Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

Dear Prof. Thompson, and interested listmembers,

I have now read and reread Chs.4 (Deuteronomist vs. 
Yahwist) and 7 (Conclusion) of Ingrid Hjelm's Jerusalem's 
Rise to Sovereignty.  My feeling and thoughts regarding
these are decidedly negative.  Rather than elaborate my
negative comments, in what would have become a very
negative criticism, I have decided to summarize my main
points of criticism.  Hopefully, this will allow these
criticisms and questions to be addressed, if not now,
then in the future.  I do think some points raised by
Ingrid are worthwhile, and that her book does a great
service in making available more knowledge about the
Samaritans.  I don't think proper Biblical study can 
proceed without objectively viewing the Samaritans as
a separate community, even if it had cultural and perhaps
political ties, with Judea.

For those interested, an article by her (SBL/2002) that
iterates some of the comments mentioned in this book
is available at:
http://www.mystae.com/reflections/messiah/samjudah/Shiloh&Shechem.htm

My criticisms:
1) Mutilations of Biblical verses.  The most glaring are
on page 179.  Some seem to mix Samaritan and Judaic
spellings.  I think this is very severe.
2) Not properly referencing past research.  For example,
p. 171 regarding tri-partite Isaiah being severely
questioned in recent work.
3) Assumptions of very late datings for the Deuteronomistic
History (p. 301), while at the same time taking the AF (a
Samaritan Chronicle by Abu Fath) as valid evidence in light
of very meagre arguments (p. 188).   Particularly, I think that 
the story brought on p. 211-213, about Samaritans proving
to Darius that Gerizim was the proper Temple site based on
exegesis of the Torah, suggests that it comes from a time
when Samaritans did not have an "addition" to the
Decalogue.  As it is quoted in an Arabic source and refers
to the Qibla within the story, I think this would suggest that
as late as the 7th century CE, the Samaritans did not have
such a commandment.  One need only consider the
warnings by Lemche in SJOT 7/2, p. 169 - 170 regarding
dating the books of Samuel, to realize the problematic
methodology that is employed in using the AF (and the
Samaritan Pentateuch) uncritically in studies of the 
Hellenistic times and earlier as is done in p. 184 onwards.
4) Not dealing with linguistic issues (p. 188).  I would
particularly like to know if any linguist on the "minimalist"
camp has convincingly dealt with criticisms by important
linguists:
http://www.mail-archive.com/orion AT panda.mscc.huji.ac.il/msg00402.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/orion AT panda.mscc.huji.ac.il/msg00405.html

I am currently studying the background of the books of
Samuel, and yet, I look forward to reading Ch. 5 which
apparently deals with some of these books.  I doubt I
will agree, but I am sure it will contain much useful
information.  I would like to thank Prof Thompson for
participating in this discussion and Prof Hjelm for
making the Samaritan evidence more available and for
pointing the need to focus Biblical research in its light.

Yitzhak Sapir