Genesis JEDP ???
Niels Peter Lemche
npl at teol.ku.dk
Wed Sep 6 03:50:06 EDT 2000
What is the problem? When no specific HB version is quoted, I guess that we
all mean the Leningradiensis or the Aleppo (that does not have Deut 12). We
may think that the Samaritan version (known from a Medieval
manuscript-although it is "the oldest book in the world") was made more
precise after Jerusalem took over. The DSS manuscripts of Deteronomy does
not include the extension, although that could be because these parts are
not preserved, although the remains of Deuteronomy are quite comprehensive.
The problem is who came first Shechem or Jerusalem. The Genesis-2 Kings
version in the HB even agrees that Shechem came firstFor a parafrasing
version of the history of Israel, i.e. the adapted OT/HB version, this is
not a problem; it is simply history, but for a different view it makes one
think that something happened and that the breach between Jerusalem and
Samaria was not as simple as normally suggested (on the basis of Josephus).
That was the reason why I referred to Hjelm's new study on the Samaritans (I
cannot find my copy at the moment of writing so don't ask me for too many
details), since she objects to the official idea that the Samaritans broke
with Jerusalem; they were rather banished from Jerusalem or excluded from
the Jerusalem establishment.
From: Steve Oren [SMTP:soren at enteract.com]
To: Biblical Hebrew
Subject: Re: Genesis JEDP ???
Except, of course, that in the Samaritan version of Deut, the text
consistently reads "the place which YHWH has chosen" and there is a long
section at the end of the Deut 10 commandments about the choice of Har
Grezim. Before one appeals to texts, one must choose one's text
> At 19.27 04/09/00 +0200, Niels Peter Lemche wrote:
> >Maybe they just wrote it. Remember, silence about Jerusalem in
> >Pentateuch, but a lot about Shechem and environment.
> Hej NP
> Jerusalem I thought was the "place which the Lord your God will
> Mentioning Shechem should exclude it from being that place as the
> of Jerusalem would. It could of course have been some other place,
> lack of mention of Jerusalem in a text almost certainly written
> Hebrew control of Jerusalem is significant: either the sort of
> make is correct (and they simply didn't want to mention Jerusalem
> or the place is Jerusalem.
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: soren at enteract.com
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew at franklin.oit.unc.edu.
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: npl at teol.ku.dk
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew at franklin.oit.unc.edu.
More information about the b-hebrew