Current State of Samaritan Studies (Hexateuch)

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Current State of Samaritan Studies (Hexateuch)

Post by Secret Alias »

This is pertinent too:

The dream is actually not absurd because the sun and moon to which Joseph's dream refers are the sun that a descendant of Joseph , the Ephraimite Joshua stops in Gibeon while the moon is the moon that he also halts there ( Josh . 10 : 12-13 ) ( see Gen. R. 84 : 11 ) . The fact that Joseph narratively foreshadows Joshua is made clear when Jacob awards Shechem to Joseph shortly before his death ( Gen. 48:22 ) ; Shechem is the place at which , in addition to being the burial site of Joseph , Joshua himself is buried , as described in a verse that recalls its original purchase by Jacob ( Josh . 24:32 ) . Gen. R. 6 : 9 implies this interpretation of Joseph's second dream , explaining that the two luminaries created on the fourth day were ' the righteous , because they rule , over what is created to give light by day and what is created to give light by day and what is created to give light by night ' , after which it cites Josh . 10:13 . This midrash also claims that Jacob's blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh ( Gen. 48:19 ) refers to Joshua , perhaps basing itself on the understanding that Joseph's second dream refers to him . Joshua , Joseph's Ephraimite successor lives to be one hundred and ten years of age like Joseph ( Gen. 50:26 ; Josh . 24:29 ) , achieves dominion over all of the tribes , and makes the sun and moon stand still .

https://books.google.com/books?id=JRfXH ... 22&f=false
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Current State of Samaritan Studies (Hexateuch)

Post by neilgodfrey »

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 2:07 pm Ok. Let's stop the bullshit.

The majority of scholars perhaps 99% accept that the Pentateuch was written before Alexander the Great.

That doesn't mean that the Pentateuch WAS written before Alexander the Great. It just means that unless there is an active conspiracy against Gmirkin's ideas that - even without knowing what the evidence is - there is almost certainly some sort of 'evidence' behind a 'before Alexander the Great' dating of the Pentateuch.

Even if I am an idiot which is entirely possible, the 'before Alexander the Great' dating of the Pentateuch is going to have 'something going for it.'

Gmirkin may be a genius. He may be as superior to the 'ordinary scholar' as an 'ordinary scholar' is from a house pet. But even with all that it has to be acknowledged that there are plausible grounds for 'mistaking' the Pentateuch being created in the Persian period.
I hope I am not out of place in responding here -- but I would rather see Russell Gmirkin devote his time here to substantial issues of argument and evidence than responding to these sorts of squeals of frustration.

Stephan, you don't appear to understand how scholarship works -- and I am sure I am not only reader who wishes you would step back from your hostile tone and engage more civilly in give-and-take discussion.

Of course any idea that has become the conventional wisdom has plausible justifications. That goes without saying.

But it is also true throughout the history of scholarship and scientific inquiries that new ideas emerge that point to hitherto overlooked flaws in the conventional wisdom -- and also point to new evidence or findings that challenge the old ideas.

And when that happens, there is always a period of resistance -- and quite rightly, too. It is right that those representing the old majority ideas bring out their biggest guns to see if they can withstand the challenge of the new ideas.

After a time, if the new ideas have merit and there really are flaws in the old ideas that have been brought to everyone's focus -- then over time more and more scholars will adopt the new ideas and add their voices to challenging the old ideas. Usually what happens is that a new generation of younger scholars take up the new ideas because old people sometimes find it hard to give up what they have always assumed and believed.

So the changes usually happen over time as a new generation replaces the old.

But before that change over, there has to be a lot of debate. Old ideas need to be tested anew. New ideas need to be tested just as rigorously.

There was one scholar who back in the second half of the last century found himself unable to get a job because his ideas were so radical. He challenged what had been the conventional wisdom ever since the 1700s and 1800s. He had to work as a painter instead of as an academic for some years. But today his ideas are mainstream and he has since found employment as an academic. It took decades for the change to happen, for enough resistance to break down and for his ideas to be tested thoroughly enough for them to be accepted as the new conventional wisdom.

We don't have to worship scholars like that. They are as normal as you and I, but through circumstances and various factors they have had the opportunities to stand on the shoulders of giants and seen a little further for the first time. The immediate reaction of others is usually disbelief, but over time, if they are correct, their ideas will find traction. If not, they will disappear.

Russell Gmirkin, in my view, is riding the wave of a new approach to biblical studies that has been gaining momentum since the latter part of the last century. That wave has faced enormous hostility from the old guard, but it has also been slowly gaining acceptance among some of the older scholars and more of the younger ones.

If Russell Gmirkin's ideas over time cannot withstand scrutiny, they will be set aside and forgotten. If they can withstand scrutiny, they will become part of a larger movement in recent decades to overthrow the conventional wisdom that underlies the core of the Documentary Hypothesis and its variants.

We have the opportunity here to explore those new ideas and be a part of testing them. But serious and reliable tests need to first of all be sure they understand what it is they are testing. And not set up straw men and think they have demolished something they haven't even understood.

It takes a little effort to understand and learn a new idea before we can test it.
Russell Gmirkin
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:53 am

Re: Current State of Samaritan Studies (Hexateuch)

Post by Russell Gmirkin »

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 2:16 pm I also remind you that Judah has a rather ignominious tale told about him (in contrast to Joseph):
At that time, Judah left his brothers and went down to stay with a man of Adullam named Hirah. 2 There Judah met the daughter of a Canaanite man named Shua. He married her and made love to her; 3 she became pregnant and gave birth to a son, who was named Er. 4 She conceived again and gave birth to a son and named him Onan. 5 She gave birth to still another son and named him Shelah. It was at Kezib that she gave birth to him.

6 Judah got a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. 7 But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death.

8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also.

11 Judah then said to his daughter-in-law Tamar, “Live as a widow in your father’s household until my son Shelah grows up.” For he thought, “He may die too, just like his brothers.” So Tamar went to live in her father’s household.

12 After a long time Judah’s wife, the daughter of Shua, died. When Judah had recovered from his grief, he went up to Timnah, to the men who were shearing his sheep, and his friend Hirah the Adullamite went with him.

13 When Tamar was told, “Your father-in-law is on his way to Timnah to shear his sheep,” 14 she took off her widow’s clothes, covered herself with a veil to disguise herself, and then sat down at the entrance to Enaim, which is on the road to Timnah. For she saw that, though Shelah had now grown up, she had not been given to him as his wife.

15 When Judah saw her, he thought she was a prostitute, for she had covered her face. 16 Not realizing that she was his daughter-in-law, he went over to her by the roadside and said, “Come now, let me sleep with you.”

“And what will you give me to sleep with you?” she asked.

17 “I’ll send you a young goat from my flock,” he said.

“Will you give me something as a pledge until you send it?” she asked.

18 He said, “What pledge should I give you?”

“Your seal and its cord, and the staff in your hand,” she answered. So he gave them to her and slept with her, and she became pregnant by him. 19 After she left, she took off her veil and put on her widow’s clothes again.

20 Meanwhile Judah sent the young goat by his friend the Adullamite in order to get his pledge back from the woman, but he did not find her. 21 He asked the men who lived there, “Where is the shrine prostitute who was beside the road at Enaim?”

“There hasn’t been any shrine prostitute here,” they said.

22 So he went back to Judah and said, “I didn’t find her. Besides, the men who lived there said, ‘There hasn’t been any shrine prostitute here.’”

23 Then Judah said, “Let her keep what she has, or we will become a laughingstock. After all, I did send her this young goat, but you didn’t find her.”

24 About three months later Judah was told, “Your daughter-in-law Tamar is guilty of prostitution, and as a result she is now pregnant.”

Judah said, “Bring her out and have her burned to death!”

25 As she was being brought out, she sent a message to her father-in-law. “I am pregnant by the man who owns these,” she said. And she added, “See if you recognize whose seal and cord and staff these are.”

26 Judah recognized them and said, “She is more righteous than I, since I wouldn’t give her to my son Shelah.” And he did not sleep with her again.

27 When the time came for her to give birth, there were twin boys in her womb. 28 As she was giving birth, one of them put out his hand; so the midwife took a scarlet thread and tied it on his wrist and said, “This one came out first.” 29 But when he drew back his hand, his brother came out, and she said, “So this is how you have broken out!” And he was named Perez.[a] 30 Then his brother, who had the scarlet thread on his wrist, came out. And he was named Zerah.
And with respect to the allotment to Judah in Joshua. Maybe by the time later books of the Hexateuch were written Judaeans were already gaining authority and power. Who knows.

The point is that Joseph is a superman in the Pentateuch and Judah isn't worthy of walking in his shadow.

I mean we Jews love whores. It's well documented. Just watch a Woody Allen movie. But the conclusion drawn from Genesis is clear even to apologetic literature:

The twins are born to Judah and Tamar, the product of an incestuous relationship between a father and his daughter-in-law, whom he thinks is a prostitute (another story omitted from kids’ Bibles).

What's Judah going to a prostitute for? What's the reason why Jews wanted to portray themselves as sons of whores, de puta madre? Again the assumption is that a Jewish author was just 'reporting the facts' that he and his countrymen were sons of an incestuous relationship and their forefather was a whoremonger. Really? They're that truthful? Is any one are any peoples THAT honest? I'll go for Samaritan authorship on that one alone.
Before I get to the seven points, let's briefly dispose of this tale.

First, the story is one of trickery by Tamar for a "righteous" purpose, one of several such entertaining tales in Genesis (like Jacob and Esau). Tamar's husband Er dies before providing her with a son to carry on the lineage, her husband's brother Onan won't fulfill his lawful duty and God strikes him down, and Judah wants to make her wait until a third, younger brother grows up to fulfill that duty. Tamar poses as a prostitute, gets pregnant by Judah, which looks scandalous, but when all is revealed she becomes a righteous hero, and Judah admits he should have fulfilled his duty as the closest male relative to give her a son and carry on the lineage of the clan of Judah/Er.

Second, and rather importantly. In the Bible (as elsewhere throughout both the Ancient Near East and the Greek/Mediterranean world), prostitution was not particularly frowned upon. Wives were for having children, prostitutes were for sex, as desired. Prostitution was not illegal in the Torah, although prostitution was formally restricted to resident aliens (Lev. 19.29; Deut. 23.17-18; Josh. 2.1-21). Priests were forbidden from marrying a prostitute (Lev. 21.7, 14) and it was a capital crime for a priest’s daughter to enter prostitution (Lev. 21.9), indicating a special level of purity. The nokriah or “strange woman” was a foreigner (1 Kgs 11.1; Prov. 5.20; 7.5; 23.27). Israelite women were expected to bear certifiably legitimate offspring to their husbands to be citizens and inherit the ancestral estate, and both prostitution and adultery cast the legitimacy of offspring into doubt, so wives were prohibited from cohabiting with anyone but their husbands.

But the husband could have sex with slave girls or prostitutes. Frequenting a prostitute was tolerated. See Gen. 38.13-18; Josh. 2.1-21; 6.22-23, 25 (Rahab the harlot). Deut. 23.18 forbade a female or male prostitute’s fee from being accepted in the temple, which seems to point to a toleration for this profession; cf. van der Toorn 1989. Prov. 2.16-19; 5.3-5; 7.5-27; 23.27-28, in which a son was advised to resist the charms and wiles of the prostitute, also acknowledged the profession. At Hos. 1.2, the prophet was told to take a prostitute for a wife.

So the idea that Judah was doing something bad by going to a prostitute is a modern prudish idea that is just not biblical. The biblical world was highly sexist and patriarchal, and men could have as much sex with slave girls, girlfriends or prostitutes as they wanted as long as it wasn't with another man's wife or with a marriageable Israelite girl.

Third, there is a very negative story about Shechem in Genesis. Abraham already built an altar at Shechem. In Gen. 33.18-20, Jacob buys a plot of land at Salem, a suburb of Shechem, and erects another altar there (next to Mount Gerizim). But in Gen. 34 there is a story in which Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite abducted and raped Jacob's daughter Dinah. A seducer or rapist would normally be forced to pay the virgin bride-price for the daughter and marry her (Deuteronomy 22:29, Exodus 22:15-16). Shechem willingly negotiates to marry Dinah, which is agreed to on the condition that all the Shechemites are circumcized. But after the Shechemites are circumcised, Simeon and Levi slaughter them all, because they treated their sister Dinah like a prostitute.

Shechem has both positive and negative biblical traditions. In Joshua the covenant ceremony takes place at Shechem, but in Judges the Shechemites are Canaanite bad guys. Genesis 34 seems to know about circumcized residents of Shechem and provide a very very negative and slanderous story about where they came from.

This story should be read as a slanderous story about the Samaritan semi-sacred city of Shechem, that the circumcized residents of Shechem--Samaritans!--aren't even Israelites, but descended from pagan Canaanites. This is very similar to the claim in 2 Kings 17 that the Samaritans were all pagan Babylonians brought in after the fall of Samaria and deportation of the Israelites to the land of the Medes.

Who would write such a negative story about Shechem, one of the sacred cities of the Samaritans? Their rivals, the Jews, are the obvious alternative. So both Jews and Samaritans contributed stories to Genesis.
Last edited by Russell Gmirkin on Wed Nov 30, 2022 9:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Russell Gmirkin
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:53 am

Re: Current State of Samaritan Studies (Hexateuch)

Post by Russell Gmirkin »

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 2:52 pm And as for your points:

(1) Why else would Judah be included in the twelve tribes of Israel?

They had some cultural relationship.

(2) Why else was Judah prominently allotted territory in the book of Joshua?

I am not disputing that northern writers regarded Judah as part of the family.

(7) As noted above, why else did both Samaritans and Jews accept the Pentateuch as authoritative?

According to my understanding the Pentateuch was written while the northerners (Samaritans) were the favorites and imposed on the related people, the Judaeans.
The Samaritans were always the favorites of the Samaritans.
The Judeans were the favorites of the Judeans.
Neither was ever the favorite of the other.

They both adopted the Pentateuch because they both wrote it. They were both Yahwists. They shared a common culture.

There was no time when one could impose their literature on the other. Proof: the Jews conquered the Samaritans and destroyed the temple on Gerizim, but they were NEVER able to impose the Jewish Bible (all of Genesis-Malachi) on the Samaritans. If the Jews through all of time were unable to impose a Jewish Bible on the Samaritans, why would one imagine the Samaritans were able to impose a Samaritan Pentateuch on the Jews?

Samaritans and Jews had a brief period of cooperation—NOT one ruling over the other’s temple and religion—when the Pentateuch was created and adopted by both groups as a friendly foundation myth that included both north and south within the same twelve tribes of the children of Israel.

Here’s a good way to picture it. The Pentateuch was written, with Judah and Joseph partnered up in the twelve tribes of Israel, during a brief “marriage” of Jews and Samaritans when they were both on talking terms. It was not a great marriage. There were squabbles and arguments. They tried to get along, but almost immediately afterwards, “the honeymoon was over,” as they say, with Gerizim and Jerusalem both claiming they had the one true temple, and basically at war with each other. And then they went their separate ways.
Russell Gmirkin
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:53 am

Re: Current State of Samaritan Studies (Hexateuch)

Post by Russell Gmirkin »

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 2:52 pm
(3) Why was Caleb, the one positively regarded spy under Moses, and the only adult Israelite who didn’t die in the 40 years wandering, assigned a major chunk of territory in Judah (Josh. 14-15)?

We agree that Joshua is the star of the episode. Right? Joshua was of Joseph and Caleb' might mean dog as it does still in Arabic.

Every tribe had a man. Joshua was again the star. Caleb a lesser star.
Caleb probably doesn’t mean “dog” here, certainly not in an insulting sense, but maybe something like “bold” or “impetuous”. The Hebrew letters are the same: כלב, but the vowel points in MT are different. The name Caleb is pronounced KA-lev, and dog KE-lev.

Whatever the meaning, Caleb from the tribe of Judah is the ABSOLUTE star of Numbers 13-14. In fact, in Number 13:30-31 one reads:

Caleb stilled the people before Moses, and said, ‘Let us go up at once and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it.’
But the men that went up with him [including Joshua!!!] said, ‘We are not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than us.’

Again, at Num. 14:24 one reads

But my servant Caleb, because he had another spirit with him, and has followed me fully, him will I bring into the land where he went [to spy]; and his seed shall possess it.

It is only at Num. 14:6, 30, 38 that Joshua is included alongside Caleb as spared by Yahweh.

Why? Biblical critics agree that there are two different sources that have been combined here. In one version, Caleb of Judah is the ONLY spy who was faithful to Yahweh, still wanted to conquer the land, gave a speech to calm the crowds, and was the only person spared in that whole generation that perished in the wilderness. In the other version, Joshua of Ephraim has been added in as an afterthought, because in this second later version Joshua is going to lead the armies to conquer the Promised Land. He doesn’t have a speech or leadership role in Numbers 13-14 and it is not explained why Yahweh spared him.

Note that Joshua the son of Nun is “of the tribe of Ephraim” while Gaddi the son of Susi “of the tribe of Joseph of the tribe of Manasseh.” So even if you want to turn Joshua into a good guy, Gaddi from the tribe of Joseph is a bad guy.

So we have one version where Caleb of Judah is the star and only loyal spy, while Joshua is numbered among the cowards and traitors. Clearly this version is Jewish. In the other, Samaritan version, Joshua is included as a second good guy, but even that version doesn’t get rid of Caleb.
Russell Gmirkin
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:53 am

Re: Current State of Samaritan Studies (Hexateuch)

Post by Russell Gmirkin »

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 2:52 pm
(4) Why else would Gen. 49:10 say “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, not a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come”?

Priests need muscle. Muscle is treated like muscle. Brains like brains.
I don't even know what that means.
But while we're on the subject of chapter 49:
8 “Judah,your brothers will praise you;
your hand will be on the neck of your enemies;
your father’s sons will bow down to you.
9 You are a lion’s cub, Judah;
you return from the prey, my son.
Like a lion he crouches and lies down,
like a lioness—who dares to rouse him?
10 The scepter will not depart from Judah,
nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet,
until he to whom it belongs shall come
and the obedience of the nations shall be his.

11 He will tether his donkey to a vine,
his colt to the choicest branch;
he will wash his garments in wine,
his robes in the blood of grapes.
12 His eyes will be darker than wine,
his teeth whiter than milk.

It is clear that Judah has the scepter of rule, Judah is the lawgiver, and Judah possesses ferocious military might. This is definitely a pro-Judean blessing. This is not something a Samaritan would have written.

22 “Joseph is a fruitful vine,
a fruitful vine near a spring,
whose branches climb over a wall.
23 With bitterness archers attacked him;
they shot at him with hostility.
24 But his bow remained steady,
his strong arms stayed limber,

because of the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob,
because of the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel,
25 because of your father’s God, who helps you,
because of the Almighty, who blesses you
with blessings of the skies above,
blessings of the deep springs below,
blessings of the breast and womb.
26 Your father’s blessings are greater
than the blessings of the ancient mountains,
than the bounty of the age-old hills.
Let all these rest on the head of Joseph,
on the brow of the prince among his brothers

Joseph is portrayed perhaps as the best of the twelve sons of Israel, “the prince among his brothers,” and blessed by God, a fertile land. This seems quite pro-Samari(t)an, much in line with the brothers bowing down to Joseph in the dream. But Joseph is portrayed as militarily weak, under fierce hostile attacked by archers, defending themselves, but not very effectively, in contrast to Judah the lion earlier.
I'd say Joseph wins that battle of praise comparison hands down.
That evaluation seems EXTREMELY subjective. Yes, I agree that Joseph receives the blessings of the Almighty. But Judah receives the blessings of rule and lawgiving and military might, which Joseph does not.

So let's see what history we can tentatively recover from the blessings in Genesis 49.

I would say this stems from a period when temple of Gerizim still has a great prestige, but Samaria has suffered serious military setbacks, while Judah has the rule and the power and the military might. This doesn’t seem to fit the Persian Era, when the provinces of Samaria and Judah [Yehud] were both thriving and at peace. But when Alexander the Great conquered the Levantine coast—and ignoring the fictional account in Josephus—we know from reliable historical sources (Quintus Curtius Rufus, The History of Alexander IV.8.9-11) that Samaria made the mistake of rebelling against Alexander, who sent forces that brutally crushed the uprising in 332 BCE.

“(9) This grief was further deepened by news of the death of Andromachus, whom he had put in command of Syria: the Samaritans had burned him alive. [10] Alexander marched with all possible speed to avenge his murder, and on his arrival the perpetrators of the heinous crime were surrendered to him. [11] He appointed Memnon to replace Andromachus, executed the murderers of the former governor, and handed over to their own subjects a number of local rulers, including Aristonicus and Ersilaus of Methymna, whom they tortured and put to death for their crimes.”

According to the Chronicon of Eusebius, Alexander destroyed Samaria and rebuilt it as a Macedonian military colony (as Jerome also reports, and as confirmed by archaeology).

These historical accounts are confirmed by the discoveries of a cache of Samarian legal documents left by fleeing Samaritan noble families in a cave in Wadi Daliyeh. The pursuing armies of Alexander caught up with them and and slew them to a man, according to Frank Moore Cross, “The Discovery of the Samaria Papyri,” BA 26 (1963): 110-21.

It has been suggested that this was when the events of Josephus, Apion 2.43, took place:

“Because of the fairness and loyalty shown to him [Alexander the Great] by the Jews, he annexed the land of Samaria to them free of tribute.”

So in the early Hellenistic period, starting ca. 332 BCE, Samaria was under attack from armies of Alexander the Great, denied the political independence it had enjoyed as a province in the Persian Era, and was made subject to Jerusalem and the Jews. This answers to the political situation implied in Genesis 49, with Judah exercising the ruling power, and Samaria probably under Jerusalem’s rule, but still possessing its prestigious temple at Gerizim.

During the period 335-270 BCE we have a foundation story of Judea and Jerusalem and its temple by Hecataeus of Abdera (320-315 BCE), something similar from Manetho (ca. 285 BCE), but nothing about the Samaritans. Judea was the local power and Samaria practically invisible, probably just considered part of Judean territory. Likewise when Ptolemy II Philadelphus wanted a copy of the laws of Moses ca. 270 BCE, he wrote to Jerusalem and its senate and high priest, not the Samaritans.

But I agree that although this prestigious literary project of writing and translating the Books of Moses ca. 270 BCE was under Jewish control, the Samaritans played a major part in it. But it was a clearly cooperative literary venture, and there are clear traces of Judah’s part.
Last edited by Russell Gmirkin on Wed Nov 30, 2022 9:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Russell Gmirkin
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:53 am

Re: Current State of Samaritan Studies (Hexateuch)

Post by Russell Gmirkin »

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 2:52 pm
(5) Why else would Deut. 17:14-40 (“the rule of the king”) foreshadow the rise of Solomon, the king of the Jerusalem, temple city and Judah’s capital?

Your understanding that Deuteronomy has Solomon in mind is without question a minority opinion.
Lots of scholars hold this opinion. A couple random quotes:

Marvin A. Sweeney, "The Critique of Solomon in the Josianic Edition of the Deuteronomistic History," JBL 114 (1995), 607-22
A comment about the above article by David A. Glatt-Gilad, “The Deuteronomistic Critique of Solomon: A Response to Marvin A. Sweeney,” JBL 116.4 (1997), pp. 700-703, reads as follows:

“Sweeney's strongest argument relates to the portrayal of Solomon as ‘the archetypal model of an errant king’ in the light of Deuteronomy's ‘law of the king’ (Deut 17:14-20).”

Gary N. Knoppers, “Rethinking the Relationship between Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History: The Case of Kings,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 63.3 (2001), pp. 393- 415
Gary N. Knoppers, "Solomon's Fall and Deuteronomy," in L.K. Handy (ed.), The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium (Leiden: Brill, 1997)
From Knoppers:

“Many scholars have thought, in fact, that the law of the king was composed by the authors of Deuteronomy with a view to Solomon's reign.”

Russell Gmirkin
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:53 am

Re: Current State of Samaritan Studies (Hexateuch)

Post by Russell Gmirkin »

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 2:52 pm
(6) Why does there exist both a wilderness Priestly legislation P which (in my opinion) appears to stem from the Samaritans, and the Holiness Code H (Lev. 17-26) that stems from Jerusalem (based on extensive parallels between H and Ezekiel, which devotes several chapters to Jerusalem)?

There is no mention of 'Jerusalem' in the Pentateuch.
Yes, but there’s tons of mention of Jerusalem in Ezekiel, which has extensive parallels to H.

There’s so much literature on this subject. I’m just pulling some random quotes from one of them:

“Transformation of Law Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17–26)” by Michael A. Lyons

The Relationship between Ezekiel and H:

It has long been recognized that Ezekiel and Lev 17–26 share a remarkable number of locutions—that is, not just individual words, but multiple words in combination and in syntactic relationship. Starting in the late 1800s, those who observed this phenomenon compiled lists of these shared locutions, and there has been a broad consensus that they are due to literary dependence.


Some have argued that Ezekiel was using H; others, that H and Ezekiel exhibit mutual literary dependence; still others that H used Ezekiel… The examples listed above provide evidence that Ezekiel was using the Holiness Code. I do not rule out of hand the possibility that there could be mutual literary dependence… It could be the case that additions were made to H under the influence of Ezekiel... However, even when redactional activity is taken into account, I cannot see any features in the shared locutions that would indicate H was using Ezekiel.

For lists of extensive parallels shared by H and Ezekiel, see Michael A. Lyons, From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code, LHBOTS 507 (New York: T. & T. Clark, 2009).

My own opinion is that the book of Ezekiel was written not long after H, and using H, but by the very same literary circles. When they were at Alexandria, these Jerusalem authors wrote H, and when they returned to Jerusalem to start putting together the rest of the Jewish Bible, they wrote Ezekiel. The Samaritans were not involved in this latter project, and in fact the whole Hebrew Bible, other than the Pentateuch, is strongly anti-Samaritan.

As is well known, the legislation in the Holiness Code of Lev. 17-26 (H) differs is some respects from P. Although closely related to P, H overlaid P’s religious legislation with Deuteronomistic features of social justice (Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 376-82), Deuteronomistic blessings and curses (Lev. 26.3-44) and unconditional land promises that featured in the Deuteronomist law code. H appears to be later than P, and maybe later than Deuteronomy. At a minimum, the Holiness Code raises the possibility of some form of contact or collaboration between the authors of H and Deuteronomy.

H has really strong Jerusalem connections as shown by Ezekiel. Ezekiel is also strongly anti-Samari(t)an.

Unlike H, P emphasizes the Wilderness Tabernacle, which was an important part of Samaritan heritage (according to later Samaritan sources with which you are doubtless familiar), but which was never really a part of Jewish later traditions. So I think P was authored by the Samaritans—and I’m the only scholar who argues this today, as far as I can tell.
Russell Gmirkin
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:53 am

Re: Current State of Samaritan Studies (Hexateuch)

Post by Russell Gmirkin »

I think that wraps it up for me for now. I've given you a lot to think about. I've probably spent a whole day on this, instead of my books and articles, which I hope you appreciate. It's not my intent to persuade you or win you over or anyone else or gain followers or sell my books (which are too expensive for most non-academics anyway). I just think this is an interesting topic and I hope this thread has been of interest to the participants of Jewish Texts and History.

Best of luck to all.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Current State of Samaritan Studies (Hexateuch)

Post by Secret Alias »

First, the story is one of trickery by Tamar for a "righteous" purpose ...
I respect your lengthy explanation. I disagree with it. I am of the opinion that Muslims wouldn't make up a similar story about Muhammad. Samaritans wouldn't have accepted a story about Moses like this. Americans have George Washington cut down a cherry tree, not "pop the cherry" of one of his female slaves.

I am sorry but I am predisposed to mistrust any explanation that takes pages and pages and pages. The story was intended to demonstrate that Judaeans were born from an illicit arrangement. That's my opinion. Thank you for your lengthy explanation which I did not find persuasive. As a Jew, I am predisposed toward things which were designed to flatter Jews - that we have special 'blood' that comes from Abraham, that we are by nature intelligent, funny, born for psychology etc. Anything but being good dancers. I do not think that this chapter in Genesis is flattering to the Jewish people.
Post Reply