Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

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

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Thomas L. Thompson" <tlt AT teol.ku.dk>
  • To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: VS: [b-hebrew] Samaritan script/proto-hebrew
  • Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:13:30 +0200





Dear Yitzhak,
I do not know whether Ingrid Hjelm will respond as she has been ill.
Most of your comments have little to do with me. Perhaps only what
you have in points 3 and 4.

a) "assumptions" of a late dating for the Deuteronomistic history.
Though Hjelm argues this extensively and hardly "assumes" it, I would point
out that late dates are what we have with our manuscripts. The issue is to
argue for early ones for the texts of our manuscripts. I would also not
assume that a so-called deuteronomistic history exists and that has much to
do with Hjelm's discussion.

b) Not knowing whom you might identify as in the "minimalist camp", I
will guess that you include Ingrid and me. She deals with the relative dating
of biblical texts,,,,,, extensively in her discussion of the primacy of
Isaiah over Kings in Jerusalem's Rise to Sovereignty, but then your criticism
implies that this is not a "satisfactory" treatment of the issue. I have an
explicitly inadequate, but nevertheless positive response to Polzin and
Hurvitz in my The Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel (p.191-194). Hurvits has
not really done much more on the dating of ancient Hebrew than what I accept
here. Much criticism of Hurvitz' position has been published in many places.
I would hardly identify that with a "minimalist camp".
Thomas

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: Yitzhak Sapir [mailto:yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com]
Sendt: ma 11-04-2005 01:23
Til: Thomas L. Thompson; Ingrid Hjelm;
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org; ihj AT hum.ku.dk
Cc:
Emne: Re: [b-hebrew] Samaritan script/proto-hebrew



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




  • VS: [b-hebrew] Samaritan script/proto-hebrew, Thomas L. Thompson, 04/11/2005

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page