradley Marsh, Jr. Marsh provides an excellent edition of the Syriac text together with a detailed commentary.

As regards the arrangement of these verses, the passage is built in a ring-like or frame-structure: The verses Deut —30 frame the sequence Deut —7, creating a narrative con- tinuum between these two texts, which in the book of Deuteronomy are separated by 16 chapters, although they are clearly paralleled to each other, in terms of the literary structure of the book.

According to Deut 27, after crossing the Jordan and before the covenant ceremony, a cultic site is founded and an altar is erected on Mount Gerizim. Thus, the conflation16 of Deut — 30 and Deut —7 produces a new text that contains information not present in either of the two original texts alone.

As to the literary technique of this conflation, the latter was carried out through inserting the later text — in terms of the original sequence of the Book of Deuteronomy — into the former, i. Deut —7 was entered into Deut —30, and not the opposite, as can be seen from the fact that Deut and Deut form a frame around Deut —7.

As a result, the new text contains no reference to the covenant ceremony. This seems to demonstrate that, from the outset, the focus of this com- position was the cultic site and altar on Mount Gerizim rather than the ritual landscape of the covenant ceremony comprising Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal.

All these changes seem to reveal further characteristics of the scribal work leading to the Gerizim composition: As regards the narrative surround- ing the foundation of the cultic site and the altar, the aim was brevity and focus on the basic structure of the narrative, rather than repetition or insistence on ornamental details.

However, Deut a is the only verse providing the exact location of the cultic site and altar, which is the point of the present composition, and it therefore appears here as one of its core elements. Most obviously, therefore, the composition of the new text was more led by the aim to create coherence within this text itself, and much less by the constraints of literary harmonization within the horizons of the Book of Deuteronomy. In other words, the Gerizim composition is conceived above all as a separate textual unit, and not primarily as an expansion of the receiving textual continuum.

In this case as in numerous others, it appears to be just in line with the textual characteristics exhibited in the pre-Samaritan texts as well as in the Samaritan Pentateuch to supplement the text of Exodus with passages taken from Deuteronomy.

One should distinguish between a copy of the Samaritan Pentateuch and old readings known in the Samaritan Pentateuch and reflected often in the LXX and elsewhere that appear in pre AD Hebrew scrolls. Hence, "Proto-Samaritan Texts" should be defined as manuscripts preserving textual traditions that are not caused by Samaritan editing and appear not only in the Samaritan Pentateuch but also in some Qumran biblical manuscripts, namely 4QpaleoExodm;16 4QNumb;17 ; and 4Q The study of the transmission of the Pentateuch indicates that Samaritans and other early Jews shared an early stage of traditions and Scripture.

We should keep in focus the possibility that a manuscript with a reading found in the Samaritan Pentateuch may not be the result of editing by Samaritans; it may represent an early reading. Thus, the MT and other related text types may represent redactions by others, notably Jews in Judea, especially after the burning of the Samaritan "altar" by John Hyrcanus in the late second century B.

Charlesworth, p xix, AD. If the Samaritans changed the text from plural to singular in Lev , they would also have changed Lev which reads plural in the Samaritan Pentateuch to this very day! For I am the Shehmaa [Lord] who sanctifies them. Leviticus , SP. Ancient Literary references to Samaritans:. In Jerusalem he left Philip from the Phrygian nation, but he had a more barbarous manner than the one who appointed him.

In Gerizim he left Andronicus, and with these Menelaus, more wicked than the others. He lorded it over the citizens and had a hateful disposition toward the Judean citizens.

After this he took Samega, and the neighboring places; and, besides these, Shechem and Gerizzim, and the nation of the Cutheans, who dwelt at the temple which resembled that temple which was at Jerusalem, and which Alexander permitted Sanballat , the general of his army, to build for the sake of Manasseh, who was son-in-law to Jadua the high priest, as we have formerly related; which temple was now deserted two hundred years after it was built.

And while all this happened, Joseph was thrown into lands which he did not kn[ow …] 11 among a foreign people, and they were scattered in the whole world. All their mountains were deserted by them … [… and fools? And they spoke with wor[ds of …] 13 the sons of Jacob, and they terrified them with the words from their mouths, blaspheming against the tent of Zion; they spoke [false words and all …] 14 and deceitful words, they spoke them to anger Levi, Judah and Benjamin with their words.

And while all this happened, Joseph [was delivered] 15 into the hand of foreigners who consumed his strength and broke all his bones up the time of his end. And he became wear[y …] 16 and he summoned the powerful God to save him from their hands. The Samaritan Pentateuch is as important as the Masoretic or Septuagint:. It contains many similarities to the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls. In addition, the Samaritan Pentateuch offers new perspectives on problematic Biblical passages.

Far too often the Samaritan Pentateuch is relegated to an inferior position, designated as a borrowed and edited text of the Jews. The Septuagint, a Greek translation composed around the second century BCE, actually shares over commonalities with the Samaritan Pentateuch and less with the Jewish Masoretic Text. What were dismissed as late and secondary readings in the Samaritan Pentateuch sometimes can be seen in Qumran biblical texts.

Charlesworth, p xvi, AD. However, they share linguistic corrections, harmonizations in minutiae, and various readings with SP. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls renewed the debate among scholars, due to the fact that in Qumran Cave 4 were discovered ancient fragments identical in textual structure to the Samaritan Pentateuch, especially many fragments of the book of Exodus. As well, many fragments were identical with the version of the Greek Septuagint, the "Translation of the Seventy.

Brief chronological summary of Samaritan History:. See also: Detailed outline on Samaritan history. He was a good king and a reformer king. Surely, he would give a copy very willingly to anyone wanting to follow God and give up idolatry. When the king heard the words of the book of the law, he tore his clothes. Gerizim rebuilt and enlarged:. Gerizim are killed by the Romans: Josephus Wars 3. Messianic expectation among the Samaritans:. The Samaritan Messianic expectation was a primitive and undeveloped concept that involved the return of a Moses like figure who would vindicate and sanctify the Mt.

Gerizim temple of YHWH. In spite of not having the benefit of all the messianic information in the prophetic books they rejected Jeremiah, Isaiah, Daniel etc their view was more an sufficient to view Jesus as the exact object of their hope.

Three Messianic passages in the Samaritan Torah:. The direct inspired record of the woman of the well of Jacob in Shechem Nablus indicates that the Samaritans were looking for four things:. Samaritan Eschatology at the time of Jesus:. The original period of divine favor existed when the tabernacle was on Mount Gerizim in the early days of Palestinian settlement, a period of years by Samaritan calculation. The period of divine disfavor Fanutah began when Eli moved the sanctuary to Shiloh.

A human figure, the Taheb, modeled on the promise of Deut , will be the harbinger of the new era. Beyond that a cosmic eschatology has been added. As for the beginning of the Second Kingdom it is brought into connection with the schema of the six thousand years of the duration of the world.

In the anonymous, eleventh century work, the Asatir, the duration of the world is said to be six thousand years. The Pitron, a fifteenth century commentary on the Asatir, comments on this number as follows: "For from the beginning of the days of creation to the end there will be six thousand years. And the explanation of this is: From Adam until the Taheb will be six thousand years and the seventh thousand will be the Jubilee".

It is self-evident that this 'world scheme' is not of Samaritan origin. Rabbinic sources are aware of it and it is to be noted both in bSanh. Furthermore, through the harmonising of the three eschatological themes of Rhwth, Taheb and the Second Kingdom by late Samaritan theological thinking the Second Kingdom became an intermediate stage only.

The Second Kingdom is thought of as a lasting, unspecified, earthly, universal, ideal realm. It thus becomes a link between the earthly and the cosmic eschatology. Samaritan Eschatology today:. A similar evolution of messianic theology has occurred among the Jews living today.

According to the final systematization of Samaritan eschatology the millennium lies between the appearance of the Taheb, the end of the world, the resurrection and the Day of Vengeance. The time of the Taheb, the earthly eschatology, is characterized by several political expectations. The Hebrew language will be dominant whereas the language of the Arabs will be confused.

This goes together with the liberation of the Samaritans from foreign oppression. There will be no more foreign rulers, but the Samaritans themselves will take over the government. Other peoples will become their subjects. Mt Gerizim will be liberated from foreign occupation and will regain its cultic purity. The goal of all of that is peace for the whole world and the glorification of the truth. As far as individual eschatology is concerned, the belief in individual life after death connected with punishment and reward is essential to Samaritan eschatology.

This includes the belief in resurrection at a later stage of Samaritanism. The eschatological destination of the righteous and the wicked is seen to be different. It is in this respect that notions of Gan Eden and Gehinnom have a place in Samaritan eschatology.

The final judgement will take place on the Day of Vengeance and Recompense. The innocent will pass into the Garden of Eden and the wicked will be burned in the fire. The 'fire' is the regular term for the place of eschatological punishment. It is interesting to note that the Samaritans do use the terms Gehin-nom and Sheol, the latter term appearing in the Samaritan Pentateuch whereas Gehinnom does not.

Its om-mission may not be so surprising when one recalls that it originally designated a valley in Jerusalem. The word Gehinom is only used in late texts e. To a certain degree the same may be true of the name Sheol for it appears as the place for eschatological punishment no earlier than late medieval texts e. The Pentateuchal usage of Sheol does not yet include the connotation of eschatological punishment.

The late, but apparently full terminological agreement with what is found in the intertestamental period does not permit the conclusion that these very detailed notions are quite so old among the Samaritans. On the contrary, the late use of this terminology would rather point to the fact that Samaritanism, due to the time of its origin, did not follow the specific developments of the Jewish creed which, ultimately, were adopted by Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity.

Gan Eden is conceived as the eschatological habitat designed for the righteous. In eschatological geography it is Mt Gerizim with which the future, like the lost paradise, is connected. Further study:. See full outline on Jewish messianic expection at the time of Christ. See: Messianic expectation in Dead Sea scrolls and coins. Three False Samaritan Messiahs at the time of Christ:.

Dositheus the Samaritan 30 AD :. While in accord with the Samaritan views in the main, he differs from them particularly in regard to the prophetic books, which he recognizes as more or less inspired, rejecting merely the Judaic hopes founded on the Davidic dynasty, while at the same time he makes ample use of the pseudepigraphic literature that seems then to have been widely read, but was lost sight of thereafter in the rabbinic schools.

Very little is known of him; and the uncertainty of the reports is increased by his being confounded with an older Dositheus, the teacher of Zadok, who founded the sect of the Sadducees. He was probably a contemporary of Jesus, or perhaps a little later. In those days of great religious excitement he presented himself to the Samaritans as the prophet promised in Deut. Pummer, p , AD. Others, again, among whom is Dositheus the Samaritan, condemning such an interpretation, think that in the position in which a man is found on the Sabbath-day, he is to remain until evening.

Moreover, the not carrying of a burden on the Sabbath-day is an impossibility; and therefore the Jewish teachers have fallen into countless absurdities, saying that a shoe of such a kind was a burden, but not one of another kind; and that a sandal which had nails was a burden, but not one that was without them; and in like manner what was borne on one shoulder was a load , but not that which was carried on both. Unnamed False Messiah in 36 AD. The timing is the same time of the great persecution and scattering of Acts This man lived in the same place and time of Simon the Sorcerer of Acts 8.

The man [false messiah] who excited them to it, was one who thought lying a thing of little consequence [spoke lies] , and who contrived everything so, that the multitude might be pleased [ attracted a great following ]; so he bade them get together upon Mount Gerizzim, which is by them looked upon as the most holy of all mountains, and assured them that, when they were come thither, he would show them those sacred vessels which were laid under that place, because Moses put them there.

So Pilate, when he had tarried ten years in Judea, made haste to Rome, and this in obedience to the orders of Vitellius, which he durst not contradict; but before he could get to Rome, Tiberius was dead.

All other characteristics of SP were already found in early texts such as the so-called pre-Samaritan Qumran texts. At the same time, SP also differs in small details from these Qumran texts. The paucity of information on the pre-Samaritan texts does not allow us to make precise statements on all the types of differences.

What characterized the ancient scribes of SP and the pre-Samaritan texts is the freedom with which they approached the biblical text during the last pre-Christian centuries as opposed to the tradition of meticulous copying that characterized other texts. In contrast, at a second stage, after the content of the Samaritan tradition had been fixed, SP was copied with great precision, like the texts belonging to the MT group.

The best-preserved pre-Samaritan text is 4QpaleoExodm, of which large sections of forty-four columns from Exodus have been preserved. Significant sections of several additional texts have also been found. Gerizim for Mt. From the Samaritan perspective, Shechem was already the chosen place in the time of Abraham, whereas from the historical perspective of Deuteronomy, the choice of God's place Jerusalem yet lay in the future, after the conquest of the land and the election of David.

Singular is wrong since God chose his sanctuary to dwell at Shiloh for years before Jerusalem: Jeremiah Judges clearly identifies Mt. Gerizim beside Shechem. While the numbers in the MT show that Terah was when Abraham was born and that Abraham left Haran at age 75 after Terah died at age , the Jews incorrectly interpreted the birth of Abraham when Terah was What this meant in their interpretation, was that Tarah continued to live in Haran for another 60 years after Abraham left for Canaan.

This was always problematic until the Christian Bible explicitly stated that Abraham did not leave Haran until after the death of Terah at age see Acts The Samaritans fudged the numbers for the life span of Terah from down to in order to have Terah die before Abraham left Haran.

So in the Samaritan corrupted chronology they incorrectly have Abraham born when Terah was 70 and Terah dying at age when Abraham leaves for Canaan at age But today we are certain that Terah was years old when Abraham was born which creates a huge problem for the Samaritan Pentateuch because this means Terah dies when Abraham is only 15 years old and now Abraham continues to live in Haran for another 60 years after Terah dies before he leaves for Canaan.

Had the Samaritans just left the text alone, they never would have been caught red handed with irrefutable proof Abraham was not 15 years old when Terah died , that they deliberately corrupted the Samaritan Pentateuch chronology in Gen 5 and in Genesis See: Terah died at not years old. The Samaritan Pentateuch contains various kinds of harmonising alterations, especially additions to one passage on the basis of another one that, by definition, are secondary.

These alterations appear inconsistently i. The Samaritan Pentateuch was not sensitive to differences between parallel laws within the Pentateuch which, as a rule, have remained intact, while differences between parallel narrative accounts, especially in the speeches in the first chapters of Deuteronomy and their "sources", were closely scrutinised. The most frequent type of harmonising alterations happens when one of two differing parallel verses in the Samaritan Pentateuch is adapted to the other.

As a rule, however, the Samaritan Pentateuch puts both parallel verses or parallel details after each other in the earlier of the two texts. Thus the parallel verses from Deut are added in Exodus after and within v. For similar additions.

In this way the nature of the book of Deuteronomy as a "repetition of the law" mishnah torah in Jewish sources has been reinforced, since on a strictly formal level Deuteronomy can only "repeat" something if it is also found verbatim in an earlier book. Another kind of harmonising change concerns the addition of details in the Samaritan Pentateuch with which the reader should actually be familiar, even though they are not explicitly mentioned in the Bible.

In Exod , for example, the Israelites murmur against Moses after he has led them through the Red Sea: "Is not this what we said to you in Egypt, 'Let us alone and let us serve the Egyptians? Another illustration is Gen , where Jacob relates a dream not mentioned in any earlier verses in the Massoretic text; in the Samaritan Pentateuch, however, the account of this dream is added after That name may be somewhat misleading since these particular Qumran MSS are neither Samaritan pace Baillet nor sectarian in any way.

This term is used, as in other cases cf. The prominent characteristic which these texts have in common is the occurrence of major harmonising elements such as evidenced in the Samaritan Pentateuch see above. The Exodus text adds, for example, details after based on ; after based on ; and after based on , all agreeing with the Samaritan Pentateuch and all referring to the explicit execution of the divine commands to Moses and Aaron telling them to warn Pharaoh before each plague.

A similar type of text is quoted in 4Q, 4Q both biblical "paraphrases" , and 4Q Test. All these form a typologically similar group, related in character, yet sometimes different in content.

As for differences, the texts except for 4QpaleoExod m are written in square Hebrew characters. Also, they lack the distinctive phonetic features of the Samaritan Pentateuch. As for similarities they share the SP's linguistic simplifications, its harmonisations in minor matters, as well as its non-characteristic readings, although differing in many details in these areas.

The spelling of 4QpaleoExod m is fuller than that of the Samaritan Pentateuch, while that of the other texts is not. They are not sectarian in any way. Moreover, they contain various readings not known from other sources.

At the same time, these pro-to-Samaritan texts share a sufficient amount of significant details with the Samaritan Pentateuch to demonstrate the close relationship with that text. In the same way as the proto-Samaritan texts relate to each other, the Samaritan Pentateuch is akin to all of them, although that text is a bit remote from them because of its subsequent ideological and phonetic developments. There are no actual changes in the Bible text of the Ten Commandments, just added text that is replicated from other places.

False accusations of Samaritans changing the text of the Torah, when they did not:. The Lord is a warrior. This alleged variant is a fiction created by scholars who did incomplete and poor research and should be rejected as such.

The Samaritans many have taken steps to avoid viewing God in human terms and occasionally would alter the text to remove these Anthropisms but the evidence leads us to conclude this was not the case. Exod is found in stone inscriptions and is used as a favorite text in liturgies. After all, it is implied that the blast of air came from God. So the entire concept that the Samaritans removed God-man imagery is weak.

He has not made you and established you? If the Samaritans actually removed some Anthropisms of God they did a lousy and inconsistent job of it. This leads us to conclude in this case the variants are interpretive not a change in text. The entire idea that the Samaritans removed the God-man imagery from their Torah is a fiction created by scholars who did incomplete and poor research. The variant of in Ex ; ,8 can be explained through translation equivalents. Harmonization is not an exclusively Samaritan or pre-Samaritan phenomenon.

In broad strokes, scribal harmonizations fall into two patterns. First, details from one parallel passage may be inserted into the other to "fill out" the passage missing those details.

Second, details in one parallel passage may be changed in order to bring it into agreement with the other, thus eliminating the impression of contradictions Both of these procedures are found in the pre-Samaritan text group and the SP. The Samaritan Pentateuch, Robert T. Genesis Chronological variants of the Samaritan Pentateuch. Primeval Chronology of Genesis 5. Correct original. Corrupted in AD. Age at Son's Birth.

Remaining Years. We know for certain that Shem was not firstborn as per Gen and that Ham was the youngest as per Gen which obviously makes Japheth the oldest. In Gen English translators are split on which of Shem and Japheth were the oldest. Genesis says the flood occurred when Noah was years old. Primeval Chronology of Genesis Year at Birth. Life 9. Gen 11 Yrs 3. Creation 4. Flood 6.

This is an interpretive variance, not a textual one in spite of the fact that Jews from BC to the present wrongly maintain that Terah was 70 when Abraham was born. Had the Samaritans just left the text alone, they never would have been caught red handed with irrefutable proof Abraham was not 15 years old when Terah died , that they deliberately corrupted the Samaritan Pentateuch chronology in Gen 5, However they are added in the SP.

The SP adds the total life years lived for each person in the Gen 11 chronology. This is a corruption of the original text. The Samaritan Pentateuch as a large textual insert after the tenth commandment to covet and before the next section on slavery in both Ex 20 and Deut 5. In every verse in the Torah in which Jerusalem is alluded to as the central place of worship, the Samaritans have inserted in its stead, sometimes by way of allusion, their own center, Mount Gerizim, one word in their orthography.

This change is particularly evident in both versions of the Decalogue with the Samaritan tenth commandment referring to the sanctity of Mount Gerizim. The commandment is made up entirely of verses occurring elsewhere in the Torah: Deut.

The addition includes the reading of SP in Deut. The same change based on the Samaritan ideology pertains to the frequent Deuteronomic formulation, "the site which the Lord will choose," alluding to Jerusalem.

From the Samaritan perspective, however, Shechem had already been chosen at the time of the patriarchs Gen. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. And you shall write on them all the words of this law. And you shall rejoice before Shehmaa your Eloowwem.

And when all the people saw, they trembled and stood at a distance. Deut —27 And we heard His voice from the midst of the fire.

Jump to content. You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality. Your donation pays only for dedicated server hosting, bandwidth, software licenses, and capital equipment scanners, OCR equipment, etc. The module is much appreciated, thank you Aleksandr! It is very convenient to have this resource available for some of the historical and textual elements of bible study.

There is one issue that I found in e-Sword Version Samaritan Targum Ms. Nevertheless, the vast majority of cases in which the text of the Samaritan Pentateuch differs from the Masoretic text puts an even greater emphasis on its reading because the characteristics of SH appear only in vocal- ization — the consonantal framework of the two textual corpora being identical.

HALOT, s. Thus, on the basis of a consonantal framework, which is identical, the reading produces a different word. As in the former example, we are again dealing with a hapax legomenon here. Of course this conjecture does not answer the question of how the Masoretic text in its present state should be understood.

The Samaritan Hebrew lexicon contains lexemes exhibiting differences in morphology as compared with their Masoretic counterparts A substantial number of differences between SH and TH concerns morphology. This opposition between part. However, what could be observed in the previ- ous example with regard to the application of nominal patterns is true for the employment of verbal stems as well.

In many cases the morphological difference has no semantic consequences whatsoever e. Exod Most obviously, in none of the examples quoted so far has the use of a dif- ferent verbal stem implied any difference in meaning. In the case of many other verbs, however, the application of a different verbal stem may have semantic consequences which ought to be carefully described in a lexicon of Samaritan Hebrew.

Lexemes shared by SH and Masoretic Hebrew have differences in meaning in the two traditions Up until this point I was looking at differences in the Samaritan and Tiberian He- brew lexicon based on the existence of a given word in one corpus which is ab- sent in the other 3. Let us turn to an example of this now: The SP passage quoted above is different from the corresponding MT in several areas starting with the verb which is, according to MT, vocalized in the Qal.

As the present use only occurs in Deut , it is again difficult to determine the exact meaning. Lexicon of Samaritan Hebrew According to the Samaritan Pentateuch Tradition As you can see, the above passage contains divergences in each word. Of course, one could question whether a Lexicon of Samaritan Hebrew should record a meaning which appears secondary.

Significance of the Lexicon of Samaritan Hebrew 4. Lexicography The dictionary will present the lexicon of SH as preserved in the Torah together with a comprehensive semantic analysis, creating an important resource of lexicographical information.

On the one hand, it will become be a central tool for any further work at the SP and the Samaritan tradition as a whole piyyutim, commentaries, halakhic and grammatical works etc. On the other hand, the Sa- maritan reading of the Torah is one of the witnesses for the Hebrew spoken in the Late Second Temple period and shortly thereafter and is thus a further im- portant step towards the reconstruction of the Hebrew language of this period. Etymology Besides the semantical analysis, the dictionary will also provide a comprehen- sive etymological analysis for each lexeme.

This seems especially important in light of the following considerations: a The Samaritan Hebrew lexicon preserves some rarely used words which are otherwise unknown in Hebrew.