Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Samaritan Pentateuch

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
  • To: gabe AT cascadeaccess.com, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Samaritan Pentateuch
  • Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 09:52:48 EDT


Gabe:

You wrote: “The SP as we have it surely has a very late (2nd-1st cent.)
layer,
containing the polemical 10th commandment. Another layer down, we have the
extensive harmonizations which must be later than the base that agrees with
MT.
Somewhere down at the bottom there is a core that, in isolated cases,
preserves readings that are probably older than those in MT. But most of the
differences, including plene and other spelling differences, must be
representative of
Samaria from the 4th century on, not the kingdom of Israel. So I think it
inappropriate to invoke
Canaanites and "northern Hebrews". A limit on the age of the SP and its
variations may be deduced from the fact that the Torah was edited in
Jerusalem.
When the Samaritans embraced it (possibly as late as the transfer of priests
from Jerusalem
to Shechem described by Josephus), they were accepting some implicit enemy
propaganda (as opposed to the overt propaganda in Samuel-Kings, which they
rejected).”

Pursuant to George’s wishes, this will be my last post on Hebron. I do want
to thank everyone who made substantive comments on these threads. Many of us
learned a lot from those comments.

1. I agree completely that (i) the Samaritan Pentateuch is not long on
accuracy, and (ii) it was amended, in important ways, at a very late date.
As to
accuracy concerning substantive content, the Samaritan Pentateuch cannot hold
a
candle to the consonantal Masoretic Text. Agreed. And instead of saying “
northern Hebrews”, I should probably refer to “northerners” in Canaan.

2. But the Samaritan Pentateuch often agrees with the Septuagint, against
the Masoretic Text. That suggests that the Samaritan Pentateuch and
Septuagint
come from one common source, and the Masoretic Text comes from a different
source. (Yes, there would also be a more ancient source common to all.) The
text of the Septuagint may well be older than the Masoretic Text, even
though,
once again, the Septuagint is not nearly as accurate as the Masoretic Text.
You
yourself note: “Somewhere down at the bottom there is a core that, in
isolated cases, preserves readings that are probably older than those in MT.”

3. The very fact that there are 6,000 versions of the Samaritan Pentateuch
means that it is more likely to reflect actual, vulgar pronunciations of west
Semitic words by the people of Canaan. The Masoretic Text, by contrast, is
amazing in its refusal to permit any major spelling differences for common
words
(excluding proper names). If one wants to see the full panoply of varying
spellings and pronunciations of west Semitic words, the Samaritan Pentateuch
is
likely to be much more representative of the dozens of different patois in
ancient Canaan than is the Masoretic Text.

4. To me, the Samaritan Pentateuch fits perfectly with the frequent use of
Egyptian J on the Thutmosis III list. We know from the Samaritan Pentateuch
that west Semitic words spelled and pronounced with an initial heth by the
small
number of Hebrews in and near Jerusalem were, often as not, either spelled or
pronounced with an aleph (or ayin or a vowel-type sound) by other people in
Canaan. In my opinion, that is why the Egyptians used J so much. Egyptian J
was invaluable for use where some people in Canaan pronounced a word with an
aleph, whereas other people, such as the southern Hebrews, persisted in
pronouncing such words with a true heth sound. Were it not for that aleph
vs. heth
routine dichotomy in the pronunciation of initial sounds in west Semitic
words
in Late Bronze Age Canaan, it is hard to see why Egyptian J would be so
prominent on the Thutmosis III list.

My main argument here is that the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Egyptian J on
the Thutmosis III list are singing the same song. One misses that tune
completely in the Masoretic Text. But of course there was no Masoretic Text
yet in
the Late Bronze Age. I am trying to show that XBR in Biblical Hebrew could
be
a deliberate reference to JBR at item #99 on the Thutmosis III list. The
scholarly assumption that the Egyptian J in JBR is an aleph, pure and simple,
is
not correct. True, JBR is probably reflecting a majority of Canaanites
saying
aleph. But the southern Hebrews or pre-Hebrews could have pronounced the
same word with a heth/X. That likely was the ancient, correct, original
pronunciation of the word, which the southern Hebrews in Jerusalem insisted
upon as
being the only spelling and pronunciation allowed in their sacred scripture.
The J in JBR implies that some people in Canaan, perhaps a small minority of
people (near Jerusalem), pronounced the underlying west Semitic word with a
true
heth, even though a majority of people in Canaan pronounced the same word
with
an aleph.

The frequency of the Egyptian J on the Thutmosis III list, alongside the
presence of the true Egyptian aleph that was also frequently used on the
Thutmosis
III list, strongly suggests to me that JBR may have XBR as its Biblical
Hebrew equivalent. The Samaritan Pentateuch duly gives us )BR or abar for
XBR,
which fits in perfectly with my theory of the case.

Instead of making a substantive attack on that key argument of mine, Yitzhak
Sapir made only the following non-substantive comment: “[H]e's using the
Egyptian geographic lists to argue his point when these are the exact sources
that
prove him
wrong.” I myself see the Egyptian single reed/J as beautifully reflecting
the same aleph vs. initial heth dichotomy that we so often see in comparing
the
Masoretic Text to the Samaritan Pentateuch.

I agree with most all of what you say. But I do not see anything in that
which undercuts my theory that Egyptian J reflects a heth vs. aleph common
pronunciation variation in Late Bronze Age Canaan. XBRWN = XBR + WN. I see
the XBR
in XBRWN/“Hebron” as being a deliberate reference to JBR and the Aijalon
Valley at item #99 on the Thutmosis III list. The Patriarchs’ “Hebron” is
not
King David’s mountainous city of Hebron 20 miles south of Jerusalem. Rather,
all Biblical authors knew that the Patriarchs’ “Hebron”, very fittingly for a
divinely-blessed, classic pastoralist like Abraham, is portrayed in the
Patriarchal narratives as being the excellent rural pastureland of the
low-lying
Aijalon Valley, west of Beth-el and west of hill country.

XBR primarily means “to bind”. Softening the heth pronunciation, XBR could
also imply )BR, meaning “mighty”, the “Mighty One”, that is, YHWH. Each of
XBR and )BR sounds a lot like JBR, which refers to the Aijalon Valley. The
root of XBRWN/“Hebron” is XBR. I see the clever Hebrew wordplay here in the
name “Hebron” as being as follows. XBR, per )BR, to JBR. “Bound”/XBR, per
the “Mighty One”/)BR, to the Aijalon Valley/JBR. XBR, per )BR, to JBR.
That’s
how I interpret the Hebrew name “Hebron”, as forcefully asserting that
Abraham’s descendants are eternally bound, by Will of YHWH, to the Aijalon
Valley
and southern Canaan.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

**************Need a job? Find employment help in your area.
(http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=employment_agencies&ncid=emlcntusyelp00000005)




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page