Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Samaritan script/proto-hebrew

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Samaritan script/proto-hebrew
  • Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 16:16:20 +0000

On 18/03/2005 13:33, Yitzhak Sapir wrote:

The claims of the Bible of massive almost complete resettlement of non-Israelites in Israel and deportations of Israelites, and the claims by later Jews that the Samaritans represent these "non-Israelites"
are problematic and are a different issue for history. Based on
language, scripts, their version of the Torah, and other factors,
I think the "split" between Samaritans and Jews is usually dated
to the 2nd century BCE. I have considered it interesting that it
is about this time that various elements of Rabbinic Judaism
appear to develop in the Jewish community so it could be
considered less of a "split" and more of a divergence of two sects
from one common unified community.


Yitzhak, I don't want to open up another long discussion on this issue. My rather quick reply to Chris was based more in the terms which I think he would understand i.e. taking the text of the book of Kings fairly literally. And I realise that this is not an entirely safe thing to do. Even in 2 Kings itself e.g. 23:15-20 there is evidence that the Samaria district was under the control of Jerusalem after the end of the northern kingdom.

On the other hand, there is evidence for separate Samaritan development much earlier than what you mention here, in the Elephantine letters from the 5th century BCE which mention a separate temple in Samaria I think. And 2 Kings 17 itself is evidence that at the time when it was written (whenever that might have been, but only minimalists put it as late as the 2nd century) there was at the very least a deep distrust between the Jerusalem and Samaritan religious authorities, to the extent that the Samaritans were effectively described as not true Jews. Now this split may have been healed and then opened up again, but I would in fact think it more likely that there was a north-south religious split from very early times, from the division of the kingdom, or even before that to the centralisation of the cult in Jerusalem, attributed to the time of David, which has never been healed. The modern Samaritans date the split to the time of Eli, and they may not be far out.

As for the script, the alphabetic script began as Phoenician,
and it quickly diverged into three main lines - Aramaic, Hebrew,
and Phoenician. The script used in both the North (Israel) and
the South (Judea) was the Hebrew script. ...


I understand what you are saying, but your terminology is highly confusing, because what you call the Hebrew script is what western scholars and script experts call palaeo-Hebrew (although of course it was not palaeo- originally but the regular script of the Israelites), and your Jewish is what is now known as Hebrew script, i.e. the letter forms in current use, especially the more formal printed varieties. Also I don't think there was ever a real difference between Phoenician and palaeo-Hebrew script beyond slight letter shape distinctions - at least if the divergent Punic or Carthaginian variety of Phoenician is not included.

... The Samaritans, believing
they are the real descendants of the Israelites, kept the Hebrew
script. ... The earliest Samaritan script is from a probable 1st
century inscription that does not differ from other inscriptions of
the First Revolt. The special characteristics of the Samaritan
script appear only from the 3rd century onwards. This is why
Albright suggested to date the Samaritan split to the 1st century
BCE when Samaria and Shekhem were conquered by the Jews.


This is perhaps a latest possible date for the split, but it is not an earliest one. There is no particular reason why the already separated Judeans and Samaritans could not have used the palaeo-Hebrew script in parallel from say the 5th to the 1st century BCE, at least for religious puposes to preserve the already centuries-old tradition. In fact it seems that the Judeans came to prefer the Aramaic-based Hebrew script at least towards the end of this period, perhaps simply because it was different from the Samaritans' preferred script.


--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 15/03/2005





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page