1The edition presents the English translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) alongside the Hebrew text, the same original text the authors choose for their Hebrew edition, dated from 2010. It is preceded with a long introduction which gives us the state of the art relative to the studies of the SP. The two authors, who have a perfect command of the history of the SP, offer in this book an English translation that allows comparison with the translation of the Massoretic text (MT). These two versions of the Law of Moses differ from each other in thousands of details. Some of these differences concern the traditions and beliefs of the two religious communities; others relate to the development of different literary sensibilities or to the grammar and syntax of the Hebrew language; but by far the most important of these, stems from the different traditions of transmission that had also developed over the generations.

2Already in the Antiquity, as attested by the Talmud Yerushalmi, the Rabbis were aware of differences between the Samaritan version and the Masoretic version of the Bible (Sota 7, 3) as well as differences in the Halakha (Yevamot 1, 6). Abraham ibn Ezra probably had some knowledge of the SP and Nahmanides knew that the Samaritans were employing a script derived from Paleo-Hebrew.

3When Christian scholars discovered the Samaritan version, they first believed that it reflected a more original or older version than the MT. Opinions were divided until the meticulous examination by Wilhelm Gesenius, in 1815 (De pentateuchi samaritani origine, indole et auctoritate commentatio philologico-critica), who listed about 6000 textual differences and considered the SP a derivative text, produced after the Samaritans separated from mainstream Judaism. He found that difficult or obscure Hebrew expressions were often removed in SP, grammatical mistakes corrected, indicating editorial handling.

4Abraham Geiger accepted most of Gesenius’ findings but acknowledged that the SP could preserve some older readings, especially when it agreed with the Septuagint. Indeed, a number of biblical fragments among the Dead Sea Scrolls, bear similarities to the text of SP and confirm Geiger’s hypothesis. Contemporary researchers consider that these could be the precursors of the text have that the Samaritans adopted for their Pentateuch and have chosen to to designate them “texts that underwent harmonistic editing” (Eshel and Eshel 2002).

5After an historical review, the authors discuss the types of variants and offer to classify them into two categories: those related to content and those related to grammar and orthography that do not influence the meaning of the text.

6They divided the first category in four different types: ‘logical’ arrangement of the text, harmonisation, apologetic variants and variants motivated by religious and ideological concerns. The second category includes removal of irregular forms and structures, and variants that reflect the grammar and orthography of Samaritan Hebrew. Of course, many variations reflect the choice of Mount Gerizim, and not Jerusalem, as the place of worship, which is the main point of contention between Jews and Samaritans. This is notably the case of the 23 occurrences where the verb ‘to choose’ is in qatal and not yiqtol in the expression “the place which Shema your God has chosen”. This meant to show that the place of worship had been preordained before the Jordan crossing.

7Although SP is remarkably consistent across the numerous manuscripts, there is evidence for the existence of lost versions, which is particularly evident in the Targumim, translations in Aramaic or in Arabic.

8In manuscripts that have an Aramaic translation in a column alongside the Hebrew original, the two texts do not always correspond. That is, the Aramaic Targum is not a translation of the Hebrew text presented beside it, but was probably copied from another book, which was translated from a different Hebrew original. The Aramaic translation shows that in the past, the Samaritans preserved versions of SP that were eventually rejected and forgotten, leaving their mark only in these translations. They deviate from the mainstream Samaritan tradition, i.e., the version of SP venerated by the community today, and its accepted interpretation, exhibiting a literary stratum that is no longer preserved by the Samaritan community.

9Thus, a question arises regarding the antiquity of the version of SP that we know today and its canonisation. We know of two charismatic leaders who exerted a great influence on the spiritual life of the community: Baba Rabba in the 4^th century and the High Priest Phineas, active in the 14^th century, a period of major cultural and literary activity. It is therefore reasonable to think that this was also the period in which an authoritative version of the Pentateuch was produced.

10Tal and Florentin chose to publish this translation with the Hebrew text of the manuscript Nablus, Samaritan Community Synagogue no. 6, which presents some original readings, although it is generally not different from any other manuscript found in Samaritan communities. The oral reading of the text was more important than its graphic representation. Therefore, there is no authoritative written textus receptus and the copyists felt free from strict writing conventions, especially concerning matres lectionis.

11For convenient reasons, the Hebrew text of the edition is a consonantal text printed in the Jewish Aramaic script and consists therefore in a transliteration of the Samaritan script descending from the Paleo-Hebrew script. A comparison of the two texts should make it easier to see the differences between them. However, we need to define what a variant is. Up to now, comparative editions have highlighted the differences that are apparent in the written text, ignoring variants in the Samaritan pronunciation of the text. Cases where MT and SP share the same text but differ in their written representations number in the hundreds and cannot be considered as variants. Whereas the opposite situation–the existence of substantial variations between the two versions that nonetheless are represented identically in the written text–also number in the hundreds and these differences will be marked off in red in the Hebrew text and in red italics in the translation.

12The Hebrew source of SP presented in this edition is based, as mentioned earlier, on one of the most important manuscripts held by the Samaritan community today, MS no. 6 (C). Dated from 1204 CE, it was copied on parchment by Phineas son of Eleazar son of Nathaniel son of Eleazar, the high priest. The manuscript was chosen because it contains most of the text of the Pentateuch, though it is missing substantial sections at its beginning and end. The missing sections have been filled in, on paper, in 1887 CE. Luckily, nearly all the missing folios are preserved in different overseas libraries (St Petersburg Library, Bodleian Library, Garrett Collection at the Princeton University Library) and the editors were able to reconstruct the text with its missing pages.

13The layout of this manuscript is in three columns, SP on the right, Aramaic Targum in the middle and the Arabic version on the left. The Samaritan Targum was produced in a period of intense literary activity, in the late third and early fourth centuries CE. The Arabic version of SP is attributed to Ab Isda of Tyre, who was active in the eleventh century. This codex is therefore an invaluable witness.

14Tal and Florentin present a diplomatic edition of the Hebrew text, which corresponds to the one published in 2010. For the English translation, the authors relied on the American Standard Version of the Bible (ASV, 1901), while removing the archaic forms and making changes to adapt it to SP.

15The apparatus in the footnotes refer to the Hebrew text and describe the differences between SP and MT. The reader is sometimes directed to a more extensive discussion of the subject in the endnotes. The authors have included some very useful indexes, such as the Index of proper nouns, index of differences between MS Nablus 6 and the Samaritan reading Tradition or Index of differences in meaning.

16It is a very nice and affordable edition (pdf is free), the presentation is clear, the fonts are comfortable. This book will certainly be useful for both scholars and a wider public, i.e. anyone with an interest in the Samaritan intellectual tradition. My only regret is that the authors didn’t include reproductions of the source manuscript preserved in Nablus.