Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 10:39 am
1. Gmirkin adds the Samaritans to his theory as a kind of afterthought.
2. the Samaritans are 'afterthoughts' of most Biblical research. Not so Schmid. He's good friends with my friend Benny and you can see the efforts Schmid made to incorporate the Samaritans into his model.
Either the Samaritans are and should be an afterthought (i.e. they are so inconsequential that they don't deserve a second or even third thought) or it might be a weakness in Gmirkin's theory. It's really that simple. I find the idea of Samaritans and Jews collaborating on a document which seems to support Samaritan-primacy claims (i.e. that 'the Hextateuch/Pentateuch/Tetrateuch' started with the Samaritans and their fixation with Gerizim) silly. I use the word 'silly' because I want to use a word that distinguishes or rejects any malice on Gmirkin's part. He just didn't take them that seriously. I think this is a problem.
Don't pretend to understand my research and make statements about it without having read it. You can do better than this. If you are going to critique my theories, it seems to me you should read them first, which will put you in the position of being able to accurately describe them. Rather than taking this step, it seems to me that you are constructing an imaginary idea of what my research says, and then critiquing that imaginary construct into which you have built in certain convenient flaws, rather than my actual views and opinions. And by discounting my research by means of these imaginary features, it seems you are relieving yourself of the need to actually read them. Others on the list have done the same. This sort of circular reasoning, by which one avoids looking into new ideas, keeps people illiterate and stuck in old ways of thinking.
When I encounter a new idea, even one that I currently disagree with, I take the opposite approach. I get intrigued, I immediately get hold of the new book or article and read it in an open-minded fashion, on the chance that this author might hold this different opinion because they know something I currently do not. This allows me at a MINIMUM to accurately understand and be able to present their evidence, reasoning and resulting views. THEN AND ONLY THEN can I accurately assess where they went astray, if that is the case, and further bullet-proof my own research. Or better yet, best possible scenario, assess where I have gone astray, if THAT is the case, learn something new that might challenge and improve my grasp on the subject. Because learning-avoidance is a tried-and-true strategy for achieving exactly one thing, to be frank, namely staying stupid. (To be clear, I'm not tossing insults, but smart people often give an illusion of unintelligence by giving opinions about subjects or different viewpoints they have not properly investigated.)
An academic's best strength is mastering the opinions of others, even those they disagree with you. That is how one learns, not by reading and endlessly repeating only sources and authorities with whom one already agrees. Don't hate or dismiss your "enemies" like the trolls do, who misrepresent and attack new thoughts or ideas, without even bothering to read them, like some of the true dis-believers on this list. Love your "enemies," honestly and thoroughly investigate them, learn from them if they have something new to say, let them challenge and improve you.
Since I've lectured you and given you a bit of a thrashing, let me toss some new insights at you. Clearly, due to the evidence I presented on page 1 of this thread, both Samaritans and Jews took part together in the creation of the Pentateuch. (1) Why the Jews? The Greek author Hecataeus of Abdera wrote a fictitious Greek foundation story in 320-315 BCE in which JUDEA was colonized by an expedition from Egypt led by an Egyptian nobleman called Moses, who established the JEWISH nation, laws, customs, including the city of Jerusalem and its temple--the first appearance of a figure called Moses in any language. Samaritans and Mount Gerizim: NOT MENTIONED, although Moses organized the nation in 12 tribes, like many Greek nation-states. (2) According to all available early traditions, Ptolemy II Philadelphus later sent to Jerusalem and the JEWS asking for a copy of these rumored ancient laws of Moses to translate into Greek for the Great Library at Alexandria. The Jewish high priest and senate responded by sending a delegation for that purpose. According to my theory or model, this delegation were both authors and translators of the five Books of Moses, which did not exist in written form until this prestigious event. (3) Why the Samaritans? According to Pseudo-Aristeas, this delegation included learned elders from all twelve tribes. While this rests more on a foundation of legend than fact, it is evident from the text of the Pentateuch that Samaritans were major participants in this literary project and in fact had the dominant role, since they were more educated and literate than their Judean associates, who largely depended on their background and skills. The Pentateuch was thus a compromise text between the Jews, who were in charge of the project, and the Samaritans, who did much of the actual work of writing. This model accommodates both the historical and literary evidence.