đ Samaritan Interpretation of Shiloh in Genesis 49:10
The Samaritan interpretation of âShilohâ (׊ִ×××Öš×) in Genesis 49:10 differs dramatically from traditional Jewish and Christian messianic readings. Samaritans identify Shiloh with King Solomon, viewing this passage not as a prophecy of the Messiah but as a negative assessment of Solomonâs reign and moral failings.
The Samaritan Text and Translation
The Samaritan Pentateuch presents Genesis 49:10-12 with significant textual variations from the Masoretic Text. Based on Samaritan Targumim (Aramaic translations), the passage reads: âThe scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the rulerâs staff from among his hosts, until Shiloh comes. To him the people are gathering. He turned aside to his city, Gaphna [Jerusalem], and the sons of his strength to emptiness. He washes his garment in wine and his robe in the blood of grapes. His eyes are turbid from wine and white are his teeth from fatâ.
In Samaritan Arabic translations, the identification becomes explicit. One medieval manuscript directly states: âThe reign shall not depart from Judah, nor the rulerâs staff from among his hosts until Solomon comes. And the peoples will follow himâ.
Theological Significance: Solomon as Shiloh
The medieval Samaritan-Arabic commentary Ĺ arḼ al-barakatayn (âThe Explanation of the Two Blessingsâ), commonly ascribed to the period after ᚢadaqa b. MunaÇ§Ç§Ä (died after 1223), provides detailed exegesis of this identification. According to this commentary:
The passage means that Judahâs descendants would remain under Godâs blessing and obedience to the law âuntil the one mentioned before (i.e., Shiloh) comes. He removes the law, adopts a vile belief and permits negligence in religion, so that the fool may follow himâ. The commentary explains that when it says âAnd the peoples will follow him,â this means many people will follow him, âbecause those who act righteously are small in numberâ.
The text explicitly states: âAnd this (i.e., Shiloh) is Solomon because the smallest of sins he committed, was that he took from the daughters of the kings dissenting from religion and married them, and (he committed even) more of the major sinsâ.
Criticism of Solomonâs Character
The Samaritan interpretation emphasizes Solomonâs moral deficiencies, particularly his excessive consumption and character flaws:
Wine and Luxury: Genesis 49:11 (âHe binds his ass to the vineâ) is interpreted as referring to Solomonâs excessive planting of vineyards and love for pressing wine. The commentary warns that âtoo much wine distracts the mind and hinders the body to rise, just as the clouds hinder the sunlightâ.
Self-Indulgence: The phrase âhis eyes are turbid from wineâ is understood as describing Solomon when âthe covetous power triumphs over the mind,â showing that âhe was irrepressibly greedy and full of itâ. The reference to teeth being âwhite from fatâ indicates his excessive consumption of meat, which the commentary notes âis surely dispraised by law and by traditionâ.
Historical Context and Samaritan Chronicles
This identification appears consistently in Samaritan literature beyond commentaries. The Samaritan Chronicle II (edited by Macdonald) uses âShilohâ interchangeably with âSolomonâ throughout, written in Neo-Samaritan Hebrew. The chronicle states: âThus applies the statement of our ancestor Jacob concerning the tribe of Judah to the times of King Solomon the son of David. All these words apply in the same way to the deeds of King Solomon the son of David, for he behaved exactly as this statement saidâ.
Polemical Purpose
This interpretation serves a clear polemical function within Samaritan theology. The Samaritan tradition emphasizes the primacy of Joseph over Judah, in direct contrast to Jewish-Christian focus on Judahâs preeminence. By identifying Shiloh with Solomon and portraying him negatively, Samaritans accomplish several goals:
âď¸ 1. Opposing Jewish messianic claims: They reject the Jewish identification of Shiloh with a future Messiah from the tribe of Judah.
âď¸ 2. Discrediting the Jerusalem Temple: Solomonâs negative portrayal serves to delegitimize the Jerusalem Temple he built, which Samaritans considered a schismatic sanctuary competing with their legitimate worship center on Mount Gerizim.
âď¸ 3. Challenging Davidic authority: The interpretation undermines the authority of the Davidic line and the tribe of Judah as a whole, âin gross opposition to the priority that is given to them in Jewish and Christian exegesisâ.
This stands in stark contrast to ancient Jewish sources like the Dead Sea Scrolls and Targum Onkelos, which interpreted Genesis 49:10 messianically, as well as Christian interpretations that see it fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth. The Samaritan reading represents a unique alternative that transforms a prophecy of blessing into a warning about moral corruption and religious decline.
â Azahari Hassim
Founder, The World of Abrahamic Theology