Here Gesenius puts the notable passage Deut. xxvii. 4, where the Samaritans changed Ebal into Geraim to favour their own temple. Some have attempted to show that the Jews changed Gerizim into Ebal, but unsuccessfully.
Another classification of the Samaritan charac teristic readings is given by Kirchheim. He makes thirteen classes, as follows :— I. t:',14,1 in 1.11,th n4rovnl =DWI, additions and alterations in favour of Mount Gerizim.
2. nit,t5n5 mtvin, additions to fill up.
3. 11N1ii, explications or glosses.
4. vinz-ri pl'pn, change of verbs and conjugations.
5. rnmyri pl5n, change of nouns.
6. nt...tIvn, assimilation, or bringing irregular forms into the same uniform type.
7. rronwri n-onn, permutation of letters.
8. pronouns.
9. Mil, gender.
io. ronoln nrnIN, letters added.
onln nrnmt, addition of qualifying letters, as articles, conjunctions, prepositions.
12. r11pil, junction and separation.
13. n913., rnty,:chronological alterations (Corm Shomeron, p. 32, seq.) This classification is by no means so good as that of Gesenius, being inferior to the latter in clearness and comprehension.
Frankel has treated of the subject more by way of supplement to Gesenius than from an independ ent point of view. His additions to the classes of the latter are small and unimportant, besides being pervaded by erroneous conceptions of the age when the Samaritan Pentateuch originated. He alludes—t. To the use of the imperative for the third person, as z-Ipm for np, (Exod. xii. 48) ; and to ignorance of the use of the infinitive ab solute, as 1-01' for 11X (Exod. xiii. 3), "ON for lICNI (Num. vi. z3), etc. 2. The characteristics of the Galilean-Palestinian dialect, such as the interchange of the Ahevi letters, and of for D, of for V, etc. But this peculiarity is simply owing to carelessness of transcription in the copy ists, who wrote as they pronounced, and softened the hard gutturals which were difficult to their organs. 3. The Aramaean colouring and ortho graphy, as pf?. and 5stLp. This is likewise owing to transcription, and can hardly be called a cha racteristic of the Samaritan.
Are there then, it may be asked, no readings in the Samaritan recension preferable to those in the Hebrew ? Gesenius specifies four examples of this sort— viz. Gen. iv. 8, where the Samaritan adds, 'Let
ns go into the field ;' Gen. xxii. 13, irit•t, a instead of -Irv, behind ; Gen. xlix. 14, where 1:11), a hone, is 04-0, bony ; and Gen. xiv. pin, instead of p-pl, i.e. he numbered, for he led forth. Even. these have been thought emendations, and rejected by the majority of critics, though we prefer one ot them to the Hebrew. But though Gesenius was not very happy in selecting Samaritan readings preferable to the Hebrew, it should not be denied that the one is everywhere superior to the other. There are good and valuable readings in the maritan which have a fair claim to be considered original, and therefore preferable to those of the Masoretic recension. The evidence of the tuagint and other versions, in addition to that of Hebrew MSS., should not be despised when it corroborates the Samaritan. Kennicott went too far in his high estimate of the Samaritan. So did Geddes, Bauer, Jahn, and Bertholdt. But we need not proceed to the other extreme, and preciate every characteristic reading ; as some have clone after Gesenius. It is sufficient to say that the Samaritan cannot be put in comparison with the Hebrew recension, because its deviations from the latter have generally the appearance of design. The difference between the two chiefly consists in additions to the Samaritan text. And we know that insertions show design, much more than omis sions. The Hebrew text is not immaculate : none can uphold its absolute integrity. If it needs emendation, why should not the Samaritan recen sion be taken as one source of evidence? It is not, indeed, a valuable instrument of emendation ; but it is not destitute of all worth ; and should be classed with the other materials on which a pure text depends. Critical conjecture must sometimes be resorted to in restoring the original text, as the best scholars admit ; why then throw aside the Samaritan as more useless even than conjecture ? It may sometimes suggest the right reading, if it does not give it.