Current State of Samaritan Studies (Hexateuch)

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
User avatar
ConfusedEnoch
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2020 11:39 am

Re: Current State of Samaritan Studies (Hexateuch)

Post by ConfusedEnoch »

He literally just replied with criticism of those 2 studies you randomly found (probably without reading them), one of which literally contradicts your point that we should consider it reliable in and of itself.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Current State of Samaritan Studies (Hexateuch)

Post by Secret Alias »

His original point was that Josephus's account wasn't to be relied upon.
Josephus is not evidence for practices centuries before his time. He is evidence for what he and others believed in his own time.
The material was cited to demonstrate that historians and scholars routinely use Josephus. The idea that Josephus isn't to be relied upon AT ALL is different as to whether or not what is described in the account is a description of a Sabbatical year. The language is certainly reminiscent of Philo who uses the same terminology to describe the 'tax' on the Sabbatical year.

1. is Josephus to be relied upon for material from the period of Alexander (a point that can be debated)
2. is the description that of a sabbatical year (another point that can be debated)

But that Josephus both can't be relied upon and that what is being described IS NOT a Sabbatical year?
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Current State of Samaritan Studies (Hexateuch)

Post by Secret Alias »

And just for the record. I like Russell Gmirkin's creativity. But why would Josephus be more unreliable than Russ? I mean really. The fact we like the theory that means we ignore Josephus? So we want to encourage the abandoning of history if it stands in the way of theories we like? I am Jewish. But Dave Chappelle's joke about Hollywood being mostly Jewish. He can't say that because ... laughing at the joke means we don't like Jews? What has the world come to? It all comes from a lot of people lacking friends. That's the problem. Theories live or die by how many friends scholars have. Hence the hatred directed against Morton Smith for instance ("no one liked him!"). If I like Russ I have to ignore Josephus. If I don't buy the Pentateuch being written in the third century, I don't like Russ. Become sociable in the real world. Problem solved.

You have a Jew writing a history of the Jewish people. He's biased but he's living what 300+ years from Alexander's conquest. Sure there are parts of the story that are 'biased' toward the Jews. The point of the story is to show that the Jews were preferred. But his assumption that Jews and Samaritans were engaged in the parallel counting of Sabbatical years through a written Torah. This is supposed to be less likely than a modern creative mind coming up with a different answer? Why? Why wouldn't it make more sense for his polemical purposes to have the Samaritans get the Sabbatical years wrong? The idea that Samaritans and Jews followed the same Torah adds even more legitimacy to the tradition he was trying to humiliate. Sorry don't get it.

Has anyone before the invention of this theory claimed that the entire account of Josephus here was fictitious? That Jews and Samaritans weren't engaged in the counting of Sabbatical years or whatever we understand Josephus to be talking about?
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 14, 2022 8:26 am I have to go to an international funeral. But let's remember what your point was originally. You said that Josephus's testimony about Alexander's arrival in Samaria/Judea can't be reliable in an of itself. I provided a number of recent studies which take different sides on the issue. But the idea that Josephus's story should be rejected is ridiculous. And that was your position.
You surely missed my reply to those studies and what you claimed about them. I read them. They do not at all support your claim that Josephus is evidence for Jewish and Samaritan practices in 300 BCE.

When you have read those articles yourself and responded to my reply then we can continue a reasonable discussion, hopefully:

viewtopic.php?p=145816#p145816

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Nov 14, 2022 8:26 am Can we at least agree that IF we accept Josephus's testimony about Alexander's entrance into the land as being based on something historical that all of Gmirkin's theory comes down to whether or not what is being described therein is a Sabbatical year? Can we at least agree on that much?
No, because you are twisting what both I and Gmirkin have said and setting up a straw man version to attack.

All it would indicate is that there was a certain tax practice that we later find incorporated into a religious idea of a sabbatical year said to be given by God to Moses. It would prove nothing about the Mosaic cult at the time of Alexander. Even at Elephantine we have reference to the sabbath and Yahweh, but those references actually serve to disprove any awareness of the Mosaic cult at that time. (The sabbath is a market day; Yahweh is one of several gods. )

But why are you setting up these hypotheticals instead of dealing with and discussing my original point which was [url-viewtopic.php?p=145760#p145760]this[/url]:
Josephus is not evidence for practices centuries before his time. He is evidence for what he and others believed in his own time.
It is pointless to say "IF we accept" the theory that the earth is flat, that the moon is made of cheese.... That's a pointless game. We need to work by the rules professional historians -- including the authors of articles you cited -- understand as their basic MO.
Secret Alias wrote: Mon Nov 14, 2022 8:26 am Gmirkin's theory depends entirely on whether the 'tax' associated with agricultural produce NORMALLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE SABBATICAL YEAR is what it appears to be - a reference to the existence of 'Judaism' and 'Samaritanism' based on the observance of the Torah ALREADY IN THE PERSIAN PERIOD (i.e. 6 years before Alexander's entry).
Gmirkin's theory also falls if what Josephus wrote about Moses and the Exodus and God giving the ten commandments is true.

Please read my early response(s) and deal with the reasons I have explained up till now instead of trying to deflect your argument away from any criticism raised against it.
Last edited by neilgodfrey on Mon Nov 14, 2022 3:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Current State of Samaritan Studies (Hexateuch)

Post by Secret Alias »

Gmirkin's theory depends entirely on whether the 'tax' associated with agricultural produce NORMALLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE SABBATICAL YEAR is what it appears to be - a reference to the existence of 'Judaism' and 'Samaritanism' based on the observance of the Torah ALREADY IN THE PERSIAN PERIOD (i.e. 6 years before Alexander's entry).
Do we agree? Does it come down to taking a survey of 'scholars' (however defined) - and ask what's more likely Antiquities 11.8.5 "[w]hereupon the High Priest desired, that they might enjoy the laws of their forefathers: and might pay no tribute on the seventh year" is a reference to the observance of the Sabbatical year in the Persian period or Gmirkin is right?
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 14, 2022 8:26 am I have to go to an international funeral. But let's remember what your point was originally. You said that Josephus's testimony about Alexander's arrival in Samaria/Judea can't be reliable in an of itself. I provided a number of recent studies which take different sides on the issue. But the idea that Josephus's story should be rejected is ridiculous. And that was your position.
You surely missed my reply to those studies and what you claimed about them. I read them. They do not at all support your claim that Josephus is evidence for Jewish and Samaritan practices in 300 BCE.

When you have read those articles yourself and responded to my reply then we can continue a reasonable discussion, hopefully:

viewtopic.php?p=145816#p145816

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Nov 14, 2022 8:26 am Can we at least agree that IF we accept Josephus's testimony about Alexander's entrance into the land as being based on something historical that all of Gmirkin's theory comes down to whether or not what is being described therein is a Sabbatical year? Can we at least agree on that much?
No. It is pointless to say "IF we accept" the theory that the earth is flat, that the moon is made of cheese.... That's a pointless game. We need to work by the rules professional historians -- including the authors of articles you cited -- understand as their basic MO.

But why are you setting up these hypotheticals instead of dealing with and discussing my original point which was this:
Josephus is not evidence for practices centuries before his time. He is evidence for what he and others believed in his own time.
You are ignoring the fundamental methods by which all professional historians work. Unless we can agree on what counts as evidence and how to test evidence -- as we do in everyday life -- then we can have no common ground for discussion. Hear-say evidence must always be confirmed, especially when the sayer has a mixed record of truth and error.
Secret Alias wrote: Mon Nov 14, 2022 8:26 am Gmirkin's theory depends entirely on whether the 'tax' associated with agricultural produce NORMALLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE SABBATICAL YEAR is what it appears to be - a reference to the existence of 'Judaism' and 'Samaritanism' based on the observance of the Torah ALREADY IN THE PERSIAN PERIOD (i.e. 6 years before Alexander's entry).
Gmirkin's theory also falls if what Josephus wrote about Moses and the Exodus and God giving the ten commandments is true.

Please read my early response(s) and deal with the reasons I have explained up till now instead of trying to deflect your argument away from any criticism raised against 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: Mon Nov 14, 2022 9:46 am His original point was that Josephus's account wasn't to be relied upon.
Josephus is not evidence for practices centuries before his time. He is evidence for what he and others believed in his own time.
The material was cited to demonstrate that historians and scholars routinely use Josephus.
Cheeky, SA. No, here is the reason you gave those citations:
Secret Alias wrote: Sat Nov 12, 2022 10:35 am So if Josephus's account of the sabbatical year celebration coinciding with Alexander's entry into Judea is fiction then all these papers on the Sabbatical years need to be thrown out or revised
In anybody's language you clearly were claiming that what is to be relied on as historical is the Josephan account of the sabbatical year celebration coinciding with Alexander's entry.

That's clearly what you said.

You are now trying to say you did not mean what you wrote there and are twisting and turning to avoid dealing head on with the objection I raised and the simple fact that the articles you cited do not support the position you said they did.

And you called me "the ally of Evil" who has no notion of "fairness" or "honesty"! :twisted:
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Current State of Samaritan Studies (Hexateuch)

Post by Secret Alias »

No. It is pointless to say "IF we accept" the theory that the earth is flat, that the moon is made of cheese....
So just to make clear, you're not only suggesting that Josephus is unreliable for events from the time of Alexander you're also understanding Ant. 11.8.5 as NOT referring to Sabbatical years:
Whereupon the High Priest desired, that they might enjoy the laws of their forefathers: and might pay no tribute on the seventh year (τὸν φόρον αὐτοῖς τοῦ ἑβδοματικοῦ ἔτους).
And this has nothing to do with you 'defending' Gmirkin's theory? Complete bullshit. It may be possible that Josephus is making this story up. But that he is also not referring to sabbatical years? Ridiculous. It is amazing how everything in your world just happens to align to your presuppositions. I say make some real friends in the real world. It's more rewarding. Bye. Have to attend a funeral.
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 14, 2022 4:37 pm
No. It is pointless to say "IF we accept" the theory that the earth is flat, that the moon is made of cheese....
So just to make clear, you're not only suggesting that Josephus is unreliable for events from the time of Alexander you're also understanding Ant. 11.8.5 as NOT referring to Sabbatical years:
No. You are gravely misreading what I wrote.

Of course Josephus is "referring to Sabbatical years". Of course he's referring to Alexander's meeting with the high priest and his dream, etc. Of course he is referring to all of those things. That's why the whole discussion on this point has arisen.

But the historian cannot take Josephus's statements at face value for the simple reason that Josephus does not explain how he knew about any of those things. The independent evidence actually points to those stories having arisen some time in the Hellenistic era, quite likely during the Hasmonean period, and Josephus is repeating them as if they were fact.
Secret Alias wrote: Mon Nov 14, 2022 4:37 pm And this has nothing to do with you 'defending' Gmirkin's theory?
Why are you ignoring my posts and arguments? You are doing to me exactly what you did to Russell Gmirkin: ignore what he says and find new creative ways to keep making the same point -- but above all simply ignoring the arguments raised against your point and resorting to personal abuse and cyber bullying.

True, my point about Josephus has nothing to do with defending Gmirkin's theory. And that ought to be very clear if you actually read and tried to deal with my earlier reasons. I am talking about the most fundamental methods of historical research -- the methods one finds expounded in every book I know of that discusses historical methods. They are the same methods followed in all but one instance of those articles you cited. They are the same methods used in principle in every day life:
  • a court hearing trying to establish what happened in the past looks for eyewitness evidence, not hearsay from a later time.
That's fundamental. That's also how historians work. It has nothing to do with Gmirkin's thesis. But it does have everything to do with why your thesis is based on centuries-late hearsay and is not historically credible.
Secret Alias wrote: Mon Nov 14, 2022 4:37 pm It may be possible that Josephus is making this story up. But that he is also not referring to sabbatical years? Ridiculous.
My god, SA, where on earth did I say Josephus was not referring to sabbatical years? You are not even reading my posts -- or are you high on something as you read them? Of course Josephus is referring to sabbatical years -- and Alexander's dream. Do you believe the dream is historical, too? Historians that I have read don't even believe Alexander's meeting with the high priest has historical credibility.
Secret Alias wrote: Mon Nov 14, 2022 4:37 pm It is amazing how everything in your world just happens to align to your presuppositions. I say make some real friends in the real world. It's more rewarding. Bye. Have to attend a funeral.
My god, Stephan -- you really know how to resort to outright insults when your own presuppositions are questioned and the evidence you cite to align with them is pointed out as invalid by the most fundamental historical methods one will ever read in any work of historical methods.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Current State of Samaritan Studies (Hexateuch)

Post by Secret Alias »

Well as long as you admit he's talking about Sabbatical years I take back my statement. Sorry. If he's referring to Sabbatical years then the question is whether or not Josephus is reporting the acknowledged story about Sabbatical years. I hate evidence from rabbinical literature. I admit it's the worst evidence. But Alexander must have had limited encounters with the Jewish priesthood. A bad source yes. But the story is worth citing for novelty's sake especially as it comes from a document generally acknowledged to be from the first century CE:

Sanhedrin 91a
The Sages taught in Megillat Ta’anit (1st century CE): On the twenty-fourth day in Nisan it is a joyous day, since the usurpers [dimusana’ei] were expelled from Judea and Jerusalem. When the people of Afrikiya came to judgment with the Jewish people before the emperor, Alexander of Macedon, they said to him: The land of Canaan is ours, as it is written: “This is the land that shall fall to you as an inheritance, the land of Canaan according to its borders” (Numbers 34:2). And the people of Afrikiya said, referring to themselves: Canaan is the forefather of these people.

Geviha ben Pesisa said to the Sages: Give me permission and I will go and deliberate with them before Alexander of Macedon. If they will defeat me, say to them: You have defeated an ordinary person from among us, and until you overcome our Sages, it is no victory. And if I will defeat them, say to them: The Torah of Moses defeated you, and attribute no significance to me. The Sages gave him permission, and he went and deliberated with them.

Geviha ben Pesisa said to them: From where are you citing proof that the land of Canaan is yours? They said to him: From the Torah. Geviha ben Pesisa said to them: I too will cite proof to you only from the Torah, as it is stated: “And he said: Cursed will be Canaan; a slave of slaves shall he be to his brethren” (Genesis 9:25). And with regard to a slave who acquired property, the slave belongs to whom and the property belongs to whom? The slave and his property belong to the master. And moreover, it is several years now that you have not served us. Therefore, not only are you not entitled to the land, there are additional debts that must be repaid, as well as a return to enslavement.

Alexander the king said to the people of Afrikiya: Provide Geviha ben Pesisa with a response to his claims. They said to Alexander: Give us time; give us three days to consider the matter. The emperor gave them the requested time and they examined the matter and did not find a response to the claims. Immediately, they fled and abandoned their fields when they were sown and their vineyards when they were planted. The Gemara adds: And since that year was a Sabbatical Year, with the accompanying restrictions on agricultural activity, this benefited the Jewish people, as they were able to consume the produce of those fields and vineyards.
Again. Not a big fan of the rabbinic literature. But the Megillat Ta’anit is contemporary with Josephus. Odd that Alexander who should only have had a handful of contacts with the Jewish religious leaders in Jerusalem should always be associated with a sabbatical year. It's one more piece of evidence. That's all I am saying. It bolsters the case that Josephus's account isn't complete garbage.

On the parallels between Josephus and Sanhedrin 91a:
The parallels to the story of Alexander’s visit to Jerusalem also emphasize Alexander’s favorable attitude toward the Jews in the conflict with the Samaritans.8 The historical context however is lost. The name of the high priest in the Talmud is Simon the Just, referring to two historical high priests who actually served after Alexander’s time, whereas in Josephus it is Jaddus (Jaddua) who was high priest during the rule of Alexander. The rabbinic versions seem to be independent from Josephus, maybe both stem from a common oral source. Two other versions tell the story of a meeting between Alexander and Gabiah, son of Qosem, at the temple in Jerusalem.9 The idea conveyed here is that even a great ruler like Alexander is not allowed to enter the Holy of Holies in the Jerusalem Temple. On another occasion, these texts depict Alexander as a Solomonic judge who listens to the discussion between Jews and Ishmaelites, Canaanites and Egyptians. It is again Gabiah, son of Qosem (in the Talmud he is called Gabiah, son of Pesisa) who represents the Jewish side.10

10 Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 91a; Genesis Rabbah 61.7 and the medieval scholium to Megillat Taanit, chapter 3 https://www.examenapium.it/cs/biblio/Zuwiyya2011.pdf
Post Reply