📜 Samaritan Interpretation of Shiloh in Genesis 49:10

The Samaritan interpretation of “Shiloh” (שִׁילֹה) 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 Solomon’s 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: “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s 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 fat”.

In Samaritan Arabic translations, the identification becomes explicit. One medieval manuscript directly states: “The reign shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from among his hosts until Solomon comes. And the peoples will follow him”.

Theological Significance: Solomon as Shiloh

The medieval Samaritan-Arabic commentary Šarḥ al-barakatayn (“The Explanation of the Two Blessings”), commonly ascribed to the period after Ṣadaqa b. Munaǧǧā (died after 1223), provides detailed exegesis of this identification. According to this commentary:

The passage means that Judah’s descendants would remain under God’s blessing and obedience to the law “until 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 him”. The commentary explains that when it says “And the peoples will follow him,” this means many people will follow him, “because those who act righteously are small in number”.

The text explicitly states: “And 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 sins”.

Criticism of Solomon’s Character

The Samaritan interpretation emphasizes Solomon’s moral deficiencies, particularly his excessive consumption and character flaws:

Wine and Luxury: Genesis 49:11 (“He binds his ass to the vine”) is interpreted as referring to Solomon’s excessive planting of vineyards and love for pressing wine. The commentary warns that “too much wine distracts the mind and hinders the body to rise, just as the clouds hinder the sunlight”.

Self-Indulgence: The phrase “his eyes are turbid from wine” is understood as describing Solomon when “the covetous power triumphs over the mind,” showing that “he was irrepressibly greedy and full of it”. The reference to teeth being “white from fat” indicates his excessive consumption of meat, which the commentary notes “is surely dispraised by law and by tradition”.

Historical Context and Samaritan Chronicles

This identification appears consistently in Samaritan literature beyond commentaries. The Samaritan Chronicle II (edited by Macdonald) uses “Shiloh” interchangeably with “Solomon” throughout, written in Neo-Samaritan Hebrew. The chronicle states: “Thus 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 said”.

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 Judah’s preeminence. By identifying Shiloh with Solomon and portraying him negatively, Samaritans accomplish several goals:

❇️ 1. Opposing Jewish messianic claims: They reject the Jewish identification of Shiloh with a future Messiah from the tribe of Judah.

❇️ 2. Discrediting the Jerusalem Temple: Solomon’s 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.

❇️ 3. Challenging Davidic authority: The interpretation undermines the authority of the Davidic line and the tribe of Judah as a whole, “in gross opposition to the priority that is given to them in Jewish and Christian exegesis”.

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.

📜 The Absence of “Land of Moriah” in the Samaritan Torah: A Textual and Theological Analysis

Introduction

Genesis 22—the narrative traditionally known in Judaism as the Akedah—begins with God commanding Abraham to travel to a specific region to offer his son as a sacrifice. In the Masoretic Text (MT), the canonical Hebrew Bible used in Judaism, the command directs Abraham to “the land of Moriah.”

This phrase has become foundational in Jewish and Christian tradition, especially in associating the event with Jerusalem and the future Temple Mount.

Yet, the Samaritan Torah preserves a different reading, one that significantly reshapes the geographical and theological setting of the story. Importantly, the Samaritan Torah does not contain the phrase “land of Moriah” at all.

⸻

📃 The Samaritan Reading of Genesis 22

In the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP), the wording of Genesis 22:2 diverges from the Masoretic text. Instead of “Moriah,” the Samaritan version reads:

“Go to the land of Moreh.”

Thus, the Samaritan Torah identifies the location not as Moriah, but as Moreh—the same geographical region associated with Abraham’s first altar in Genesis 12. This difference is profound: while “Moriah” later becomes linked to Jerusalem, “Moreh” is firmly tied to the area around Shechem, near Mount Gerizim, the holiest site in Samaritanism.

This means that in the Samaritan tradition, the Binding of Isaac narrative (Akedah) unfolds not in the future Temple region, but within the ancient Abrahamic landscape of Shechem and Gerizim.

⸻

🌟 The Significance of This Variant Reading

1. Sacred Geography

For the Samaritans, Mount Gerizim—not Jerusalem—is the chosen mountain of God.

By reading “Moreh,” the Samaritan text situates the near-sacrifice narrative geographically close to Gerizim, reinforcing their belief that this region is the true center of divine revelation.

This interpretation also aligns with earlier Abraham narratives:

• In Genesis 12, Abraham builds his first altar at the “oak of Moreh.”

• In the Samaritan worldview, Genesis 22 naturally continues Abraham’s early sacred geography.

2. Textual Considerations

Scholars often note that the term “Moriah” in the Masoretic Text is linguistically difficult and appears only in two biblical texts: Genesis 22 and a much later passage in Chronicles. The rarity of the word has led many scholars to suggest that “Moriah” may reflect:

• A later interpretive development,

• Or a geographical reorientation toward Jerusalem for theological purposes.

By contrast, the Samaritan reading “Moreh” is a well-established place name within the Pentateuch itself. It is geographically coherent and consistent with the Abrahamic narrative.

This leaves open the scholarly possibility that the Samaritan reading may preserve an older or more original form of the text.

3. Theological Implications

Removing “Moriah” detaches the narrative from Jerusalem, thereby separating the Binding story (Akedah) from the later Temple traditions that dominate Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity.

In Samaritan theology:

• The true sacrificial mountain is Mount Gerizim.

• The Akedah is understood as part of a continuous Abrahamic tradition centered in Shechem–Gerizim, not Zion.

• The absence of “Moriah” supports their claim that the Torah does not endorse the sanctity of Jerusalem.

This alternative textual tradition therefore becomes a foundational element in the longstanding religious differences between Samaritans and Jews.

⸻

📕 Conclusion

The Samaritan Torah’s omission of the phrase “land of Moriah” highlights a deeply significant textual variation with wide-reaching implications.

Rather than pointing Abraham toward Jerusalem, the Samaritan version locates the near-sacrifice in the land of Moreh, near Shechem and Mount Gerizim.

This difference not only shapes Samaritan sacred geography but also offers valuable insight into the diverse ways ancient communities transmitted, interpreted, and localized the Abrahamic tradition.

By noting that “land of Moriah” does not appear in the Samaritan Torah, we gain a clearer understanding of how textual variants preserve competing visions of the covenantal landscape and the history of Israel’s earliest traditions.

— Azahari Hassim

Founder, The World of Abrahamic Theology