Deuteronomy 27:4

Hebal. It affords a matter of surprise to Ludolf, that this barren mountain of cursing, (ver. 13,) should be fixed upon by God for the erection of his altar and for solemn feasting, instead of Garizim, which is most luxuriant. Reland believes that their very names designate sterility and fruitfulness. But we must observe that the Samaritan copy, both here and Exodus xx., specifies that Garizim was to be the place so highly distinguished. Almost all interpreters agree in condemning the Samaritans of a wilful corruption of their text, on this account. But Kennicott adduces several very plausible arguments in their defence, and even throws the blame upon the Jews, who are accused of having taken similar liberties with their text, by St. Jerome, (Galatians iii. 10,) in leaving out the word col, all, which he found in the Samaritan Pentateuch, (ver. 26,) as well as in St. Paul. It is remarkable that the Protestant "version allows the corruption of the present Hebrew copies. For as it inserts other necessary words elsewhere, so here, says the Doctor, it inserts the word all, noting it with a different character, as deficient in the present Hebrew." Another plain instance of fraud is acknowledged by many of the Jews, (Judges xviii. 30,) where, because the grandson of their lawgiver became the first priest of Michas' idol, in the tribe of Dan, they have inserted an n over or in the name of Moses, to change it into Manasseh. "The letter nun was written, says Jarchi, in order to change the name for the honour of Moses." (Talmud, fol. 109.) Michaelis adduces the same reason for Abendana, (Gottingen, comment. 4, 1753) thus acknowledging a wilful corruption made by the Jews, which in the former volume he had asserted had never yet been clearly proved against them. Kennicott himself had once been of the same persuasion. Josue xv. 60, eleven cities are omitted, perhaps originally by mistake, though St. Jerome thinks that they may have been left out by the ancient Jews, agreeably to the prophecy of Micheas v. 2. It seems, therefore, that the Jews were as capable of falsifying the test as the Samaritans. Their hatred against the latter was also excessive, insomuch that they vented all sorts of imprecations against them, and even decreed, "that no Israelites eat of any thing that is a Samaritan's, nor that nay Samaritan be proselyted to Israel, nor have nay part in the resurrection." (R. Tanchum.) (Walton, proleg. 11. 4.) --- Hence we read, (John iv. 9,) the Jews do not communicate with the Samaritans. See Ecclesiasticus l. 25.[28.?] Many passages of the New Testament set the character of the latter, however, in a more favourable light than that of the Jews. They were open to conviction, on the preaching of Christ and of the apostles. See St. Chrysostom on John iv., and the history of the Samaritan cured of the leprosy, whose behaviour, contrasted with the ingratitude of the nine Jews, obtained the glorious approbation of the Son of God, who disdained not to describe himself, on another occasion, under the character of the good Samaritan, Luke x., and xvii. The Samaritans are also acknowledged by the Jews themselves, to be more zealous for the law of Moses, and more rigid observers of the letter of it, than the people of their own nation. (Obadias; Hottinger.) --- It is not probable, therefore, that they would designedly interpolate that very law, which alone they received as of divine authority among the writings of the prophets. Besides, what interest could they have on this occasion to substitute Garizim? As they had possession of both the mountains in question, if they had known that Hebal had been honoured with the altar, &c., what hindered them from building their temple upon it? What could be the reason why Joatham chose Mount Garizim as the place from which he might address the men of Sichem, to bring them to a sense of their duty? unless because he was convinced not only that Abraham had sacrificed there when he first came into Chanaan, (Genesis xii. 6,) but also that God had chosen it for the place where his covenant with Israel should be ratified, as soon as the Israelites had taken possession of the country. But it may be said all the ancient versions agree with the Hebrew. No doubt those which have been taken from that text agree with it. But the Samaritans have a version in their own dialect, and another in Arabic, both which were in the possession of Walton, who believes that the former "was made not long after the days of Esdras, while the Samaritans and the Jews followed the same religion." This, as well as the Arabic, which is extant in this place, both in its own and in the Samaritan character, all admit the word Garizim; and the Greek version, which some believe was made from the same text soon after the reign of Alexander the Great, (Hottinger) if it really ever existed, must no doubt have retained the same reading. These versions claim a higher antiquity than that of the Septuagint. But in reality the version can prove nothing on either side, in the present case, as the interpolation is supposed to have taken place before they were made, and soon after the building of the famous temple of Sanaballat, which Prideaux places about the year 409, B.C. This temple chiefly enkindled the mortal hatred of the Jews against the Samaritans; and as it was built upon Mount Garizim, they were afraid lest they might from this text conciliate greater authority to that place, and assert that it was the house of the sanctuary, as they afterwards did, having priests of the stock of Aaron, who there offered holocausts, when Benjamin visited them above four hundred years ago. Their claim however was unjustifiable, and their priesthood schismatical. Though Moses commanded that an altar should be erected on one of these mountains, he did not determine that the ark was to remain there for ever, nor does he seem to have decided where it was to be fixed. God afterward chose Mount Sion for his habitation, and revealed his will by his prophets. These the Samaritans ought to have obeyed, as well as the pastors, whom the Almighty had commissioned to determine all difficult matters, chap. xvii. The text before us decides nothing in their favour. The substitution of Hebal makes nothing against them, much less does it establish the pretensions of the Jews, who, if they had intended to authorize the building of the temple at Jerusalem, ought rather, it should seem, to have written Moria or Sion. As they have not done this, perhaps it may be as well to admit that this variation may have happened, by the inadvertency or malice of some transcriber of great authority, whose copy being followed by others for some time, without any criminal design, might at last supercede the proper word, particularly when the erroneous reading was become common, and was found to annoy an enemy. Authors of great eminence are forced, at least, to account for many variations of equal importance in this manner. It seems difficult to lay the blame of such mistakes upon a whole nation, which can never be prevailed upon to join in the collusion so heartily, but that some man of more conscience than the rest will expose the imposture. When this variation took place, we may well suppose that the copies of the law were not very numerous. After a succession of wicked princes had reigned in Judea, they drew down the vengeance of God upon the whole nation, and almost all were led away captives to Babylon, where they remained seventy years. In this state of confusion, while impiety overflowed the land, how few would have an opportunity or a will to take an exact copy of the law! Some have thought that it was almost entirely forgotten in the days of Joas. Others have asserted that Esdras had to write afresh, as it were by inspiration, all that had been given by the more ancient penmen. These opinions are not indeed to be admitted, but they shew that many have supposed that the copies of the law were once exceedingly scarce. Perhaps they were never more so than when the Jews were just returning from captivity, the time when the schismatical temple of Garizim was erected, and when, we have before observed, this variation is supposed to have taken place. Josephus, though a bitter enemy of the Samaritans, speaks with hesitation respecting the precise situation of the altar prescribed by Moses. The ancient Fathers seem to have taken no notice of this controversy, perhaps because it was not yet agitated with so much heat as it has been since. Our Saviour condemns neither party. If however the Samaritan copy be in this respect interpolated, as we know the reason of it, the authority of the whole Pentateuch must not on that account be rejected, as Houbigant well observes. The Jews objected to the Samaritans, that they had inserted the word Sichem: (chap. xi. 30,) "I have said to you, O Samaritans, ye have falsified your law: for ye say the plain of More which is Sichem. (they add Sichem of their own accord.) We ourselves indeed confess that the plain of Moreh is Sichem." (Eliezer.) --- Lightfoot, who mentions these words, (V. ii. p. 505,) expresses great surprise at this Jew's accusing the Samaritans of so slight a matter, and at his not at all mentioning that far greater subornation as to Mount Garizim. What seems still more wonderful is, that no such accusation is brought against them in that famous dispute which Josephus ([Antiquities?] xiii. 3,) informs us took place before king Ptolemy, in which the parties bound themselves by oath to produce their proofs according to the law; an yet the historian mentions not one text from it, nor does he insinuate that the Samaritans were arraigned on account of any wilful corruption, which might then have been so easily proved. The king condemned them unheard, if we believe Josephus, though the Samaritans give quite a different account, and say that Ptolemy decreed the victory to them. (Act. Erud. Lips. 1691.) See Josue viii. 30. (Kennicott) (Haydock)