“... The Samaritans, by rendering the Jewish Ten Commandments in nine parts, made room for a distinctly Samaritan tenth commandment which in its first part states “the vital dogmatic difference between Jews and Samaritans,” the absolute sanctity of Mount Gerizim. A second part of their tenth commandment is, however, equally important. It includes the interpolation of Deuteronomy 18:15, 18. By granting to this promise so central a place, the Samaritans stated not only their claim for Mount Gerizim, but also their hope for a Redeemer like Moses (or perhaps, better expressed, Moses redivivus) whom they called the Taheb. ...”

“... The SP version of the Decalogue of Exod 20 is a composite literary piece, inserting into the Exodus text selections from Deut 5, 11, and 27. The resulting rendition of the Ten Commandments accomplishes three important tasks. First, with clarity and geographical precision, Mount Gerizim is identified as the only legitimate and divinely ordained place of sacrifice. Worship on Gerizim becomes the concern of the tenth and final command, and in this manner the importance of Gerizim, the distinctive place for Samaritan worship, is secured. Second, Moses is elevated to an even higher status than that presented in the MT. Only Moses can speak with God, and the community grants only to Moses the status of intermediary to the Divine. The third accomplishment of this text is to invest the promised prophet to come with all the authority of the ten sacred words. The promise of the prophet, in Samaritan theology, becomes a significant social construct by which the Samaritans critique the Davidic dynasty and all social power structures that detract from the centrality of the one who will restore the Divine Favor, the Taheb. ...”

“... The same emphasis on Moses as God’s faithful representative perhaps explains why Deuteronomy serves as the source for fifteen insertions into Exodus and Numbers. In Deut 1–3, Moses recalls incidents and events that occurred during the time of the narratives related in Exodus and Numbers. Some of these events do not appear in the MT and LXX texts of Exodus and Numbers, and the insertions in the SP and pre-Samaritan texts fill this gap. As Kartveit observes, in the SP “Moses in Deut 1–3 is depicted as a truthful history-teller. He does not report an event or a divine revelation in Deuteronomy unless it actually took place according to Exodus and Numbers.” This need for the primary narrative to appear in Exodus and Numbers is quite understandable: since Deuteronomy is postured as a recap of the earlier narrative, all of the events described there should also appear in the primary narrative of Exodus-Numbers, but not all of the details in Exodus-Numbers need appear in Deuteronomy, as Moses could have abridged the story. ...”