Boid on the Importance of the Arabic Translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch

The following remarks are only provisional, and not complete. As you looked at the scholia (حواشي) you would have noticed that a lot of exegetical meaning is conveyed by the choice of one Aramaic word or another, and that this is often connected with a disagreement over the grammatical analysis of a Hebrew word. Just one example quoted from memory: In Numbers XII Moses is said to be “meek” ענו and one version of the Targum translates this as meaning “strong”. In a monograph in progress I explain the line of argument behind this translation. Such loaded or tendentious translations dependent on an already known line of exegesis are common, very common. Many of those that are not in our extant Aramaic mss. survive in the Arabic.

I should have made it clear that most of the traces of exegesis in the Arabic have no scholion connected with them. In my opinion only very late disagreements have scholia attached: the rest are meant to be deduced from the translations or known by tradition. I also should have made it clear that I think that a lot of the traces of exegesis in the Arabic are taken over from mss. of the Targum that have not survived. I also should have mentioned that even the decision whether to agree with Al-Fayyûmi’s translation of a phrase or not to agree is an exegetical decision. Remember that the translation by Al-Fayyûmi, which seems neutral when looked at superficially, is actually loaded with exegetical choices. See, for example, the lists in פירושי רבינו סעדיה גאון על התורה by יוסף קאפח (and notice the first word of the title of this book!), Jerusalem 1963; and the more general book על תרגום רס"ג לתורה by משה צוקר New York 1959 (English title page Rav Saadya Gaon’s Translation of the Torah, by Moses Zucker).

Here is one example of a loaded translation. If you look up the account of Jacob’s Vision you will see that one of the translations says that Jacob was on the Balata Meadow, which it names as مرج البهاء This means Jacob must have been on the meadow, not on the Mountain, and strongly implies that he saw the angels descending on the meadow, not on the Mountain. The consensus of all other known Samaritan opinions is that the angels descended onto the Mountain, which is exegetically possible, and all or most set Jacob on the mountain, which is exegetically very improbable. This naming of the meadow, and in fact the specification that the meadow, not the mountain, was the place, must be Dosithean and very old.. We have a description of the Dosithean sacred place on the Balata meadow in Epiphanius. I can give you the reference if you ever need it. It is not in the section on Samaritan sects.

You know that I don’t believe there is a Samaritan form of Arabic, except for a few items of vocabulary connected with the liturgy (and even some of these when examined have Christian or Jewish equivalents). I know you have published long lists of Samaritan Arabic expressions, but nearly all those that stand up to examination are specialised uses of words, whereas there is nothing in the pronunciation or grammar that is not common Palestinian-Syrian of its time. Anyone that has looked at the spelling used in government documents of the Turkish period will have seen spellings such as سلات or سلاة for صلات (sic!) or صلاة and examples of the opposite, the replacement of س by ص or the replacement of ت by ط Verb forms such as يقولو or يقولوا are normal. I also regret to say that even most of your examples of distinctive vocabulary will not stand up, as they are already in Dozy, Barthélemy, etc. Of the rest, many are equally well documented in Jewish usage, e.g. رته meaning “cow” or better, “heifer”, and so were probably at one time in use by all communities. Others, I regret to say, are due to a misunderstanding of the document on your part. To take one example from memory, you give an instance of the verb عمر as supposedly meaning “making joyful” or “filling with praise” or “enhancing”.. The sample sentence is taken from a statement of what is required on the Festivals, where it says (I quote from memory) ويعمروا بيت الله (وعمر بيت الله) بالتسابيح والصلاة You say that this means the synagogue is to be filled by prayers or enhanced by prayers. But the fact is that in Samaritan usage بيت الله is the Mountain, not a building! The verb has its normal meaning of inhabiting or dwelling (even if only for the week of the Festival). The preposition ب thus means “along with ” not “by means of” in this sentence. Many of the examples taken from halachic texts are due to misreading of the syntax. I can’t give any examples from memory, but I think I did once list half a dozen instances in a letter. Your lists are still very valuable and useful, but as studies of general Mediaeval Syrian usage, with an occasional specifically Samaritan term relating to theology. I merely make the point that you really need to look at the material on government documents of the Turkish period, Christian usage, and other sources of information on (a) distinctively Syrian-Palestinian usage and (b) non-literary usage (e.g. in official documents). And I still maintain that many of the examples are due to misreading, or to unfamiliarity with general Syrian pre-modern written official Arabic (as opposed to pre-modern colloquial Arabic, or pre-modern classicising literary Arabic).

I know this might sound presumptuous, since Syrian-Palestinian Arabic is your native language, and my own command of Arabic is definitely not as good as it ought to be. Nevertheless, I advise VERY GREAT CAUTION WHEN WRITING THE SECTION OF VOL. 3 ON LINGUISTIC USAGE.

I am fully aware that when we look at spoken usage, the Samaritans speak a distinctive form of Palestinian Arabic. But the people of Jerusalem, or the people of Nazareth, or anywhere else, speak a distinctive form. What is surprising is that the distinctive Samaritan form is not that of Nablus. However, I have listened to the recording of Benyamim Tsedaka telling his autobiography as recorded by Prof. Werner Arnold, and it sounds to me like average Palestinian with a strong influence from Damascus, i.e. it is not purely Palestinian. However, I am not expert in distinguishing dialects.

To sum up. The two Samaritan Arabic versions, along with the variation within the mss. of each version, and in a few cases along with the scholia, PRESERVE THE SAME KIND OF INFORMATION ON THE HISTORY OF EXEGESIS AS DO THE VARIANTS WITHIN THE TARGUM TEXT. And the Targum is not as mechanical as commonly believed). The Arabic versions often preserve Targumic variants that have perished, but they also take us into the centuries after the replacement of Aramaic by Arabic. THE TWO TRANSLATIONS AND THEIR INNER MS. VARIANTS ARE NOT LITERAL IN THE SENSE OF MECHANICAL. ON THE CONTRARY THEY ARE LOADED WITH EXEGESIS OF WORDFORMS AND EXEGESIS OF MEANING. They are only literal in the very restricted meaning of not adding words or phrases in explanation, but they definitely find a way of showing a certain exegesis by their choice of individual words. (And exactly the same could be said of the Targum).

You will see that I attach very great importance to the Samaritan Arabic versions (plural!) of the Torah. Your work has given us something very valuable by making this material available. You have my personal most heartfelt thanks.

I hope all this answers the question you asked. When can we expect vol. 3?