Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy
Chapter 27
Ver. 1. Ancients, particularly the priests, ver. 9. (Haydock) --- These exhorted the people to observe diligently, what they had all heard from the mouth of Moses, chap. v. i. (Calmet)
Ver. 2. Stones. The Latin translation of the Samaritan copy, defines the number to be two, (Exodus xx. 18,) and shews that the law, which was to be written upon them, was no other than the decalogue, to which the curses and blessings here recorded have a direct reference. When no number is specified, the dual is commonly understood. (Haydock) (Leviticus xii. 5, &c.) --- Two large stones would be sufficient to contain the words of the decalogue, and they would more strikingly represent the two tables written with the finger of God. They were probably first polished, and the letters raised upon them in relievo, as the Arabic marbles in the University of Oxford are done. The white plaster being then used to fill up the interstices between the letters of black marble, the words would appear very plainly. (Kennicott, Dis. 2.) --- Others think that a high and durable monument was raised both for an altar and for the inscription, though some would allow four others for this purpose. (Calmet) --- Plaster. The Hebrew does not specify all over; and Houbigant supposes, that the cement was only used to join the stones together. Neither do the Hebrew or Septuagint intimate that the plaster was laid on for the purpose of writing more easily.
Ver. 3. That, &c. Hebrew and Septuagint, "And thou shalt write upon them (stones) all the words of," &c. (Haydock) --- This law, the decalogue, (Masius in Josue viii. 32,) or all the laws of Moses, leaving out the historical parts of his work, or the 20th and three following chapters of Exodus, or the discourses of Moses in this book, &c. Josue, in effect, wrote upon stones the Deuteronomy of the law of Moses, which Josephus explains of the curses and blessings inscribed upon the two sides of the monument, as an abridgment of the whole law. (Calmet) --- The Jordan is not in Hebrew expressly, but in the Septuagint. After the Israelites had crossed this river, they were thus to make a solemn profession of their adherence to the law of God, (Haydock) as they did (ver. 12,) after they had taken Hai; though Josephus insinuates, that they deferred for five years the accomplishment of what is here required. (Tirinus)
Ver. 4. Hebal. It affords a matter of surprise to Ludolf, that this barren mountain of cursing, (ver. 13,) should be fixed upon by God, for the erection of his altar and for solemn feasting, instead of Garizim, which is most luxuriant. Reland believes that their very names designate sterility and fruitfulness. But we must observe that the Samaritan copy, both here and Exodus xx., specifies that Garizim was to be the place so highly distinguished. Almost all interpreters agree in condemning the Samaritans of a wilful corruption of their text, on this account. But Kennicott adduces several very plausible arguments in their defence, and even throws the blame upon the Jews, who are accused of having taken similar liberties with their text, by St. Jerome, (Galatians iii. 10,) in leaving out the word col, all, which he found in the Samaritan Pentateuch, (ver. 26,) as well as in St. Paul. It is remarkable that the Protestant "version allows the corruption of the present Hebrew copies. For as it inserts other necessary words elsewhere, so here, says the Doctor, it inserts the word all, noting it with a different character, as deficient in the present Hebrew." Another plain instance of fraud is acknowledged by many of the Jews, (Judges xviii. 30,) where, because the grandson of their lawgiver became the first priest of Michas' idol, in the tribe of Dan, they have inserted an n over or in the name of Moses, to change it into Manasseh. "The letter nun was written, says Jarchi, in order to change the name for the honour of Moses." (Talmud, fol. 109.) Michaelis adduces the same reason from Abendana, (Gottingen, comment. 4, 1753) thus acknowledging a wilful corruption made by the Jews, which in the former volume he had asserted had never yet been clearly proved against them. Kennicott himself had once been of the same persuasion. Josue xv. 60, eleven cities are omitted, perhaps originally by mistake, though St. Jerome thinks that they may have been left out by the ancient Jews, because Bethlehem Ephrata is there described as in the tribe of Juda, agreeably to the prophecy of Micheas v. 2. It seems, therefore, that the Jews were as capable of falsifying the text as the Samaritans. Their hatred against the latter was also excessive, insomuch that they vented all sorts of imprecations against them, and even decreed, "that no Israelite eat of any thing that is a Samaritan's, nor that any Samaritan be proselyted to Israel, nor have any part in the resurrection." (R. Tanchum.) (Walton, proleg. 11. 4.) --- Hence we read, (John iv. 9,) the Jews do not communicate with the Samaritans. See Ecclesiasticus 1. 25.[l. 28.?]
Many passages of the New Testament set the character of the latter, however, in a more favourable light than that of the Jews. They were open to conviction, on the preaching of Christ and of the apostles. See St. Chrysostom on John iv., and the history of the Samaritan cured of the leprosy, whose behaviour, contrasted with the ingratitude of the nine Jews, obtained the glorious approbation of the Son of God, who disdained not to describe himself, on another occasion, under the character of the good Samaritan, Luke x., and xvii. The Samaritans are also acknowledged by the Jews themselves, to be more zealous for the law of Moses, and more rigid observers of the letter of it, than the people of their own nation. (Obadias; Hottinger.) --- It is not probable, therefore, that they would designedly interpolate that very law, which alone they received as of divine authority among the writings of the prophets. Besides, what interest could they have on this occasion to substitute Garizim? As they had possession of both the mountains in question, if they had known that Hebal had been honoured with the altar, &c., what hindered them from building their temple upon it? What could be the reason why Joatham chose Mount Garizim as the place from which he might address the men of Sichem, to bring them to a sense of their duty? unless because he was convinced not only that Abraham had sacrificed there when he first came into Chanaan, (Genesis xii. 6,) but also that God had chosen it for the place where his covenant with Israel should be ratified, as soon as the Israelites had taken possession of the country. But it may be said all the ancient versions agree with the Hebrew. No doubt those which have been taken from that text agree with it. But the Samaritans have a version in their own dialect, and another in Arabic, both which were in the possession of Walton, who believes that the former "was made not long after the days of Esdras, while the Samaritans and the Jews followed the same religion." This, as well as the Arabic, which is extant in this place, both in its own and in the Samaritan character, all admit the word Garizim; and the Greek version, which some believe was made from the same text soon after the reign of Alexander the Great, (Hottinger) if it really ever existed, must no doubt have retained the same reading. These versions claim a higher antiquity than that of the Septuagint.