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 »

But we know that values and judgements with respect to prostitution do change throughout history
So ... you think that Jewish people or 'Judaeans' could have written anything about the origins of their people (as they were 'co-authors' of the Pentateuch) and decided to write this story. Come on. This is academic bullshit. Even people who have whores for mothers don't make up puta madre stories about themselves. Sophists make the weaker argument stronger as a sport. They find evidence of cultic prostitution and then they 'revalue everything' and blah, blah, blah. Men are utterly consistent. Over time, over the life of one individual. Things never change. Whores are bad except for the lead up to arousal and climax and then they are bad again. 'Whore' is never a praise word.
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: Thu Dec 01, 2022 12:21 pm
But we know that values and judgements with respect to prostitution do change throughout history
So ... you think that Jewish people or 'Judaeans' could have written anything about the origins of their people (as they were 'co-authors' of the Pentateuch) and decided to write this story. Come on. This is academic bullshit.
No its not bullshit. Understanding how values and attitudes have changed is not bullshit. It's healthy understanding of others, including our forebears.

Did a Samaritan try to make Joshua's conquest look shameful by having him rely on his chosen spies being "so stupid" as to visit a harlot that they nearly got caught? That's not what the story is about at all -- except, perhaps, to a modern reader who brings modern values into his/her reading of it.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Current State of Samaritan Studies (Hexateuch)

Post by Secret Alias »

Understanding how values and attitudes have changed is not bullshit.
So the people who wrote the story of origins of the Judaeans were 'proud' of being born from an illicit relationship. Sure.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Current State of Samaritan Studies (Hexateuch)

Post by Secret Alias »

Did a Samaritan try to make Joshua's conquest look shameful by having him rely on his chosen spies being "so stupid" as to visit a harlot that they nearly got caught?
Any sex in the Joshua story? No. Not the same thing.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Current State of Samaritan Studies (Hexateuch)

Post by neilgodfrey »

Should a modern reader read the book of Joshua according to today's values and say the story of the conquest of Canaan is a racist mass holocaust account designed to make Joshua look like a war criminal?

Of course not. To read an ancient story we need to understand what people of its own day found acceptable and not read modern values into it.
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: Thu Dec 01, 2022 12:32 pm
Understanding how values and attitudes have changed is not bullshit.
So the people who wrote the story of origins of the Judaeans were 'proud' of being born from an illicit relationship. Sure.
We need to read the story as it is. What we see is what we get. The story concludes by explaining its point: the birth of Perez and Zerah was from a LEGITIMATE union. Tamar tricked Judah into doing the right thing by his deceased brother.

The story makes no sense to a modern reader if the modern reader has no understanding of the custom of levirate marriage and can only freak out at the act of pretending to be a prostitute.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Current State of Samaritan Studies (Hexateuch)

Post by Secret Alias »

Nuance. Sure. In a story of the origin of a people from an illicit relationship. Maybe the stories of Jesus being born out of wedlock were similarly nuanced. History is filled with all these nuanced thinkers embracing being sons of illicit relationships. Sure. It's got to be true. Never go for the obvious answer. A whore is never just a whore. It's not a critical part of the argument so there is no reason to go on debating it. I don't believe that anyone would voluntarily write that his people, his nation was founded from an illicit relationship when he could have written ANYTHING ELSE. You disagree. Fine. Time to move on to why Jerusalem is also not mentioned in the Pentateuch. Answer that please. Why didn't the Jews get to reference their holy city in THEIR Pentateuch shared or otherwise?
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Current State of Samaritan Studies (Hexateuch)

Post by Secret Alias »

And let's also not forget (while the idea popped in my head) that Judah was also involved in the sale of his brother Joseph and lying to his father about. Sure that was written by a Jew too. It was all written by Jews. You know why? Because we are the most selfless, honorable people in the history of mankind. Imagine, how honest we must have been to portray our forefather as such a piece of shit. So nuanced was this first Jew and let's not forget the Jews who put up with this portrait of Judah! The original Judaean author had such latitude to invent the 'first Jew' (i.e. Judah) the guy who gave the name 'Jew' to the Jews as retrograde amoral wretch. It shows how honest, learned and scholarly we Jews were FROM THE BEGINNING. So erudite. So nuanced. Where have we all gone? Where are these Jews today? We were like Christians turning the other cheek, humiliating ourselves to demonstrate our lofty understanding. Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Current State of Samaritan Studies (Hexateuch)

Post by Secret Alias »

And what about the contrast between Joseph and Judah with respect to sexual morality. So you believe there is no contrast between Joseph's ability to withstand the sexual advances of Potiphar's wife and Judah ending up fucking his daughter in law because she looked like a prostitute. That's not 'in the design' of the work? That wasn't intended as a praise of Joseph as Fritsch's "one of the most perfect characters in the Old Testament" and converse - if Joseph was meant to be praised as a moral exemplar, Judah being demonstrated to be a retrograde piece of shit? Even the Hebrew refers to Joseph bringing an evil (רָעָ֖ה) report regarding Judah and his brothers (37.2) So while Judah is demonstrated to be 'evil' the author's contrast Joseph as he resists Potiphar's wife " So how could I do such a great evil (הָרָעָ֤ה) and sin against God?" The juxtaposition between 'evil' Judah and 'not evil' even saintly Joseph is baked into the opening lines of the section.

The brothers collectively are the evil beast (חַיָּ֥ה רָעָ֖ה 37.20) who are alleged to have 'killed' Joseph. So Joseph's question to Judah and his brothers "Wherefore have ye rewarded evil (הֲרֵעֹתֶ֖ם) for good?" (44.5) when they don't recognize him - referring of course to what they did to him when they sold him. The brothers are EVIL. Judah is EVIL. According to the narrator of the Pentateuch. And so the confession of these EVIL men (including Judah) "So shall ye say unto Joseph Forgive I pray thee now the trespass of thy brethren and their sin for they did unto thee evil (רָעָ֣ה) and now we pray thee forgive the trespass of the servants of the God of thy father." (50.17) And Joseph responds "But as for you ye thought evil (רָעָ֑ה) against me but God meant it unto good to bring to pass as it is this day to save much people alive." (50.18)

You say that doesn't prove that Judah was evil in the eyes of the original author. Well let's look at chapter 38. "And Er Judah's firstborn was evil (רַ֖ע) in the sight of the LORD and the LORD slew him." Wow that's some positive statement there. Must have been written by a Jew. If Judah is the first Jew, Er was the second. And the third Jew? Onan. When he won't fuck his brother's wife "And the thing which he did was evil (וַיֵּרַע) in the sight of the LORD; and He slew him also" So you would say that there is all these 'levels' to the story. Really? I just see EVIL, EVIL, EVIL. The Jews were evil and sordid and here is how they came to be ... and the most disgusting, wretched origin story imaginable emerges. But of course I am too base to see the nuances in the story AND THE CONTEXT (immediately coming after the recognition that Judah was 'evil' in his dealings with saintly Joseph)!

So we are really supposed to believe crammed into the reporting of the 'evil' that the 'evil' Judah and his brothers perpetrated against the saintly Joseph, that the origin story of the Judaeans was a 'celebration' of Judah? Give me a fucking break. Judah was evil. Everything that came out of his seed was evil so by inference ... you figure it out.

Even the name "Judah" was taken BY JEWISH SOURCES to mean 'repentant sinner.' This is evidenced in Genesis Rabbah and many other sources. in 71.5 his exclamation "she is more righteous than I" is used to develop Judah as a repentant sinner. This is developed from the Hebrew text where Judah "confesses" that she is carrying his child. The Targum changed the text to make Tamar's accusation more ambiguous and Judah's confession more voluntary. In this sense then he is made to VOLUNTARILY confess his sin. Clearly the original Hebrew suggests it was Tamar who exposed him so there isn't even this level of vindication. He's just a piece of shit.

The story was likely a reference to the fate of the northern kingdom after the Babylonian conquest. Judah was not good and the passage was not written by Judaeans but northerners.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Current State of Samaritan Studies (Hexateuch)

Post by Secret Alias »

On the specific Samaritan interpretation of the material from Moshe Florentin:
Henceforth I will show that the Samaritan version adds additional praise to the praise of Joseph that is found in the Masoretic version, that is, it is saying “on the head Joseph, and on the leader, the consecrated among his brothers”. But before we discuss these words specifically (especially the meaning of קדקד‬, and before we discuss the version, it is appropriate that we mention how the praise of Joseph fits into Jacob’s blessings to his sons.

As is well-known, the most acute dissension between the Jews and the Samaritans concerns the place of worship, with the former insisting on Jerusalem and the latter on Mount Gerizim. This dissension is the root of most of the differences between the Masoretic version and the Samaritan version, which are dubbed “sectarian”.22 The dispute over the place of worship is preceded by the dispute over the origin of the Samaritans: Jews believe that the Samaritans are one of the peoples that the Assyrian king exiled from Kutha and elsewhere beyond the Tigris as is told in 2 Kgs 17:24. For this reason their Jewish rivals called the Samaritans by the derogatory term Cutheans (Hebrew: כותים). The Samaritans on the other hand believe they are descended from the tribes of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh, and Levi.23

Thus, Joseph is to the Samaritans as Judah is to the Jews. And since Judah is the forefather of the Jews, it is no surprise that the Samaritan literature from the Pentateuch onwards is full not only with the praise of Joseph but also reflects the Samaritan’s disdain for Judah. We will limit ourselves to the examples that arise from their extensive liturgical compositions.24 Joseph is mentioned in the hymns and prayers of the Samaritans over 220 times, often with terms of adoration such as ‫“ הצדיק‬the righteous,”25 ‫“ מלכה‬the king,”26 ‫“ ראש הקדקדים‬head of the heads,”27 ‫“ הזכו‬the righteous”.28 Of course he is mentioned quite a bit with the nation’s greats, the patriarchs and Moses,29 and his praise is very great (‫)גלוג יוסף כבד‬.30 22 As seen in the differences: ‫( המקום אשר בחר‬Samaritan version) / ‫( המקום אשר יבחר‬Masoretic version); ‫( הרגריזים‬Samaritan version) / ‫( הר עיבל‬Masoretic version), and the insertion of ‫הרגריזים‬ into the 10th commandment in the Samaritan version. For details on the difference between the two versions and these differences in particular see Tov 2012, 70–90; Tal and Florentin 2010, 25–38, and Kartveit 2009, 259–312. 23 

On the complicated issue of the origin of the Samaritans, a question which was at the core of very fruitful research, and which is not at issue in this article, see Kartveit 2009. 24 A great deal of it is included in the collection of hymns and prayers collected by Cowley in 1909 (see Cowley 1909). There are hymns that were written before the publication of this collection but were not included in it, because they were unknown to its editor or because they were not part of the liturgy of the synagogue. Hymns that were not included appeared in print in, among other places, Florentin 2012. 25 Cowley 1909, 277. 26 Ibid., 302. 27 Ibid., 329. 28 Ibid., 332. 29 Ibid., 289. 30 Ibid., 647.

In contrast to Joseph’s prominent role, Judah is only mentioned in this vast literature once, and of course negatively:

‫והשיביעת מן נסותו עובד יהודה בעמידות‬ ‫תמר כלתו לו בדרך ויחשבה לזונות‬ ‫ויבא אליה ותהר לו אוי ליתה באות‬ ‫זרע זרע רע קוץ ודרדר צמחות‬ ‫מנה היהודהים קמו ומלאה הארץ טמאות‬

Which translates to: “And the seventh of the trials (that Jacob faced) was the action of Judah, whose bride Tamar stood in his way (Gen 38:11), ‘and he thought she was a prostitute,’ and he came to her and she conceived. Lo to that intercourse, the seed (of Judah) is bad seed, thorns and thistles it brought forth (based on Gen 3:18). From it arouse the Jews and the land was defiled.”31

The ‫“( יהודהים‬Judahites”) are mentioned a few more times, and it goes without saying that they are always mentioned negatively. For example: ‫ויהודהים וערלים‬ ‫“ נציבים מרחק הך כלבים‬And the Judahites and the uncircumcised stand at a distance like dogs”32; ‫“ סנאי אימנותה הגון היהודאי‬The haters of belief, the Jewish kind”33; ‫מן‬ ‫“ יהודאי תירא‬The Jew you shall fear.”34 The disdain of Judah, which is absent in the Masoretic version, and the praise of Joseph in addition to that which appears in the Masoretic version, appear already in the Samaritan Pentateuch. The Samaritan version of Joseph’s blessing of Judah (Gen 49:8–12) differs in a number of ways from the Masoretic version, and presents Judah in a negative light.35 Where the Masoretic version has ‫ַרגְ ָליו‬ “his legs” (verse 10), the Samaritan version has ‫“ דגליו‬regiments,” in order to make it clear that the lawgiver will not come from between Judah’s legs, that is, he will not be his descendant, but rather from among his regiments. Judah then, is not the father of a noteworthy line. Verses 11 and 12 present a clear insult (Masoretic version presented in brackets when different): ‫ּׂשר ָקה( בני איתנו‬ ֵ ‫ )וְ ַל‬walšērīqa ‫)עיר ֹה( ולשריקה‬ ִ ‫)לגֶּ ֶפן( עירו‬ ַ algēfǝn ‫ )א ְֹס ִרי( לגפן‬a¯̊sūri ‫אסורי‬ .)‫(אתֹנו‬ ֲ īta¯̊nu


Thus, Judah is not likened to a grapevine to which a donkey and the sons of a she-ass can be tied, but he, Judah, is tied to Ga¯̊fǝn his city (the cursed Jerusalem), and his progeny (‫יתנֹו‬ ָ ‫)ּבנֵ י ֵא‬ ְ are tied to the void )‫“ לשריקה = לאשר ריק‬to that which is empty”). And in verse 12, Judah’s eyes are “murky” (‫ עכירן‬in the Samaritan Targum), and his teeth are not glistening with ‫“ ָח ָלב‬milk” but are rather dripping with ‫“ ֵח ֶלב‬animal fat”. As can be seen, both the written text of the Samaritan version and its reading by the Samaritans convey their disdain for Judah. The additional praise for Joseph is seen in verse 26, and has been discussed several times in the scientific literature:36 Where the Masoretic version has ‫ִּב ְרכֹת‬ ‫הֹורי‬ ַ “the blessing of my parents,” the Samaritan version reads ‫ברכת הרי‬, and the pronunciation a¯̊ri teaches us that the Samaritans meant ‫“ ָה ִרי‬my mountain,” thus tying the name of Joseph, the nation’s father, to Mount Gerizim.37 The Septuagint also reads here “mountain,” ὀρέων, which means that this is a relatively early interpretation of the text.

On the other hand, the Samaritan translations are baffling. The ancient manuscripts of the Samaritan Targum translate ‫ הרי‬with ‫בטוני‬ “my parents” (it is so in MS J, presented in Tal’s edition, and similarly in MSS C and V), which more than hints to the sense of paternity found in the Masoretic version. Surprisingly, in the later Samaritan manuscripts, MS A (‫“ טברה‬the mountain”) and MSS E and B (‫“ טורי‬my mountain”) we find the sense presented in the Septuagint. These are joined by MS M, which is usually found to be close to MS J.38 Moreover, in all the manuscripts of the Samaritan Arabic translation, early and late, except for one (according to the Shehadeh Edition39) we find reference to the “parents” tradition, similar to the Masoretic version: ,‫ ואלדי‬,‫ חאצני‬,‫אלחמל‬ ‫ – אלסלאפי‬all concerning parenthood. Only one manuscript presents ‫אלגבאל‬ (plural [!] form of “mountain”). Thus, the findings in the translations do not allow us to uncover what the original Samaritan version was – whether “my parents” or “my mountain”. It is likely that both versions existed side by side, until at some point the Samaritans made the second version obligatory when reading the Torah.

A clear hint to Mount Gerizim can be seen from two words later in the verse ‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫גִּ ְבעֹת‬, which the Samaritans read ga¯̊'bāt ūlåm, meaning “eternal hill,” singular.40 With the background of this larger context and the context of the Samaritan beliefs, we can now understand what is behind the terms of praise ‫ ראש‬and ‫קדקד‬ attributed to Joseph, both in Jacob’s blessings to his sons (Gen 49:26) and Moses’ blessings to the tribes (Deut 33:16). Only brief comments on the metaphorical meanings of ‫ ראש‬and of ‫ קדקד‬are in order first. The metaphoric meaning of ‫“ ראש‬head” is well-documented in the Bible (as well as in Semitic languages), not only in construct states such as ‫רֹאש ִש ְב ֵטי יִ ְש ָר ֵאל‬ “head of the tribes of Israel” (1 Sam 15:17), ‫אשי ָעם‬ ֵ ‫“ ָר‬heads of the people” (Deut 33:5), ‫אשי ַה ַּמּטֹות‬ ֵ ‫“ ָר‬heads of the tribes” (Num 30:2), but also as a noun meaning “leader”. This meaning of ‫ ראש‬is prominent in the late Chronicles in phrases such as ‫יאל‬ ֵ ‫“ ָהרֹאש יְ ִע‬the chief Jeiel” (1 Chr 5:7), ‫יֹואל ָהרֹאש‬ ֵ “Joel the chief” (1 Chr 5:12), and is closest to the use of ‫ לראש יוסף‬found in the Samaritan version.‫קדקד‬ in the sense of “leader” in the Samaritan version is not particular to Hebrew. Akkadian qaqqadu(m) carries both the primary meaning of the word (“head”) as well as the metaphorical meaning. In Aramaic dialects it is only recorded in the Jewish Targumim and in Samaritan Aramaic. In the midrashic chronicle Asatir41 it appears several times in a single section with the meaning “leader,” “a term for every one of the 26 leaders that will bring the Ishmaelite rule to an end”42: ‫ קעם קדקד נזיר‬/ ‫ קדקד יקום; בחיל מעמי‬/ ‫“ קדקד יקום; באד תקיפה‬A leader will rise with a forceful hand / a leader will rise; with fear will he be seen / a leader will rise crowned.…”43 In that composition it is also mentioned as one of the names of the Taheb, the Samaritan prophet of the Latter Days: ‫וקדקד יקום בקשט יכתב ארהותה‬ ‫“ ואטר פליאתה באדה‬And a leader will rise. In truth will he write the Torah and the rod of magic in his hands.”44 In the Samaritan liturgical literature ‫ קדקד‬is very common: ‫“( משה קדקד מינה דאדם‬Moses the leader of humanity”),45 ‫משה‬ ‫“( ברה דעמרם השליח הקדקד‬Moses, the son of Amaram, the messenger, the leader”),46 and of course ‫“( יוסף קדקדה‬Joseph the leader”).47

The metaphorical use of ‫ראש‬, which is documented in Biblical Hebrew, and the metaphorical use of ‫קדקד‬, which is documented with great frequency in the Asatir and the Samaritan liturgy (a sense borrowed from the Samaritan Pentateuch), strengthen, then, our assertion, based on the grammar of Samaritan Hebrew and on the general context (including the beliefs of the Samaritans) that the meaning of the Samaritan version of the verse is “(the blessings) shall be on the head, Joseph, and on the leader, the consecrated among his brothers”. Henceforth we shall examine the Samaritans interpretation of this verse’s meaning as expressed in their translations of it into Aramaic and Arabic according to chronological order. In the earliest stage of the Samaritan Targum represented by MS J according to Tal’s edition,48 we find in Gen 49:26: ‫יהן לריש יוסף ולרום כליל אחיו‬. So then, in place of the Hebrew ‫ ראש‬we find a form without the definite article, from which we must assume that the translator had before him a text and a reading tradition akin to the Masoretic version, ‫לרֹאש‬, ְ that is alrēʔoš. And the excellent J is not alone. Another five manuscripts – B, C, E, M, and V – maintain the same version. A similar picture arises from Deut 33:16: J maintains the version ‫ לריש‬and the same is found in Mss. E and D.49 The later stage of the Samaritan translations, exemplified by MS A, translate this verse: ‫תהי לרישה יוסף ולקדקד נזיר אחוה‬. Thus, this version corresponds to the reading “the head Joseph”. In agreement with this late version we find the superscript ‫ ה‬handwritten by an anonymous scribe over ‫ לריש‬in MS M. One might have suspected that this scribe was following Onkelos, a phenomenon indicative of the additions to M,50 but Onkelos follows the Masoretic version, translating ‫“ לרישא דיוסף‬to the head of Joseph”. The picture arising therefore from the Aramaic Targumim is very clear: only two overtly late examples, MS A and the addition to MS M, provide a definite article in line with the pronounciation larrēʔoš common today. The rest of the manuscripts provide the indefinite form ‫לריש‬, and thus indicate a version identical with the Masoretic version, ‫לראש יוסף‬. ְ The Samaritan Arabic translations, whose date is of course later than that of (most) Aramaic Targumim, is in line with the chronological order the Aramaic Targumim indicate: in all manuscripts we find ‫للراييس‬, i.e., “to the leader”. In addition, the word ‫ ולקדקד‬wlaqqådqåd, which appears with the definite article in the Samaritan reading is translated in all the manuscripts of the Samaritan Aramaic Targum by the word ‫לרום‬, which is indefinite. But the Arabic translation has in its place the definite form ‫و(ا)لجمج(ا)م‬, i.e., “to the head”. And it should be mentioned that the same scribe who added the superscripted ‫ ה‬over ‫ לריש‬in MS M (see above), superscribed a ‫ ה‬over ‫לרום‬, indicating the definite form ‫לרומה‬. Thus, the Samaritan translations do not only expose the different ways the text was interpreted, but also the stages of the crystallization of the Samaritan version, including its pronunciation as used today. In the stage exemplified by MS J, the Samaritan version was not different from the Masoretic version: ‫ְלראש יוסף‬ and *alrēʔoš yūsǝf in the Samaritan version. At a later stage the Samaritan wisemen wanted to aggrandize Joseph, in accordance with their beliefs and context of the rest of the blessing, and thus enacted the reading larrēʔoš. The meaning is made clear from their Arabic translation, in all its manuscripts (save one) and by the version found in MS A of the Samaritan Tragum. Abraham Tal described the relationship between the Aramaic MS A and the Arabic manuscripts.51 We are not only dealing with the heavy Arabic influence on the Aramaic of the translator but also “We can surmise, that the scribe of A indeed adapted the ancient text, and had before him an Arabic translation at the time. But … was not consistent in his work. He required innovations that he found in the Arabic translation that was before him, but was not aware enough of them to provide these wherever they appeared, despite the fact that he was aware of their ideological value.”52 This basic understanding is very important for our present purpose, as accepting it when analyzing our verse will lead us to its final meaning. In the wording of MS A ‫ תהי לרישה יוסף ולקדקד נזיר אחוה‬the verb ‫ תהי‬could be understood to mean “you shall be,” and accordingly the entire verse would mean “You shall be the head, (Oh) Joseph, and the leader, (Oh) the consecrated among his brothers.”53 To the credit of this interpretation is the fact that it would be a continuation of the direct speech directed at Joseph in the beginning of the verse ‫…ברכת אביך ואמך‬, but on the other hand with respect to syntax it is very difficult, and is obviously ill-fitting in the case of Deut 33:16: ‫תבואתה לראש יוסף ולקדקד נזיר אחיו‬. Furthermore, a look at the Arabic translation shows that MS A is a translation of it, or at the very least heavily influenced by it. In place of ‫ תהיינה‬in the Hebrew original and ‫ תהי‬in the Aramaic of A, the Arabic translation provides ‫תכון‬, which is not a 2nd person form but rather a 3rd person feminine form as dictated by the rules of agreement in Arabic, just as ‫תעט'ם‬, which appears in the beginning of the verse for ‫ גברו‬in the original Hebrew is not (and could not be) the 2nd person form but rather is the 3rd person feminine form. Thus ‫ תהי‬in MS A is the 3rd person feminine form equivalent to ‫תכון‬. And since MS A is not an exact translation of an Arabic manuscript and is not consistent, as quoted above, it is not surprising that ‫ גברו‬was not translated with a word grammatically equivalent to ‫ תעט'ם‬but rather the translator followed his own course using ‫יולו‬, which itself follows the example of Arabic, whose root ‫ ולי‬signifies “rule”.54 We find therefore that the interpretation of the second half of Gen 49:26 is “(The blessings) shall be on the head, Joseph, and on the leader, the consecrated among his brothers.” This difference, which arises only from the reading of the text, is another sectarian difference between the Samaritan version and the Masoretic version. And like the rest of the verse it means to aggrandize Joseph, the progenitor of the Samaritan Children of Israel. But the study of the Samaritan sources exposes that this interpretation is based on the reading of ‫ לראש‬as larrēʔoš, which was preceded by the reading alrēʔoš, which is identical with the Masoretic version. We have discussed the gemination of ‫( ר‬which is completely ordinary in Samaritan Hebrew) in ‫ לראש‬larrēʔoš, and from this discussion arouse the fact that it signified the definite article, and was not a case of gemination for reasons of prosody (replacing a long vowel with a geminated consonant as in the case of ‫ גְּ ַמ ִּלים‬in place of *‫ גְּ ָמ ִלים‬and ‫ שלמים‬šēlammǝm for ‫)ש ָל ִמים‬ ְ or for the preservation of a phoneme (such as in the gemination of the ‫ ל‬in lallēkǝt for ‫ ָל ֶל ֶכת‬or the gemination of the ‫ ל‬in the biblical internal passive form ‫)יֻ ַּלד‬. The evidence provided by MS A, which represents a late stage in the creation of the Samaritan Targum, ought to always be considered in light of the Arabic translations, on which it is often dependent. At any rate, it provides evidence that the Samaritan version, both its written backbone and its reading, were not always uniform and stable.



48 Tal 1980–1983. 49 Manuscript A is missing this section, see Tal 1980–1983, III, 23. 50 Ibid., 30ff. 51 Ibid., 82ff. 52 Ibid., 85. 53 Schorch 2004, 240 reads it in this way.
It was utterly surprising that ancient Hebrew interpretation of the sordid tale of the origins of the Jews was so predictable. Who would have guessed that being the sons of an illicit relationship would have been used in this way to ridicule the Jews as a whole? O the holy mysteries! Who can penetrate your unfathomable veil! Certainly not I. Certainly not anyone save for the messiah!

Neil you should invest your money in a new line of Mothers Day greeting cards with the caption "To my favorite whore ..." You can wait until the end of time or bring those cards with a time machine to the beginning of time. No one calls their mom a whore. A line in the proverbial sand...
Post Reply