Biblical Hebrew Forum

[James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>]

Hi,

I use minimalist here in the sense of the approach that typically asserts
the late boundary for dating. However, the alphabet used in Samaritan
versions alone should speak volumes about the minimalistic late boundary of
the Pentateuch.

James Christian

On 16 May 2010 01:53, Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il> wrote:

> James,
>
> 1. What do you mean by "minimalist" when you use it here?
>
> 2. What evidence do you have that the Samaritan version of the Pentateuch
> is
> as old as the division of the monarchy? To counter your claim, I'd point
> out
> that there is no evidence, textual or archaeological, of there being an
> important cultic site on Mt. Gerizim before the Persian Period, despite the
> fact that the SP repeats the commandment to sacrifice there regularly
> several times. According to the Bible, the main sanctuaries of the Northern
> Kingdom were at Bethel and at Dan. Had there been such a sanctuary at Mt.
> Gerizim the Bible would surely have denounced it.
>
> Yigal Levin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
> [mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of James Christian
> Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 12:51 AM
> To: Yitzhak Sapir
> Cc: b-hebrew
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 30:20-30
>
> YS: Before we explore this amazing agreement, it is important to point out
> that
> the spelling of the Pentateuch definitely does not predate the 6th century
> BCE.
> Furthermore the Samaritan Pentateuch agrees with the Jewish Pentateuch
> on issues of spelling (the spelling is actually more developed in the
> Samaritan,
> generally speaking), so we would have to conclude that the agreement and
> mutual confirmation of the Pentateuch by both communities happened
> sometime not before the 6th century BCE.  A likely time would be the 3rd
> century BCE, for various reasons.
>
> JC: This is all pretty standard minimalist stuff but full marks for your
> ability to regurgitate views you have read in a minimalist book. I guess
> we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one as we've already been
> through this perhaps more times than Jim has presented his conspiracy
> theories on the location of the Salt Sea.
>
> However, the shape of the Samaritan canon in general would suggest that
> your
> minimalist view is extremely misguided. The split in the canon follows the
> timeline of the split of the kingdoms and the Samaritan pentateuch is
> evidently older than the split. The nationalistic differences can be argued
> to be later for obvious reasons. But it is these very differences which
> give
> the agreements their age.
>
> James Christian
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>