Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Ingrid Hjelm" <ingrid_hjelm AT hotmail.com>]

Dear Yitzak
Thanks for taking interest in my work although on a negative note, some of
which seem to be based on misunderstandings
> 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.>>>>>>mutilation, I don't think is
a proper word here. I do not always quote biblical verses verbatim and
sometimes I have rearranged some verses for rethorical purposes, however,
never in a way that pretends to give out a verbatim quotation. You might
disagree to some of my paraphrases of biblical passages, but that's a
different matter. Mixing Jewish and Samaritan. I have never done that. If it
seems so, and that would only count for Pentateuch quotations, I have simply
misquoted the Masoretic text. please give me the exact examples.
> 2) Not properly referencing past research.  For example,
> p. 171 regarding tri-partite Isaiah being severely
> questioned in recent work>>>>>>> I don't understand what you have in mind.
> 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). >>>>>>>The Deuteronomistic history as a
scholarly concept dates to Martin Noth 1943!! The Former Profets in some
forms date to the centuries before the common era as we know from Dead Sea
Scrolls, the Greek and Latin evidence, Josephus and rabbinic sources. The
form in which we have these tests in vokalised Hebrew are at best medieval
(the Aleppo and the Leningrad codices) and the editions most use are from
the 20th century. Samaritan manuscripts of AF date from the 13th to the 19th
century, but as biblical material is known to have existed at a much earlier
time than the actual manuscripts, so there are strong indications in 1st
millenia Jewish and Christian discussions that Samaritans claimed the
sanctity of Gerizim at least as early as the 2nd century BCE.
> 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>>>>>>that is much too late for that and the discussion
implies that the SP includes the commandment regarding Gerizim. I don't
think this is an 'addition' to a Jewish decalogue, but one of the variants
between SP, MT and LXX you find in the SP. AF cannot be dated on the basis
of such variants. I do not imply a validity of the Samaritan Darius story as
reflecting 6th century discussions. I don't see any evidence that such
discussions took place at that time. They did take place in the 2nd-1st
century BCE and whether the Samaritan versions belong to these discussions
or are, in fact, later, we do not know. I do not claim (p. 188) to have
investigated the matter properly, quite the contrary. Such investigation
belong  to my current research, which is far from being published.
I hope this is useful. Sincerely. Ingrid

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
To: "Thomas L. Thompson" <tlt AT teol.ku.dk>; "Ingrid Hjelm"
<ingrid_hjelm AT hotmail.com>; <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; <ihj AT hum.ku.dk>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 1:23 AM
Subject: 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
>