Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>]

Dear James,

 

Neither your views nor mine of the theological "truth" are relevant to the
discussion. The only question is what the evidence of the Samaritan
Pentateuch's antiquity is. As you say, there was a temple on Mt. Gerizim in
the 3rd century BCE (although the present-day Samaritans claim that it was
not theirs). That's still 700 years after the division of the Israelite
monarchy. 

Yes, you are correct that the view of both some of the Hebrew Bible and of
some of the Rabbis was that the Samaritans were foreigners, but there were
other views as well, such as that of the Chronicler. But even if they were
100% Israelite, that does not mean that the traditions that they held in the
Roman Period were the same as those they had in the Iron Age. The fact is
that Mt. Gerizim was unoccupied in the Iron Age, there was no Temple there,
and that other than the (Jewish) biblical stories about Dan and Bethel, we
have no evidence of ANY northern-Israelite sanctuary.

 

Yigal Levin

 

  _____  

From: James Christian [mailto:jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 7:36 PM
To: leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 30:20-30

 

As far as I am aware the archaeology shows a temple of Mount Gerizim as
early as 3rd century BCE. Obviously, the tradition that this is a holy place
(the mount of blessing) is much older. On the issue of which is the correct
place to worship god (Gerizim or Jerusalem) the view of Christians who
follow Christ's view is that the time has come to worship God with spirit
and with truth and that the place of worship is of no relevance the temple
of Jerusalem merely being a prototype illustrating the holy and the most
holy. Solomon himself who built the first temple in Jerusalem acknowledged
that Yhwh is not a person that he should live in a temple built with human
hands.

 

Anyway, back to the question of the Samaritans as far as I am aware some
Rabbinic writings have insinuated that the Samaritans are foreigners from
Iraq to discredit their claims to be remnants of the tribes of Ephraim and
Mannaseh that survived and managed to remain after the Assyrian conquest.
Genetic studies confirm their tradition and their priesthood to be Levitic.

 

I'm not suggesting that everything the Samaritans have to say about
themselves is true nor that Gerizim is the divinely approved place to
worship but their tradition is certainly much older than their critics
pretend. Racist views between the Samaritans and the Jews have evidently
been a fuel for much of the criticism.

 

James Christian

On 16 May 2010 11:38, leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il> wrote:

James,

The Samaritan script is a very late, stylized version of the Paleo-Hebrew
script. The specific style is very different than the style of Paleo-Hebrew
script known from the Samaria Ostraca, for instance, which DO date from the
Iron Age northern kingdom of Israel. The earliest actual existing
manuscripts of the Samritan Pentateuch are from the Middle Ages. So no,
that's no proof of anything. It would be like saying that the Jewish
Pentateuch was written in the Roman period, because the script used for
writing Torah scrolls today is the Jewish/Aramaic script of the late Second
Temple Period.

Your deffinition of "minimalist" is not the one usually used, although many
"minimalists" do tend to date texts late. In any case, I don't see Yitzhak
as fitting this deffinition.

What do you say about the issue of Mt. Gerizim?


Yigal Levin

Original Message:
-----------------

From: James Christian jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com

Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 10:06:45 +0300
To: leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 30:20-30


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
>



--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web



_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew