Introduction

INTRODUCTION

i. MEM AR MAR Q AH

Memar Marqah (The Teaching of Marqah), or as it is called in the latest manuscripts "The Book of Wonders,"1 is probably the most important Samaritan work after the Samaritan Pentateuch2 and Tar- gum3. There are several reasons for this claim. It is the oldest literary product that can be dated to within a century or two of its composition. It is upon Marqah's Memar that many Samaritan theologians, mystics and liturgists of later, mediaeval times based their work. Furthermore, it is the only representative of Samaritan literature in the early centuries A.D., apart from the few Hymns by Marqah4 and his son Nanah5 (both names being Aramaized forms of the Roman names Marcus and Nonus) in the Samaritan 'Book of Common Prayer' called the Defter.6 We find in Marqah's great work the first traces of that most remarkable phenomenon of Samaritanism, the assimilation of Christology and the application of it to Moses. Here we see the almost inchoate form of one of the most astounding cases of syncretism, without concomitant corruption of the original forms, in the history of religion. Marqah's Memar is equally valuable as a compendium of many opics in Aramaic, a language th at has hardly yet received the attention it deserves. In the first few centuries A.D. Aramaic was certainly he spoken and literary language of the Samaritans and in this work of hat period there is revealed a form of that language, albeit through ate MSS, possessing many interesting forms and loan-words, and many

1 Sefer Pell'ata. So also M. Gaster: Samaritan Oral Law and Ancient Traditions, Vol. i. Eschatology, 1932, p. 86. 2 See P. Kahle: "The Abisha' Scroll of the Samaritans" in Studia Orientalia Ioanni Pedersen (Septuagenario A.D. VII id. Nov. Anno MCMLIII) 1953. For the text see von Gall: Der Hebräische Pentateuch der Samaritaner, Giessen, 1918. 3 See J. W. Nutt: Fragments of a Samaritan Targum, London, 1874. The complete text of B. Walton in Biblia Sacra Polyglotta, London 1655-57, unreliable. A new critical text based on older MSS is to be prepared under the patronage of Prof. P. Kahle. The best work on the Targum to date is P. Kahle's "Fragmente des samaritanischen Penta- teuchtargums" in Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, XVII. 4 The only serious study and publication of these Hymns is P. Kahle's "Die zwölf Marka-Hymnen aus dem 'Defter' der Samaritanischen Liturgie" in Opera Minora, 1956. See also S. Brown: A critical edition and translation of the ancient Samaritan Defter [i.e. Liturgy) and a comparison of it with early Jewish liturgy, doctoral dissertation, Uni- versity of Leeds, 1956. 5 For the text see Sir A. E. Cowley's The Samaritan Liturgy, Oxford, 1909, Vol. I. pp. 15, 410, 422.

8 A. E. Cowley, op. cit. I. pp. 1-92.

II XVIII Introduction

treasures of Aramaic syntax. Knowledge of the Aramaic of Central and Northern Palestine has never been great as compared with that of Baby- lonia and Southern Palestine. Now the study of the Aramaic spoken by the large Samaritan population in Palestine can be further advanced. There are several problems associated directly or indirectly with this work. First, there is the question of the exact nature and aim. It has often been described as a commentary on the Pentateuch, and a midrashic commentary at that.7 Yet it is not a typical commentary as Christians, Jews or Muslims would understand the word 'commentary,' for we do not have anything here like a continuous verse-by-verse commentary. In Marqah's monumental work there are certainly midrashes of great length, based on the Bible in the main, but there are also long philosophical, didactic and 'scientific' passages not so based. Theories are set out; there are hymns of praise resembling in content and style the Hymns of Marqah in the Defter; there are independent kabbalistic passages. It would clearly be more accurate to describe this work as a Thesaurus of early Samaritan traditions, hymns, beliefs, saws and epithets, and possibly primitive liturgical phrases and expressions. Different people will judge differently the value of Marqah's Memar. Some will regard the long midrashes on the Exodus and on the Death of Moses as foremost in value. Others will consider Marqah's theological teaching as of prime importance, while yet others will see in what Marqah says about creation something that fills a gap in the history of science. Those specially interested in the historical development of Aramaic will discover here a valuable contribution to the language spoken and written for well over two millenia. Another problem is the content. Why should a work like this begin at the story of Moses and the Burning Bush ? Why not at Genesis chapter i ? Indeed the most important statements about creation are to be found in Book VI! It has been suggested8 that the original Book I must have contained the midrash on the Birth of Moses,9 but the present writer thinks this unlikely, chiefly on the ground that the Samaritan stories of and hymns on the Birth of Moses include so much of the story of the Birth of Jesus as revealed in the Gospels of St. Mat- thew and St. Luke, while Marqah shows considerably less sign of

' So D. Rettig's title Memar Marqah: Ein samaritanischer Midrasch zum Pentateuch unter- sucht, Bonn, 1934. So also Heidenheim's Der Kommentar Marqas, des Samaritaners, Weimar, 1896. 8 J. E. H. Thomson: The Samaritans: Their Testimony to the Religion of Israel, Edin- burgh, 1919, p. 268. M. Gaster: The Asatir: The Samaritan Book of the Secrets of Moses, London, 1927, p. 134. 9 See M. Gaster: "The Samaritan Legends of the Birth of Mor.es" in The Quest, XXI. 1, London, 1930. J.Macdonald: "The Samaritan Doctrine of Moses" in Scottish Journal of Theology, Vol. 13, no. 2, June, i960, pp. 149—62. Memar Marqah XIX

having been influenced by the Gospel writers than the post-Marqan and chiefly 14th century writers who set out the story of the Birth of Moses, although it must be admitted that an additional book by Marqah on Moses' Birth may have been lost after its use by later writers. On this we have no information.10 At the same time, the Samaritans of today assert that the Memar once covered the whole of the Torah, but there is no way of validating this claim. In 1932 Gaster thought the Memar consisted of five books, and an additional one, now lost, containing the story of the Death of Moses,11 a remarkable fact that reveals the state of Marqah studies as recently as thirty years ago. We must accept that Book I begins with the Commission of Moses at the Burning Bush. When Marqah's view of history is taken into full account, it seems natural that the starting point for the Exodus midrash should be the Commission rather than the Birth of Moses. To Marqah the plan of God for His people hinged solely on the question of deliverance from sin and adversity. God's dealing with His peoples in Marqah's view were basically soteriological. Thus for Marqah man is so created that his innate wisdom can bring him deliverance from folly and regret; thus the great deliverance of Israel from Egypt is brought about through God's vice-regent Moses; so in the last days the Samaritan Messiah, called the Taheb, will deliver the true believer from the judgment. For students of comparative religion and those of heterodox Judaism (and even those of primitive Christianity and nascent Islam) Marqah's Memar provides new and vital material. Some have suggested that the Samaritans were dependent on Judaism. Others have said that Sam- aritanism is a hotch-potch of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The present writer has indicated elsewhere12 that Islamic doctrines and ideas do not enter into Samaritanism as early as Marqah's time, and he will show elsewhere how assimilation from Christianity does not develop fully until after Marqah's day. In the Memar the religious atmosphere is similar to that found in Palestine and surrounding regions from the period of Persian rule, through the Hellenistic era, up to the early decline of the Roman Empire. A comparison of the Samaritan Asatir, a book of ancient legends which may belong to the Hellenistic period or possibly the Roman, with the many apocryphal works from the 3rd century B.C. on, will reveal the same or closely similar ideological climate.

10 Ghazal ad-Duwaik's Moled Moshe (13th or 14th century) is almost a liturgy in itself for the commemoration of Moses' Birth, but used on other festive occasions ever since. 11 M. Gaster: Samaritan Oral Law, p. 86. 12 "Islamic Doctrines in Samaritan Theology" in Muslim World, Vol. L, no. 4, pp. 279 to 290, October i960.

II* THE DATE OF THE MEMAR Marqah was the son of Amram b. Sered according to the Samaritan chronicles.13 It is not known for certain whether he was a High Priest as the 13th or 14th century Vatican MS14 and later liturgical MSS state; it is more likely that the ascription of that MS and others really refers to the 13th century Amram, High Priest. However, there is no doubt that the Samaritans themselves for centuries have regarded Marqah as a man of the greatest possible distinction, whom they revered as they revered no other outside of their Bible. From the 14th century on liturgical compositions were often modelled on Mar- qah's style. His son Nanah appears in the Defter as the composer of a hymn.15 It has been observed by Cowley16 that Marqah (= Marcus) was also called nt31t3 (= Titus) and his son's name may = Nonus, so that the family of Amram b. Sered "must have lived in the time of the Roman government of Syria" (Syria = Palestine, Lebanon, Syria of today). As far as dating the Memar is concerned therefore, we have several factors that indicate the 2nd-4th centuries A.D.—The use of Greek words, the Aramaized Roman names of Marqah's family, the ideological outlook, the midrashic material, the philosophical and scientific passages, the language and style, and, as we shall see below, the long textual tradition. All this is in addition to the inescapable fact that Marqah does not betray any definite signs of the Islamic influences so prominent in later Samaritanism. The Samaritan chronicles themselves,17 especially from the nth century, place Marqah and Nanah at about that time. In addition there is the fact that of all the hundreds of Samaritan family names known to us, only Marqah, Nanah and Tota are Roman. Perhaps in the future it will be possible to trace the history of Chris- tianity in Samaria more exactly, so that we may discover why Marqah shows some knowledge of St. John's Gospel, while later writers use it in such a way as to prove actual dependence, at times verbatim,, on it.

THE TEXT We now turn to the history of the. text in general terms before ex- amining the available MSS in chapter 3 of this Introduction. The oldest text announced belongs to the late 14th century, the next oldest to over a century later, followed by two of nearly two centuries later still, and a few modern MSS. 13 e.g. Abu '1-Fath: at-Taulida, p. 133, Neubauer's edition in Journal Asiatique, De- cember 1869. 14 Vatican Sam. MS. 3; 15 Cowley, op. cit. I. 31. 16 op. cit. I. xxi. n. 1. 17 See Cowley, op. cit. I. xx & xxiv. Memar Marqah XXI

When one compares Memar MSS with, e.g., those of any one Festival Liturgy, it is transparent that the Memar has not been copied so often and that it has a longer history. Liturgical MSS abound in variants of every kind, but the basic text is not changed very much in the course of time. Such changes as there are by way of additions and omissions are only those to be expected during the development of a liturgical text. As a result of the years of research into liturgical MSS in the University of Leeds under the leadership of Professor J. Bowman (now of the University of Melbourne), it is possible to see how the Liturgy developed and how the available MSS interrelate. While investigating some nine MSS (from the 14th century on) for Yom ha-Kippur as part of the work for a doctoral dissertation,18 the present writer discovered that manuscriptural variants are to be related to scribal families. Thus scribes of the Levitical family will agree on choice of words, forms, orthography and synonyms as against those of the Danafi or Marhibi families. This proved to be the case beyond all doubt. The. same discovery applies in the investigation of the MSS used for the text of Memar Marqah. It is abundantly clear from the content and the variants that there are two main types of fixed text, and these belong respectively to the Danafi and Levitical families. This will be illustrated in detail below. There is, however, the special problem of the oldest (14th century) MS, called herein K. This MS differs considerably in content and exact wording from the Danafi and Levitical text-types. As will be shown, this is a text possibly dictated from someone's memory and not copied from an earlier text. That such a process should have been necessary in that century illustrates the truth that it was in the 14th century that the greatest revival in MS reproduction took place.19 It appears to be true that in the 14th century the Samaritan literary resources were in desperate straits. This may have been due to the devastating inroads of the savage conqueror Timur Lane (1336-1405) and other unhappy events such as perhaps the Bubonic Plagues of 1348 and 1360 which were rife in Syria. But the process of devastation may have been at its worst during the Roman period; certainly under Justinian the Samaritans (particularly in 529) suffered greatly.20 It seems that it was only after the migration of some Damascene Samaritans to Palestine in the 14th century that MSS copying as well as literary production revived. We do not know yet if the Syrian and

18 A critical edition of the text of the Samaritan Yom ha-Kippur liturgy, with translation thereof and comparison with the corresponding Jewish liturgies, University of Leeds, I958- 18 Cowley, op. cit. p. xxxiv. 20 See Cowley's remarks in Jewish Quarterly Review, VIII, p. 568. XXII Introduction

Palestinian Samaritans experienced a period of internal conflict in literary, liturgical and theological matters, but it is possible that sec- tarian controversy was active at that time. What we can be sure about is that from that time (a) MSS have a 'family' flavour: (b) MSS were copied in great quantity: (c) Syrian liturgical orders are contained in some copies:21 (d) Eastern Aramaic forms find a place in MSS copied in Nablus. Thus the problems arising from the MSS consulted for the present work must be related to the question of to which family a particular scribe belonged. In addition, it must be noted that the MSS consulted have been allowed to speak for themselves, and that it has nowhere been taken for granted that all MSS by, e.g., a Levitical scribe must agree in orthography, synonyms or content.

2. PREVIOUS RESEARCH and PUBLICATIONS

The honour of being the first to publish compositions by Marqah falls to F. H. Gesenius22 who reproduced some of his Hymns under the title Carmina Samaritana in 1824. The first publication of any part of Marqah's Memar was produced by S. Kohn in 187623 from a single fragment. He received this MS from Franz Delitzsch, but neither Delitzsch nor Kohn recognized the MS to be a fragment of the Memar. The fragment he edited contained the Passover Haggada, but in fact it was a comparatively small fragment based on one inferior text. Kohn realized that the work represented by his fragment was probably part of a huge Samaritan midrash, but he had no way of recognizing the uniqueness of Marqah's great work. In 1868 H. Petermann was able to make a copy of a complete MS of the Memar in Nablus. This was finally deposited in the Prussian State Library in Berlin and catalogued as MS or qu. 522 (now in Tübingen, but see further the description in chapter 3 under D. 2). It was not till 1888 that the first edition of a part of the Berlin (now Tübingen) Codex was made. Part of Book VI of the Memar was edited by H. Ba- neth under the title Des Samaritaners Marqah an die 22 Buchstaben.21 Two years later in 1890 another part of the work was edited, this time the whole of Book V, by E. Münk under the title Des Samaritaners Marqah: Erzählung über den Tod Moses in Berlin. The first substantial attempt to publish the Memar in extenso was by Heidenheim in 1896

21 e.g. British Museum Harl. Cod. 5514. 22 Leipzig, 1824. 23 "From a Passover Haggada of the Samaritans" in Zur Sprache, Literatur und Dog- matik der Samaritaner, Leipzig, 1876. 24 (den Grundstock der hebräischen Sprache) anknüpfende Abhandlung, Berlin, 1888. Previous research and publications XXIII

under the title Der Kommentar Marqas, des Samaritaners.7,5 A year later in 1897 L. Emmrich produced a text of a small part of Book II under the title Das Siegeslied (Exodus cap. 15): eine Schrifterklärung des Samaritaners Marqah in Berlin. In the following year, M. Hildesheimer edited part of Book I under the title Des Samaritaners Marqah Buch der Wunder in Berlin. Finally in 1934 in Bonn D. Rettig edited part of Book IV under the title Memar Marqah: ein Samaritanischer Midrasch zum Pentateuch in the Bonner Orientalische Studien Series. Some of Marqah's Hymns from the Defter were also reproduced or edited after the time of Gesenius, e.g. by R. Kirchheim in Carme Shomron, Frankfurt a/M. in 1851, but the only critical edition of value has been that of Professor P. Kahle, "Die zwölf Marka-Hymnen aus dem "Defter" der samaritanischen Liturgie."26 Kohn's work was of little value apart from the fact that it did represent part of the Memar, because it was based on a single fragment whose text is inferior and unreceived. The work of Petermann had value because it was the first complete text, but again only one (inferior) MS underlay it, and the whole production was uncritical. Similarly, the work of Baneth, Münk and Emmrich relied on a single complete text. However, Baneth, Münk and Emmrich contributed for the first time useful critical and comparative observations, especially on linguistic matters, and attention was drawn to possible comparison of Samaritan traditions with Jewish sources. Heidenheim unhappily reproduced his text inaccurately and errors exist by the score. He attempted to give the Biblical references (as footnotes to the text), but this was an incomplete and arbitrary attempt. Furthermore he made use of a fragment of the Memar discovered in the British Museum (see chapter 3 below under H), but this fragment was too small to be of real value at that time. Most of his footnotes, apart from the Biblical references, consist of his own emen- dations and readings, almost all of which have since proved to be wrong. Yet Heidenheim performed a useful service. He recognized that Kohn's fragment represented part of the Memar and that the British Museum fragment and the fragment published by Kohn deviated from the Berlin Codex. Thus a beginning was made to the critical, comparative work now possible in this complete edition. It has rarely been pointed out, if ever, that Book III is missing from Heidenheim's text. Up to the beginning of the 20th century, therefore, the text of Memar Marqah was known only from one poor complete MS and two fragments. 25 Bibliotheca Samaritana III, Weimar. 26 In Baumstark-Festschrift, Oriens Christianus III, 7, 1932, pp. 77-106, and later in Opera Minora (P. Kahle), 1956. XXIV Introduction

A further stage was reached in Memar studies in 1906 when Pro- fessor P. Kahle found a MS in Nablus during his stay there, which is dated 938 A.H. (1532 A.D.), nearly two centuries older than the Tü- bingen MS. Besides this, he observed other Memar MSS of a different text-type, one of which was copied in 1155 A.H. (1742 A.D.). He ordered from the priest Isaac (Ishaq) a copy of the MS dated 938 A.H. This was made and two years later in 1908 Professor Kahle compared the copy with the original and made many pencilled corrections to the copy. For Professor Kahle's own description of the acquisition of Memar MSS, see his Foreword. This was a great step forward in the study of the text and much that has been done in the preparation of the present edition has been due to Professor Kahle's discovery and the action he took. He further ac- quired one copy of the other text-type. The MS dated 938 A.H. and copied and checked by him in 1908 was deposited in the Prussian State Library, Berlin, later transferred to Tübingen (see next chapter under L. 2); likewise the later MS went to the same library (see next chapter under B. 2). Rettig noted27 that another MS of the later text-type was deposited in the British Museum (see next chapter under D. 1). Rettig wrongly described it as MS or. 7293 (for 7923) and he did not realize its value, for it has proved on examination to be the best and most accurate copy of all. In 1909 Professor Kahle obtained the oldest known MS of the Memar, a copy which did not come from the possession of the priestly family. There is no normal colophon and indeed the existence of this MS creates peculiar problems which will be discussed in the next chapter under K. The MS contains a large section of the Memar, with several brief and lengthy lacunae. Rettig has stated28 that it is close to the text published by Kohn, but this not a fair assessment. This MS is different from all other known MSS except for Book VI where it agrees with the later copies fairly closely, even verbatim in many passages; as the Colophon suggests, it is not, as the other MSS, a copy made in the usual way from an older MS, but it proves to be an approximate text probably dictated from memory, as will be demonstrated below. Before turning finally to the latest work on the Memar, the present edition, a word must be written about the contribution made by Rettig in 1934, for his critical work not only took into account the labours of his predecessors, but it was the first truly comparative work, albeit on a limited scale. Unlike his predecessors, Rettig had access to Professor Kahle's MS, and one MS of the later type in addition to the (then) Berlin Codex and

27 op. ext. p. II. 28 ibid. Previous research and publications XXV

fragments used by the earlier editors. He was thus enabled to make a comparative study, within limits, of the MSS at his disposal. From this study he rightly concluded that the variants were chiefly of a linguistic and orthographic order. He saw that the British Museum Harl. Cod. belonged with the MS copied in 938 A.H., that the latter provided more consistent and correct readings than the later MSS available to him. The MS of 938 A.H. he called B, while the two-volume MS used by Baneth, Hildesheimer, Emmrich, Munk and Heidenheim he called C. The copy made by Petermann is given the code D. The Kahle MS (the oldest of all) is Rettig's A. Thus Rettig used four MSS and had only one representative of each of his four text-types. His B, C, D he found to be closely connected as a text-type against his A, but he thought his B represented better readings than C, except in the first part of Book I where he regarded his B text as secondary. D he regarded as the least correct of all Memar MSS, but he did not recognize that many of the variants may have been due to Petermann in the process of reproduction and editing. Rettig presented a useful and accurate classification of variants; here are his six classes: 1. orthographic variants 2. exchange of consonants 3. inversion of consonants 4. variants originating as a result of the use of synonymous Aramaic expressions 5. variants resulting from a variety of uses of the designation of deity 6. variants in the use of Aleph as a mater lectionis. He gives examples of these, using A as against B, C, D. Thus the im- pression is gained that B, C, D normally use particular variants as against A. This is, in fact, an unjustified procedure. Only by a close scrutiny of the texts for the whole six books of Marqah can fully comparative work be done. For example, Rettig gives in for A and ton for B, C, D, and la for A as against na for B, C, D. The overall picture derived from an examination of the whole text reveals that A uses Rin nearly as often as in, and that all Rettig's B, C, D vary considerably in the use of TO and na (and their derivative forms). He states too29 that the later MSS use nttfls nai rvai for A's ntffis, but again this is not the whole truth, for Rettig's A in fact uses a number of times in Book VI. It would be more accurate to say that Rettig's B, C, D are fairly (not always) consistent in using nttfa Wl ¡T3J, while his A is not. Nevertheless Rettig performed a valuable service in the field of Marqah studies when he critically examined his four MSS. Since his time the subject has been allowed to lapse, except for the continued,

21 op. cit. p. 16. XXVI Introduction keen interest of Professor Kahle. That interest finds its fullest expression in the present edition. Professor Kahle with typical kindness has made his MS available to the present editor on a long loan. For the present work other MSS have been brought into service, transforming the textual situation. These will be described and related in the next chapter. Two of these belong to the John Rylands Library, and the third (the most correct of all the MSS) to the British Museum (mentioned in passing by Rettig).30 A further fragment in the British Museum has been consulted in addition. Thus the present edition is a result of the study of nine MSS—the Kahle MS, three MSS from Danafi scribes, three from Levitical scribes, the British Museum Harl. Cod. (same text-type as the Levitical) and another British Museum fragment. It will be seen below that the Danafi MSS represent the best text for a number of reasons and that they are nearer than the Levitical to the older text possibly reflected in the Kahle MS. The study of the Memar of Marqah thus reaches the most advanced stage so far, and it may not be possible to proceed further unless older, reliable MSS unexpectedly become available.

3. THE PRESENT EDITION

THE KAHLE MS (K) This MS, in the possession of Professor Kahle, is, as we have seen, the oldest MS available for consultation by nearly a century and a half. It must have been written before the year 793 A.H., as will be seen below in connection with its Colophon. Set out in parallel columns of Aramaic and Arabic, both in Samaritan script, it contains 143 folios. There are several lacunae, some of great length, but each of the six books is represented, from a brief portion of Book II to an almost complete Book VI. (N.B. Hebrew names for the Samaritan characters have been used below for convenience of readers). K occupies a unique place among MSS for several reasons: 1. The Colophon is entirely different from that of any other MS. Here is the complete Colophon: Va -raai niraai nsriTi nTp-n nau man op Vv nana px anan •wrvN p pnx p nan-x pwma pan nVnpn nan p onrB aVa Ton ww D^nm onnan nsVx p Vxwj p nrvVx p onre p nv -ax p pnx p •px px n-aV rrnm Va isVw nrats n^ia uuri rVs? -pan mn-

30 op. cit. p. II. The present edition XXVII

The names mentioned are all known from Samaritan chronicles (see also Cowley's genealogical table).31 There is the unusual problem, however, of the form of the Colophon. Normally the date (day, month and year) of writing is given in Samaritan colopha. The expression D® V» does not occur elsewhere in Samaritan colopha as far as the present writer can discover. No mention is made of the scribe and indeed the first word is not the usual way to affirm that the MS is a copy from an older text. There are two problems in particular concerning the interpretation of the Colophon, (i) The words D® VS? must mean 'on the authority of or 'under the patronage of, but they are not used in the same sense in Jewish texts where D®» would have these meanings. It seems necessary to understand DIP to mean 'on the authority of,' in which case the implication is that this is not a copy, but a text com- missioned and set out according to a particular priest or copyist, possibly at the commissioner's choice, but it is possible, of course, that the commissioner (or authority if we read 'on the authority of') may have possessed an unreceived text. It is possible to read the words as reflecting the situation of the 14th century, when there was a serious dearth of MSS and hence OP Vs? would represent a new start in preparing a text according to the best living authority. The problem is difficult because of lack of information. It may be best to take this line of interpretation and see in the Danafi and Levitical texts descendants of a text either not available to or authenticated by Phinehas. (2) •>1?!3 a1?», an expression which has two possible interpretations: (a) Since aVa occurs in many Samaritan compositions as = u1?» (or ua), we may render it 'from (the words of'), (b) Both words may de- pend on Ton and so 'pious from a full heart,' which would suit well the immediately preceding context. On the whole, judgment has been made on the K text itself and on its relationship to the Danafi and Levitical MSS. One would have thought that a MS with such a colophon would belong to the priestly family as the Levitical MSS do; yet Professor Kahle did not find it in the possession of that family. Hence we must assume that the exact history of K is lost to us. The Danafi and Levitical MSS have a family history going back to within one and a half centuries of K (in the case of one Levitical MS certainly), and we must remember that if Memar MSS were copied so infrequently by any one family (as there is every reason to believe) the earliest Danafi and Levitical MSS must reflect a textual tradition at least as old as K. (It is interesting to observe that Cowley's footnote 1 in the page last cited is now rectified, as all the names he gives from the chronicle at- Taulidah as descendants of 'Uzzi b. Phinehas are found above.)

31 op. cit. II. p. xlv. XXVIII Introduction

Phinehas became High Priest in 793 A.H.32 Since his father Ithamar only is entitled High Priest in the Colophon, K must have been written for Phinehas before 793 and thus K may be dated about 790 A.H. 2. K everywhere throughout Books I to V reveals an approximation of the Danafi and Levitical versions—with the exception to a degree of the early part of Book I, and it is precisely here that one might expect a priest's or scribe's memory to be fairly accurate! The further one reads the more K deviates from what may be regarded as the established text. This is not to say that K is of little value, however, for there is no ground for asserting that Phinehas did not recollect exact forms and phrases. There are places, even towards the end of Book I, where K clearly offers a better form, but on the whole this is rare. This MS is inconsistent in its Hebraisms, in its use of matres lectionis, and sometimes a verse is given twice where each is a variant form of the other. Rettig has perhaps failed to realize the extent of K's inconsistent orthography. If he had felt obliged to present a standardization of the orthography (within permissible limits, of course), he would have observed that K is one of the least consistent of the MSS in orthography, in Hebraizing forms and in its use of synonyms. See further Appendix II for examples of K's inaccurate and inconsistent orthography. 3. K is not only an approximate text; it is an approximate Danafi- type text. The only MS consulted that agrees closely with K, where K diverges widely from the Danafi and Levitical MSS is a Danafi MS (see under D. 3 below). This close relationship is seen most clearly in K, f. I3-I3a, and D. 3, f. 55-56. K throughout is undoubtedly closer to the Danafi text than to the Levitical. 4. K presents a smooth, easily readable text. "Memory smooths away difficulties." As a general rule in dealing with old MSS, the per- sistence of difficulties of syntax and mutilation of unusual words in- dicates that such a text has probably a long history. K is singularly free of syntactical difficulties, a fact which, at least as a part of cumu- lative evidence, suggests an approximate text dictated from memory and not copied. 5. It seems almost certain that K was somewhat longer than the Danafi and Levitical texts, but it probably covered the same ground by and large. There are fewer Danafi and Levitical pieces missing in K than there are K additions missing in the other two. The difference in length between the text of K and that of the other MSS may well suggest a paraphrastic or pleonastic text not derived directly from an anterior text.

92 See also Jewish Quarterly Review, xv. p. 636, quoted by Cowley, op. ext., II. p. xxix. The present edition XXIX

6. Finally, why does K agree almost verbatim with the other texts in Book VI ? With the exception of K's exceedingly careless orthography, there are no real differences between K and the other texts. In view of the widely diverging text presented by K for Books I to V, it seems possible that Book VI had a separate textual history as far as K is concerned. Admittedly, Book VI is the only book of the six not intimately bound up with the general theme of the Memar, and it may have had an independent existence (whether originally or only in much later times we do not know), or alternatively Book VI did exist in Phinehas' time in a received text. If this is so, then we have further evidence for the antiquity of the Danafi text, and to a lesser extent of the Levitical.

The orthography of K The chief orthographic characteristics of K are as follows: 1. Use of Hebrew) forms. Hoph'al forms are more common in K than in any other MS. It is noteworthy that the revival of Hebrew among the Samaritans took place only a little before the time when K (having no textual tradition behind it) was written. Almost all the liturgical compositions from the 14th century are in Hebrew (or Hebrew mixed with Aramaic), and many K-type Hebrew forms are found in the 14th century liturgical writings, for which we possess many MSS dated only a century or two after the composition. This does not hold true for the Danafi text, and only to a small extent for the Levitical. There is also more confusion of Aramaic spellings in K than in the other MSS. Thus we have further indication that K was not copied from an earlier Aramaic MS. 2. Addition of long 'a'. Alif Tawila is frequently added in K: e.g. ¡WltPa for ¡VHP» (f-18); iVxiW for iVvtP (f. 19). Likewise K tends to em- ploy Prosthetic Aleph more than the other MSS: e.g. nins for jn (f. 18); nVsos for n*?DD (f. 22). We may have here further evidence that K was not copied, but written down with forms reflecting the 14th century pronunciation of Aramaic, for the examples quoted and many others reveal the modern-type pronunciation with initial vowel-sound added. 3. He in pn-1—is frequent in K, but the more usual spelling jv—occurs fairly often. To sum up, K is an approximate Danafi type text written from memory at a time when Aramaic was no longer in use and Hebrew had become the literary language.

THE DANAFI MSS (D) There are three MSS of D: D. 1 (British Museum 7923) copied in 1151-4 A.H. (1738-41 A.D.) by Jacob b. Murjan b. Abraham b. Ishmael (son of scribe of D.2 A.) XXX Introduction

D. 2 A. (Universitätsbibliothek Tübingen33 MS. or. qu. 1086 I) copied in 1154 A.H. (1741 A.D.) by Murjan b. Abraham b. Ishmael (father of scribe of D. 1 and brother of scribe of D. 2 B.). Only for Books I-II. D. 2 B. (Universitätsbibliothek Tübingen MS. or. qu. 1086 II), the continuation of D. 2 A., copied in 1156 A.H. (1743 A.D.) by Ab Sakhwah b. Abraham b. Ishmael (brother of scribe of D. 2 A.). Only for Books III-VI. D. 3 (John Rylands Library, Manchester, Gaster Collection 825) copied in 1308 A.H. (1891 A.D.) by Ab Sakhwah b. As'ad b. Ishmael. It has already been pointed out that the D MSS are somewhat closer to K than the L. D. 1, 2 are from the pens of close relatives, but fortunately D. 3 (not available to Rettig and his predecessors) is written two and a half centuries later. By that time the influence of the L MSS had become felt and indeed D. 3 agrees at times with L against the other D MSS, but only in the first part of Book I and also in Book VI, where D is very close to K.

Description of D MSS D. 1 (Rettig's Type C), folios 287, used only in microfilm, has far less irregularities than any other MS, although like any other scribe, the D. 1 scribe sometimes missed a word, especially at the end of a section. Like K, D. 1 employs He for the initial letter of the Aph. more than do the other MSS. The only frequent error in D. 1 is the omission of Yöd in masculine plural nouns and in Pe'il-type adjectives, as well as (less frequently) the Imperfect preformative Yöd. D.2A. (Rettig's Type C), folios 88, is written in a close, thin cursive hand. The scribe frequently employs Arabic script at the ends of lines. Waterstains exist along the top margins, but the text is only slightly affected. Many additions are inserted between the Arabic and Aramaic columns. The title of the work in the Colophon is correctly given as "Memar Marqah." D. 2 B. (Rettig's Type C), folios 186, written in several similar hands, the characters being thin and neatly formed; folios 90-96 are out of order. Some Arabic annotations are found in a later hand in the margins. Several lines are scored through here and there. The early folios are badly waterstained along the top and side margins; some loss of text results from damage to a few folios at the end. D. 2 is less consistently accurate than D. 1, but generally more accurate than the L MSS. Several orthographic weaknesses character- istic of D. 2 are xa for na, N1? for 15? "ID for nsnD- In one case the scribe

" Depot der ehemaligen Preußischen Staatsbibliothek. The present edition XXXI added IT to the text where D. I omits it (but D. I'S Arabic has the equivalent). D.3 (Rettig's Type C), folios 307, used only in microfilm, is guilty of many inaccuracies which may have come from one or other of the L MSS which possess very similar inaccuracies. The chief characteristics are: considerable use of Alif Tawila, writing of mm for Nim, NH for nx (= k), use of the Heb. Article with the Aram. Emphatic noun (e.g. nmvpn), confusion of the Pe. ptc. when it is not a substantive (e.g. S71T for S?T), PIX for NJX (aut sim.) with sing, verb, and several cases of confusion and inversion of radicals (e.g. 13m for -oia: px for px for ij?Dp>) and a few examples of insertion of Shin (e.g. rnitfX for nux: lamwx for -panx (a triple fault)).

THE LEVITICAL MSS (L)

There are three MSS of L: L. 1 (Universitätsbibliothek Tübingen MS or. qu. 1087), copied for Professor Kahle in 1906 and checked by him in 1908, by Solomon b. Amram b. Solomon and Abraham b. Phinehas b. Isaac b. Solomon from the original copy dated 938 A.H. L. 2, obtained by Professor J. Bowman in photostat made in Nablus. Copied in 1227 A.H. (1812 A.D.) by Solomon b. Sarur b. Joseph b. Sarur b. Isaac from a copy by Muslim b. Qabazi (thus L. 2 has the value of a 16th century MS). L. 3 (John Rylands Library, Manchester, Gaster Collection 1873), copied in 1283 A.H. (1870 A.D.) by Ab Hisdah b. Jacob b. Aaron b. Solomon. L MSS are characterized by a multitude of variant spellings and inconsistencies of orthography, and by a substantial number of un- important additions (e.g. words like rD1?» -rm -nVvn). They Hebraize forms much more than the D MSS and usually agree together in synonyms against D.

Description of L MSS L. 1 (Rettig's Type B), folios 221, written in clear, cursive Samaritan with many corrections in the margins. Professor Kahle's corrections and notes are in pencil in the margins. This MS contains numerous misspellings and inconsistent orthography; e.g.: confusion and inversion of radicals: pao»^ for poayrv: prnnx f°r pnnax- misspellings: nnVc for nm1?^: D-'V'X for o-Vrx: nniajp for nnaur. Heb. feminine plur. in n for m; XVI for mn: nV for x1?: nJTp1 for nr-ijr, etc. XXXII Introduction

orthographic irregularities: hnVd for :7IK for ^ na for and p; there are many examples of addition and omission of Yod. insertion of Shin: •»ixbtP for "nub: addition of Alif Tawila is frequent. L. 2 (Rettig's Type B) folios 308, written in very clear squarish characters; paragraphs are excellently arranged throughout. Arabic script is used at ends of lines in the Arabic columns. Contains numerous errors of the type mentioned in connection with L. 1, as well as other idio- syncracies; e.g. careless writing of consonants: -pa for arainm for "nDTVWnts for "jv:"iriTN for mta. In fairness it must be observed that most of such errors occur through incompletion of a character and they mostly occur in one group of folios in Book I. inaccurate separation of words: mn fS? for an nr»: VU Danxi for ima arm confusion of letters: -my for ms?: main« for rmanx- Heb. plur. ending in ">d frequently for ¡v. Use of x in iraj. use of nnn—instead of nn—for feminine singular emphatic. use of wrong radical: *ns for t5ns:mn for nin:"]S?na for "pHO- L. 3 (Rettig's Type B) folios 259, used only in microfilm. Written in neat, close script; agrees often with D. 2 when D. 3 agrees with D. 2. Like L and D. 3 it Hebraizes often. Despite its manifold errors L. 3 often gives a correct or corrected grammatical form. Tends to use full matres lectionis, the emphatic ending; prefers s to n for the feminine plur., and nn—for n—for the 2nd person masc. sing.; it also uses feminine substantives in m—for the concrete substantive. L. 3 often agrees with D. 3 in orthographic details; it frequently paraphrases. Here are its most typical errors: omission of Yod: especially in Pe. pass. ptc. and construct plur. of substantive. confusion of long vowel and guttural: miT3 for riTXa- inversion of radicals: nnttODl for nnaDttH: pna^K for pn^DX. conjunctive Waw frequently added or omitted.

BRITISH MUSEUM HARL. CODEX 5514 (H) Folios 220 (only 71-76a are for the Memar), contains chiefly liturgical compositions. Consulted by Cowley in preparing his Samaritan Liturgy (his H. 3). Inferior and corrupt text; only a fragment of Book I. It agrees more with L than with D. It is probably to be dated early in the 16th century. Cowley observes34 (in effect) that H came from Damascus, but this fact is not likely to account for the many variants, for these are clearly the work of a poor scribe. The chief variants which affect the meaning have been given in the footnotes to the text of Book I. ** op. cit. I. p. xii. The present edition XXXIII

BRITISH MUSEUM (Gaster Collection) 883 (F) F is a fragment of fourteen folios consisting of three portions of the text. Written in large, closely-packed characters; untidy and careless in parts. The text (parts of Books III and VI only) is quite different from K, D or L for Book III and is closer to Rettig's Type D. For Book VI it is, like K, identical with D and L. No scribe's name or date is given, but the fragment may belong to the 17th century.

CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS ON MSS RELATIONSHIPS It has been shown that there are two main types of established text, D and L, and in addition three fragments have been used, K (a large series of fragments providing an approximate text nearer to D than to L), H (close to L), and F (representing an unreceived text like Kohn's fragment, about which we have practically no information). Rettig35 has shown that his A (our K) stands apart from his B, C (our L, D), and that his B (our L) deviates substantially from his C (our D). He bases his judgment largely on language and style, stating (hardly correctly): "Die Abweichungen sind vor allem sprachlicher Natur," but (correctly): "B und C gehen gewöhnlich zusammen und weisen gegenüber D viele Varianten auf, bieten jedoch meist gegenüber D den kor- rekteren Text." He agrees with the present editor that L is secondary to D. The findings of the research underlying this complete edition, based on nine MSS, are similar to Rettig's. His work has been checked through and in addition there is the discovery that the MSS can be distinguished according to the family of the scribe. From every point of view, therefore, the Danafi text, its best representative being D. 1 (the oldest), must be regarded as the basis of any reliable edition of Memar Marqah.

MODUS OPERANDI OF THE TEXT EDITION 1. The text is that of D. 1, corrected in small particulars from D. 2, 3 and occasionally from K and L, as indicated in the footnotes to the text. 2. The orthography, inconsistent to some extant in every MS consulted, has been standardized throughout. To this statement a quali- fication must be made; where the scribe uses Eastern forms, as he often does, these have been left untouched. Further, where there is a genuine variant such as the 2nd person masc. plur. of verbs Final

36 op. ext. pp. 14 et seq.

III XXXIV Introduction

Weak (e.g. pens and prvnx, p'lii and pmn), no attempt has been made to standardize. Standardization has only been effected where the MSS allow. 3. Footnotes to the text consist in the main of variants, omissions and additions which affect the meaning of the text, as well as some explanatory annotations. Synonyms, of which there are hundreds, have not been reproduced, but Appendix II contains a substantial list of those that occur, arranged according to their use in the various text-types. 4. Additions from K which cannot be identified with any D or L text have been placed in Appendix I. Small additions are given, as usual, in the footnotes. 5. In the Aph. Perfect and Imper. of the verb, Aleph has been preferred to He, but several forms are regarded as Hebrew Hoph'als, in which case initial He has been retained. The Hoph'als (and the infrequent Niph'als) have been noted in the footnotes. Some of these are not obviously Hoph'als in the MSS and standardization to the Hoph'al form has been made only when the Arabic translation is equivalent. 6. Hebraisms are not retained where they are peculiar to D. 1. See further Appendix III for details of the process of standardization. 7. Punctuation and Paragraph Division The format of the MSS has been reproduced where possible, except that columns of text are replaced by continuous lines. Poems are set out in series of verses. Full-stops have not been inserted after every sentence, as this is not usually necessary to the sense, nor do the MSS divide sentences in any way.

4. MEMAR MARQAH:

USE OF SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH AND TARGUM

That there existed several variant texts of the Targum may be indicated by two factors: 1. Even as long ago as the first edition in the West of the Samaritan Targum36 when source material was scanty, a multitude of variant readings were gathered from the available sources. 2. Marqah in his Memar does not quote verbatim from any Targum text ever published (in whole or part). It may now be possible to relate Marqah's citations in any future edition of the Targum to the texts consulted for that purpose; there are several MSS of the Targum in existence which have not until now been employed for the preparing of a critical text.

36 See n. 3 above. Memar Marqah: use of Samaritan Pentateuch and Targum XXXV

Rettig pointed out37 "Die Sprache Marqahs wird für die Beurteilung des samaritanischen Targums überhaupt von Wichtigkeit sein," and this may well be true, for the Targum, if any authoritative text was ever agreed upon, could hardly antedate Marqah by more than a century or perhaps two centuries. Thus comparative work in the field of Marqah and Targum studies might well prove rewarding. However, not all Marqah's Biblical quotations are from the Targum. Many references are to the Samaritan Hebrew Pentateuch, and there are many variants here too. In this connection it may be of value to compare Marqah's Hebrew quotations with those of the received text. It is perhaps a mistake to assume too readily that the text of the Sam- aritan Pentateuch possessed no variant readings. Marqah's citations, if reasonably accurately transmitted through the centuries, may well be from a text which antedates by centuries the well-known Abisha1 Scroll revered by the Samaritans themselves and highly regarded by some western scholars of the past. It is interesting that Marqah quotes on occasion first the Targum to a particular verse and then, a few lines later, the Hebrew text of another part of the verse, or another verse from the same Biblical passage. It is still more interesting and intriguing to observe how Marqah will sometimes quote the first part of a verse in Hebrew, immediately followed by the Targum for the second part. He never quotes the first part in Targum and then the second part from the Hebrew. In view of these new sources for pentateuchal Hebrew and Aramaic textual comparative study, such examples have been drawn attention to in the footnotes. No special reference to ordinary quotations from the Samaritan Pentateuch, where they equate with the received text, has been thought necessary. To have referred to every quotation would have enormously increased the footnotes. In any case, most of the quotations are well-known to any student of the Samaritan Hebrew Bible. All verses quoted, whether from the Samaritan Pentateuch or the Targum, (or partly from one and partly from the other) have been listed in Appendices I—III (Part II). The Targum quotations in Marqah's great work may thus provide the oldest known source for a text (or texts ?) of the Targum, even if the quotations are merely dated to the oldest MS (14th century) herein consulted. In view of the large number of eastern forms found in the Aramaic texts of the Memar, the possibility that there may have existed a western (Palestinian) and an eastern (Syrian) Samaritan Targum text, adds doubly to the potential value of this text as a source for new light on the history and transmission of Aramaic versions of the Hebrew

87 op. tit. p. 21.

III» XXXVI Introduction

Bible. Only future research into what I now propose, i.e. the existence of an independent eastern text (and dialect of Samaritan Aramaic), will uncover the true nature of many Samaritan Aramaic forms, as well, it may be, as of the several variant Targum texts.

5. THE ARABIC TRANSLATIONS All the MSS consulted, with the exception of the copy (L. 2) made for Professor Kahle in 1906, have parallel columns, both in Samaritan characters, on the left the Arabic translation of the Aramaic column on the right. These translations are completely literal renderings of the Aramaic and do not themselves constitute good Arabic compositions. There is considerable variation among them as far as choice of word is concerned, but on the whole these translations run close to the Aramaic original in meaning. There never has been an authoritative Arabic version of either D or L, but it is obvious that a later D or L scribe has been influenced by an earlier translation by one of his own family. There are passages which are difficult to translate in the Aramaic text, and it is here that the Arabic versions become extremely valuable. Some words, which are not known in the usual Aramaic sources and whose derivation escapes immediate discovery, are at least translated, although we can never be quite sure that the Samaritans themselves understood some words of the Aramaic text. After all, a thousand years had elapsed between Marqah's day and the earliest MS (K). That the Samaritans did not always know the meaning of words is evidenced by the fact that many Aramaic words are muddled and mutilated by the scribes. In general, the careful, accurate scribe gives a careful, accurate Arabic translation. It is to be noted that such scribes often translate, rather than transliterate, Aramaic and Hebrew proper names; e.g. the translations render nvrnn 1D either by a transliteration or by 5, and there may be scope for future examination of such Arabic equivalents of place-names with a view to the identification of the localities in question according to the Samaritan tradition. Further, the Arabic versions vary considerably in their rendering of the divine names. They usually do not transliterate nTIN "ION rpHN, but render it by such expressions as jjvi i'jjiji ^ijji/i ii^xv-ji jjvi i^i ¿¡uoi. So (D,)n1?x(n) is rendered occasionally by and is the normal rendering of the Tetragrammaton. There are many synonyms used for a particular word and these frequently help in the determining of the meaning of the word in the Aramaic. These Arabic synonyms will be used in the editor's preparation of a Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic. XXXVII

6. THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION As this is the first translation of the complete Memar Marqah, it is fitting to make some observations on the methods used and the problems of translation encountered. The translation presented below is based primarily on the Aramaic text. It was immediately obvious to the translator that some principle of translating would have to be decided on in view of the various difficulties peculiar to this text. There are very many words that do not occur in other Aramaic literature, words which on the whole appear to be Semitic in structure. The first help towards deducing their meaning was the Arabic versions, but since in many cases even that aid did not explain the root meaning of the words, it became necessary to look for similar forms in the Jewish Targums, in Syriac, and in other Semitic languages. In a number of cases no help was derived from these sources, and it was found that such words were Greek in origin, in an Aramaic guise. In a very few cases the original Greek form had become mutilated, no doubt in the course of manuscriptural transmission. After having translated the whole of the six books of the work, it was found that almost always the meaning deduced from one source or another was consistent throughout the whole. Many idioms presented difficulty; here the Arabic versions normally provided the explanations. Far more problematical were the many cases of syntactic difficulty. In this connection the Arabic translations invariably proved to be as obscure as the Aramaic, and in some cases even more so! There can be no doubt that the translators themselves, at least from the 14th century on (the only evidence we possess), simply did not understand the material in question. Hence I was forced on occasion to conjecture and it is to be hoped not too unsuccessfully. Despite the difficulties of vocabulary, idiom and syntax it must be stated that the transmission of the text has been remarkably consistent, no doubt for the reason stated above that Memar Marqah had not been copied very often as compared with other works of the Sa- maritans. As far as the style of the translation is concerned, a certain amount of freedom has been permitted. If it had not, the English rendering would have been even more stilted, repetitious and prosaic than it is. One major snag in the rendering of the Aramaic into English has been the comparative paucity of the former's vocabulary. One case in point may be noted here: the abundant use of the root RBY and its many derivatives presented more difficulty than any other root. In a great number of cases the exact meaning of the root could not be ascertained, and so I found it necessary to overdo the use of the English term 'magnify.' Unsatisfactory though this may be, at least it has the merit XXXVIII Introduction of keeping to the Samaritan idiom and thus avoiding the pitfall of losing the meaning altogether in guesswork. It was decided early in the work of translating that the many Gnostic-type expressions would have to be freely rendered, because it is clear that the Samaritans incorporated or assimilated many such terms without at the same time taking over their full connotation. Such terms as Power, Greatness, Good, Truth, Divinity are often found as substantives with personal attributes, but evidently the author did not mean them to be regarded as Gnostic emanations. There is no place at all in Samaritan theology for such emanations from the Godhead, and it would be foolish to render such terms in that way, despite the fact that the Arabic versions more often than not reproduce the substantive form. Thus QUSTA, by far the most common of these substantives, is rendered by the Arabic al-haqq regularly, but is translated herein by 'the True One,' and not 'Truth.' As far as has been possible those sections of the work that are set out in the manuscripts as poetry have been set out in the translation in similar format, but no attempt has been made to render them into English poetry, chiefly because the repetitious style and idiomatic irregularity obviate such an attempt. The translation has been divided by the translator into sections for each book, according to content. The MSS themselves show no evidence of such sectionalization. Likewise the text has been so divided, that the reader may quickly find the text for the particular material he is studying. Each section has been given a suitable title at the heading; such titles do not exist in the MSS, and no attempt has been made to use titles for the actual text. Thus in the list of books and sections preceding the translation, the general theme of Marqah's great work is transparent. If it had not been for this dividing up of the material, the continuous theme contained in the first five books would not be evident. Words in brackets in the translation are supplied by the translator for the sake of clarity and smoothness. One chart has been provided, also by the translator, again for the purpose of clarity.

The Annotations to the Translation The annotations to the text have been restricted to manuscriptural matters and others pertaining to the language and its forms, with some explanatory notes, especially on the frequent Hoph'al form. In the case of the annotations to the translations, the purpose has in the main been explanatory. It is not claimed that every matter arising in the material has been explained or otherwise expounded; only where the explanation seemed reasonably sure was it given. In a few cases possible explanations have been offered followed by an interrogation mark. The importance of Memar Marqah: future research XXXIX

Apart from explanations of forms and idioms and some interpretation of the meaning when it is in doubt, a fair number of comparative notes have been provided. It will be obvious to the reader that most of these have to do with the New Testament, rather than with Jewish literature belonging to orthodox and heterodox Judaism. Originally it was planned to offer many comparative notes to show possible parallelism with Judaism, but for two reasons this was not carried out: (i) there are no certain, indisputable parallels outside of the realms of normal coincidence of ideas and sources; (2) the number of the annotations would have become enormous and the cost of the production of the volume greatly increased. It is therefore left to the discretion of the reader whether some Samaritan statements of legend or belief may be compared with Jewish statements of a similar character. On the other hand, parallels to Christianity are clearly present. In view of the markedly close parallelism to Christianity in later, liturgical material, it was decided that the affinities between Samaritan belief in Moses and Christian belief in Christ should be pointed out in the form of brief comparative notes. Readers specially interested in the fascinating problem of Samaritan assimilation or deliberate incorporation of Christian tenets may find it worthwhile to study the few articles already written in this field: e.g. J. Bowman: art. on "St. John's Gospel and the Samaritans," in Samaritan Studies, reprinted from the Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, Vol. 40, no. 2, March 1958. J. Macdonald: art. on "The Samaritan Doctrine of Moses," in Scottish Journal of Theology, Vol. 13, no. 2, June, i960. R. J. F. Trotter: Did the Samaritans of the Fourth Century know the Epistle to the Hebrews? Leeds University Oriental Society, Monograph Series no. 1, October, 1961. It must be pointed out that this work is not intended to answer the many problems in the field of Old Testament studies which arise out of Marqah's work. Some obvious matters have been briefly alluded to, such as the attitude of Marqah to source tradition. It is hoped that those who make use of this text and translation will find much that is helpful in their Old Testament studies. If the many points of interest for this field are taken up by readers, the translator's work will have been made worthwhile.

7. THE IMPORTANCE OF MEMAR MARQAH: FUTURE RESEARCH The Six Books Book I deals with the Commission of Moses at the Burning Bush, Moses' dealings with Pharaoh, the Exodus and victory of the Israelites at the Red Sea. XL Introduction

Book II is concerned with the explanation of the miraculous deliverance of Israel and defeat of Egypt, God's manipulation of the elements to gain His ends, and an exegetical, midrashic and poetical commentary on Ex. xv. Book III has to do with the priests, elders, princes, judges, teachers and other Israelite leaders, as well as the behaviour of the people themselves; moral responsibility of various classes of people is discussed and the duties of the people of God in the Promised Land. Book IV is particularly important for the higher, spiritual teaching of the Samaritans of the Roman period, dealing with God, man and sin, God's dealings with men, men's duty toward God. There is a commentary (exegetical) on Deut. xxxii and an important section on the Day of Vengeance. Book V covers the legend of the death of Moses, his ascension, assumption and glorification. Book VI contains sections of considerable interest on Creation, wisdom, the Word of God, and the kabbalistic study of those letters of the alphabet that were omitted from the opening part of main sections of the Torah. There can be no doubt that Memar Marqah is more than just a commentary; it contains midrashic (haggadic and halakhic), philosophical, religious (doctrinal) and scientific material of firstrate importance for the knowledge of the early post-Christian ideologies of the Near East and of Palestine in particular. For the specialist in Samaritan studies a gateway to the 'Golden Age' of Samaritanism is created. At that period the religion of the Samaritans was entirely free of the later Islamic concepts that gradually entered in,38 and it is possible now to define Samaritanism much more exactly. When one reads such a work as The Samaritans: Their Testimony to the Religion of Israel39 one realizes how little was known even 40 years or so ago of this, the only surviving Old Testament sect with an unbroken history of occupation and tradition and a living priesthood. The misstatements of Thomson seem unforgivable rather than regrettable at first sight, but the amount of literature known then was very little. Yet the Memar studies of Kohn (1876), Baneth (1888), Munk (1890), Heidenheim (1896), Emm- rich (1897) and Rettig (1934) should not have passed unnoticed for so long. The monumental publication of Sir A. E. Cowley40 has provided considerable scope for the investigation of post-Marqan Samaritanism.

38 On this subject see J. Macdonald, "Islamic Doctrines in Samaritanism," in Muslim World, Vol. L, no. 4, pp. 279-290, October, i960. 38 By J. E. H. Thomson, Edinburgh, 1919 (The Alex Robertson Lectures, University of Glasgow, 1916). 40 op. cit. The importance of Memar Marqah: future research XLI Now that Marqah's comprehensive Memar is published, it should be possible to reach further back in time, so that scholars may venture closer than ever before into the dimly illumined period of Samaritanism in the pre-Islamic era. The Memar contains two great Midrashes, one on the Exodus (Books I—II) and one on the Death of Moses (Book V). These show no direct dependence on Jewish Midrashic sources and indeed the Death of Moses in Samaritan tradition differs greatly from the various Jewish midrashes. It may prove of inestimable value for the study and history of Palestinian traditions to examine and correlate these. Hildesheimer's remarks41 on the comparison of Samaritan traditions with Jewish are based on too tiny a portion of the midrashes, and much more comparative work on a larger scale should now be possible. That comparative studies of the Memar and various pseud-epi- graphical writings would prove of advantage is beyond doubt, witness the work of this nature already done by M. Gaster when he compared the Asatir with the pseudepigraphical writings and found much in common in terms of environmental ideologies. The problem of the Samaritan integration of Christian teaching within the widespread field of Gnosticism—without any Gnostic prin- ciples being integrated at the same time—is well worthy of examination. It is possible that the traditions underlying Marqah's teaching reflect genuine Northern Israelite traditions. After all, the early Samaritan tradition cannot be paralleled closely in Jewish sources! There is a similarity of ideology in Marqah and in the E source of the Pentateuch, although too much must not be made of this parallelism alone. It would be more accurate to say that there may be a continuity of the ideological outlook of the Northern Kingdom of Israel into Roman era Samaritanism. We see in the Memar (Book I) how J and P passages are in certain instances either entirely passed over or are briefly noted, while the E material is fully employed; all this despite the evident value of the J and P material for the continuity and sequence of the narrative. It is difficult to say whether this is due to the traditional account of the Deliverance, only part of which survived in the E Docu- ment, being preserved to a degree up to the Roman period. Our knowledge of Samaritan affairs of the Roman and pre-Roman periods is too limited for us to ascertain whether there may be truth in the above suggestion. But, on the other hand, it would be uncritical of us to assert that there is no possibility of the survival of E material into the Chris- tian era. This would be unwarranted supposition too! The Samaritans seem almost certainly to have occupied their ancestral territory around

41 op. cit., passim, pp. 14-16. XLII Introduction Shechem without a break from the days of the Northern Kingdom up till the present. Their dealings with outsiders have always been restricted by their strict interpretations of the laws of cleanness and uncleanness. They do not seem to have married into other clans and have indeed kept very much to themselves. Their oral tradition, only partially preserved in written documents, may well have survived century by century just as they did themselves. Further and fuller examination of these matters only will decide. It has never been pointed out that Marqah not only knew but wel- comed scientific ideas, or at least some of those in vogue during the Hellenistic and Roman periods. We find many references of a scientific kind scattered throughout the six books, but perhaps the most striking of all is that in Book VI, which states: Some men say that the earth was formed from the energy of the mass of the sun. It is clearly of first importance to the student of the history and philosophy of science that such statements be collected and analyzed, and for the student of religion that Marqah's scientific views on creation be related to the Biblical account so sacred to the Samaritans themselves, for Marqah himself apparently did not experience any insurmountable difficulty in integrating his scientific and religious outlooks. At this point we have the unique fact of an ancient Palestinian philosopher faced with science and religion, at first sight conflicting and contradictory, and yet successfully setting out an integrated, closely-reasoned and acceptable merger of the two, and even encouraging the religious enquirer to study the findings of secular philosophy and metaphysics. Marqah's attitude in this reminds one of the format of some of the sections of his Memar; it is fairly certain in the mind of the present writer that Marqah actually taught pupils in the Bit Sifra during the Roman period, and that his manner and method of teaching are directly set out in the Memar. It is not only possible, but likely that a pupil of Marqah set out the larger format as we possess it. The interest in the affairs of the Bit Sifra (often referred to throughout), the functions and responsibilities of the teacher and the reactions of the pupil, and many related matters appear in the work. Thus we may have in this work material for the study of early educational method in Palestine. It is clear from the picture of this presented that we have something of the Greek philosopher and his pupils, the same or similar didactic, dialectic and analogous methods, in the garb of the Hebrew hakhamim or the later Islamic culamd\ For the student of Comparative Religion, and of early Christianity in particular, the Samaritan assimilation, incorporation or syncretistic borrowing of Christology is a phenomenon that will do more than raise eyebrows. It will make many of us think again and reshape our ideas on the influence of the Samaritans in the first few centuries A.D. It The importance of Memar Marqah: future research XLIII would not be an irresponsible exaggeration to claim that in the long run the proper assessment of early Samaritanism will have greater importance than even the renowned scrolls from Qumran and neigh- bouring regions (as far as Palestinian ideologies are concerned), the content of whose non-Biblical works is after all more restricted in scope, purpose and outlook and more stylized than the Memar, composed as it was in the larger and freer world of the Samaritans. The latter lived in territory that included busy trade routes; a much greater variety of ideas and ideologies circulated in Central and North Pales- tine than in the less accessible South. The Samaritans never made any attempt to build a hedge around the Torah as many Jewish sects did, and they were able to develop their system of belief without the aid or stimulus of the Jews. The first real success of Jesus Christ and his disciples in Palestine was in Samaria (John iv. 35, 39). We have now to re-examine thor- oughly the history of Christian missionary activity in Samaria, so that we may explain why so much of the Johannine (and other) writings of the New Testament has been acceptable to the Samaritans and in- corporate into their christological and soteriological systems. It is further necessary to discover why the Epistle to the Hebrews was so acceptable and why the Samaritans found it expedient to quote large passages (in places almost verbatim). A beginning has been made to such studies, in the case of the assimilation of Johannine concepts, by Professor J. Bowman, of Hebrews by R. J. F. Trotter, as above indicated. It is hoped that scholars will realize the profound importance of these connections and comparisons. The field of New Testament studies too may benefit to some degree from the examination of the Samaritan use of the New Testament: what means the Birth of Moses 'not by human will, but by the will of God,' the Baptism of Moses 'in whom God delighted,' the Ascension of Moses and his assumption? Trotter has set out a fairly strong case for thinking that the Epistle to the Hebrews was in fact either written to the Samaritans (who prefer the title 'Hebrews' to 'Israelites'), or was composed for Samaritan Chris- tians. Such then are some aspects of the work which seem to be of great importance to various branches of scholarly studies. A great debt of gratitude is owed to Professor Paul Kahle, who for so long has hoped that Memar Marqah might appear in text and translation in toto, and has done so much to make its appearance possible. It is hoped that many others will be attracted to this field of studies, thus vindicating Professor Kahle's oft-quoted belief in the signal importance of the Samaritans for the earliest forms of Hebrew language, writing, gram- mar and pronunciation, of Northern Hebrew beliefs, etc.