The Samaritan schism.

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
John2
Posts: 2311
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Samaritan schism.

Post by John2 » Wed May 04, 2016 10:28 am

The first reference I can find to Jerusalem in the OT so far is Joshua 10:1. But even if it's not certain (or doesn't make sense) that Salem in Gen. 14:8 is Jerusalem, it was seen that way by Israelites since at least Ps. 76:2.

And the Wikipedia page for Jerusalem notes:

"The earliest extra-biblical Hebrew writing of the word Jerusalem is dated to the sixth or seventh century BCE and was discovered in Khirbet Beit Lei near Beit Guvrin in 1961. The inscription states: "I am Yahweh thy God, I will accept the cities of Judah and I will redeem Jerusalem," or as other scholars suggest: "Yahweh is the God of the whole earth. The mountains of Judah belong to him, to the God of Jerusalem."

But it wouldn't make sense to refer to Jerusalem as being a sacred place in the Torah because it didn't belong to Israel until it was conquered by David in 2 Sam. 5:6-7:

"The king and his men marched to Jerusalem to attack the Jebusites, who lived there. The Jebusites said to David, 'You will not get in here; even the blind and the lame can ward you off.' They thought, 'David cannot get in here.' Nevertheless, David captured the fortress of Zion—which is the City of David."

I think Israelite Jerusalem could be foreshadowed by the Melchizedek episode though. His name means royalty and righteousness (http://biblehub.com/hebrew/4442.htm), he was a king and a priest, and Abram gave him "a tenth of everything," like the Israelite priests to come were to receive (Gen. 14:20).

In the big picture though I see Deuteronomy as being part of a larger work called the Deuteronomistic History (http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/vie ... 1-0028.xml), and in this it is clear that "the place the Lord your God will choose from among all your tribes to put his Name there for his dwelling" is Jerusalem:

"Yet I will not tear the whole kingdom from him, but will give him one tribe for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem, which I have chosen" (1 Ki. 11:13).

"I will give one tribe to his son so that David my servant may always have a lamp before me in Jerusalem, the city where I chose to put my Name" (1 Ki. 11:36).

But Jerusalem wasn't (fully) conquered and God didn't "put his Name" there until long after the time period described in the Torah. And whether or not it is foreshadowed by Salem, it is clear that the place where God will choose "to put his Name" in Deuteronomy is Jerusalem in rest of the DH. That this "Torah" wasn't the Torah we have now and that part of it later became attached to other writings that became our Torah (and don't mention Jerusalem) doesn't matter; the rest of the DH considers the place that God would put his name to be Jerusalem.

And what does it say about the Samaritans that they use Deuteronomy but not the rest of the DH (if it was written as a whole)? Or do you disagree with the idea that Deuteronomy is part of a larger work including Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings?
Tell me all that you know and I'll show you snow and rain.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 9777
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Samaritan schism.

Post by Secret Alias » Wed May 04, 2016 10:38 am

Deuteronomy is a problem. It seems to be written at a later date. Still the Samaritans have the original tradition and the original holy place. The author of Torah had the option to theoretically invent any narrative to suit any holy place. He didn't frame a narrative around Jerusalem because it wasn't a holy place (or THE holy place) at the time he was writing. That much is certain.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 9777
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Samaritan schism.

Post by Secret Alias » Wed May 04, 2016 10:39 am

And remember that the Samaritan Book of Exodus (and that used at Qumran and the circle of R Ishmael) had a version of Exodus which contained bits of material now preserved only in Deuteronomy. They were moved there principally to confound those who said there were two powers (i.e. one with Moses on the mountain and another, the voice, in heaven).
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 9777
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Samaritan schism.

Post by Secret Alias » Wed May 04, 2016 10:45 am

The Samaritans are almost inevitably on the right side of every historical question. The Jews (after that nitwit R Akiva) think that time and space bent so the top of the mountain WAS heaven (thus the Man and the Voice were one and the same). The Samaritans don't do that. The Samaritans understand 'Torah' to mean the ten commandments whereas the Jews again pretend it means Pentateuch which is below retarded. The Samaritans retain the calculations of shemitahs. The Jews ... what's a shemitah? The Samaritans continue to sacrifice on Passover. The Jews ... what do you do when Passover falls on a Sabbath? It's a joke.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

John2
Posts: 2311
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Samaritan schism.

Post by John2 » Wed May 04, 2016 11:03 am

So we agree that Deuteronomy is later than the rest of the Torah, but do you think the rest of the DH (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings) was written after the Samaritan schism?
Tell me all that you know and I'll show you snow and rain.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 9777
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Samaritan schism.

Post by Secret Alias » Wed May 04, 2016 11:14 am

The Samaritans have a text of Joshua which a friend of mine has argued is older than the Jewish recension. Six of one half dozen of the other.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

John2
Posts: 2311
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Samaritan schism.

Post by John2 » Wed May 04, 2016 2:11 pm

I didn't know there was a Samaritan Joshua. That's interesting and I want to look into it more. I wonder if it's represented in the Dead Sea Scrolls. For the time being, I notice on the Wikipedia page that:
Alterations that emphasize the Samaritan belief in the sanctity of Mount Gerizim, the site of the Samaritan temple, appear throughout the text; for example, an expanded Joshua 9:27 calls Gerizim "the chosen place" and a description of the temple being built there follows the conclusion of the conquest of Canaan. It is divided into fifty chapters, and contains, after the account of Joshua, a brief description of the period following Joshua, agreeing to that extent with the Book of Judges. Then follow histories of Nebuchadnezzar, Alexander the Great, and the revolt against Hadrian; it ends with an incomplete account of Baba Rabba.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_J ... Samaritan)

Letting the (possibly biased) word "alterations" pass for the moment, it's interesting that it refers to Gerizim as "the chosen place" (ala Deuteronomy) and refers to Alexander and Hadrian. But doesn't the fact that it mentions them and Baba Rabba (late third/early fourth century CE) mean that it was composed at least in part after their times though?
Tell me all that you know and I'll show you snow and rain.

John2
Posts: 2311
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Samaritan schism.

Post by John2 » Wed May 04, 2016 2:34 pm

I'm just poking around while I'm at work. This whole subject is interesting. I've also never looked at Joshua much before, so I want to do that too.

Off the bat (and in between helping people at work), this book (on page 112) mentions that the LXX of Joshua "is an earlier, shorter edition of the book, which later developed into the fuller edition in the traditional Masoretic Text. 4QJosh, however, now presents yet an earlier version of the text, with a shorter text in places."

https://books.google.com/books?id=SBMXn ... ls&f=false

That seems relevant because the Samaritan Joshua could be based (in part) on an earlier, shorter version.
Tell me all that you know and I'll show you snow and rain.

John2
Posts: 2311
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Samaritan schism.

Post by John2 » Wed May 04, 2016 2:37 pm

While 4QJosh doesn't appear to be Samaritan (so I gather from others so far, anyway), since it is shorter than the MT version maybe it means that Jews and Samaritans both altered the shorter version to suit themselves.
Tell me all that you know and I'll show you snow and rain.

John2
Posts: 2311
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Samaritan schism.

Post by John2 » Wed May 04, 2016 2:41 pm

And, of course, the Wikipedia page notes that the Samaritan Joshua "is extant in two divergent recensions, one in Samaritan Hebrew and the other in Arabic." I wonder what the differences are between them.
Tell me all that you know and I'll show you snow and rain.

Post Reply