Current State of Samaritan Studies (Hexateuch)

[Secret Alias]

And to your other point. I respect Gmirkin because I am in a creative field. I respect creativity. In my field we call creative people "talent." We respect talent. The world needs novelty. But you didn't come up with any of his ideas. I treat the artist different than the critic. The artist deserves to be praised for his art. The critic is by nature a lesser being and deserves less respect. Everyone at this forum has come up with something. I am more than happy to discuss Breaking Bad, Swan Lake or the idea that the Torah was written in 270 BCE by Alexandrian Jews. But to believe in Breaking Bad, Swan Lake or the idea that the Torah was written in 270 BCE. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

[neilgodfrey]

What's "productive" about Gmirkin's attitude toward the Samaritans? He thinks they are unimportant or ignorable. He has not considered the Samaritans as valuable in reconstructing the origin of the Pentateuch the way Konrad Schmid has. . . . .

Oh my good godmother. After all that has been pointed out about the role of Samaritans .... after all that has been said about Konrad Schmid ..... you simply ignore what has been said and go back to saying the same things over and over again as if you are totally deaf to any view but your own.

I won't hold my breath for this "later book."

You have already made it clear that you won't read any book that you think has a conclusion that would challenge your beliefs and self-learned conclusions.

You don't even recall what Gmirkin's arguments are, according to a recent comment of yours, yet you revert to saying the same old gaslighting nonsense about what he argues as if he has never posted a thing in this forum.

And you ignore my own arguments entirely --- refuse to address any of them -- and simply repeat your own views over and over and call anything different "bullshit".

[Secret Alias]

"Challenges my beliefs." I love having my beliefs challenged. Even you have commented in a backhanded manner how respectfully I've treated Russell. But with regards to the origins of the Pentateuch, unfortunately there is no mention of "Jerusalem" - and Jerusalem is Judaism. Joseph is perfect and Judah less than good. etc. etc. As there are not a lot of "facts" in a mythical narrative like this, I am left with the conclusion that the Samaritans are closer to the beginning of the Pentateuch. "The Jews" are after all very far removed from their original priesthood, there is the Talmud (which is held by Jews to be superior to the Pentateuch "where there are differences choose gemara"), the Mishnah, the Pharisees and then the Sadducees.

[neilgodfrey]

"Challenges my beliefs." I love having my beliefs challenged.

No you don't. Recall how you responded to the challenge to your belief that there are Persian loanwords in the Pentateuch.

Even you have commented in a backhanded manner how respectfully I've treated Russell. But with regards to the origins of the Pentateuch, unfortunately there is no mention of "Jerusalem" - and Jerusalem is Judaism. Joseph is perfect and Judah less than good. etc. etc. As there are not a lot of "facts" in a mythical narrative like this, I am left with the conclusion that the Samaritans are closer to the beginning of the Pentateuch. "The Jews" are after all very far removed from their original priesthood, there is the Talmud (which is held by Jews to be superior to the Pentateuch "where there are differences choose gemara"), the Mishnah, the Pharisees and then the Sadducees.

But you call me a bullshitter and worse when I also present Gmirkin's case -- and the one I have never seen contradicted in the scholarship. But I'm a "mere librarian" and therefore an "ally of evil" and not a "scholar" so that excuses the difference in your treatment, I think. You flew at me in an outrage and insults when I pushed you to actually confront Gmirkin's point about the absence of Persian loanwords in the Pentateuch. But I'm not a scholar and unworthy of respect therefore. Yes? No free tickets offered to me no matter how much I expand on and support a particular argument of Gmirkin's -- an argument that is pretty much standard wisdom in the scholarship. But for you that just shows how biased scholarship is because it doesn't agree with you! You can't tell us what the arguments are, but you know they are wrong because they make a point that contradicts your beliefs. Yes?

Again, SA -- you are repeating what you have always said from the beginning. You either have not read and thought about anything Gmirkin (or I) have said in response, or if you have, you have not been able to understand it -- you certainly have completely failed to address the specific points of the arguments.

Tamar was highly respected enough to be included in the family tree of Jesus. You have failed to address that little piece of evidence and have repeated your own cruel and nonsensical DISreading of Genesis 38 to try to insist Tamar was something she was not even according to the Genesis narrative itself! But you cannot deal with that any more than you could deal with the evidence that there are no Persian loanwords in the Pentateuch.

I'm not in a position to say I agree with Gmirkin's point about Pentecost and Philo but at least I understand his argument and can think it through on its own terms -- you cannot do that. You can only ignore his argument or respond as if you clearly never read it or understood it.

These exchanges have really left me wondering if you are even capable of understanding -- really understanding -- another point of view and how someone came by it. For you, they are prejudiced or ignorant or worse if they contradict your view. Correct?

[Secret Alias]

But the truth is I treat an artist differently than common folk. Just a bias I have. We all have them.

[Secret Alias]

Tamar was highly respected enough to be included in the family tree of Jesus.

Who the fuck cares. Jesus was highly respected enough to have had a religion founded in his name. What does that have to do with either Samaritan or Jewish studies?

[Secret Alias]

These exchanges have really left me wondering if you are even capable of understanding -- really understanding -- another point of view and how someone came by it.

And I similarly have come to the conclusion that you will jump on any bandwagon which presents or argues on behalf of the hollowness, falseness, foolishness of a long standing religion or religions. I would never expect you to advocate the divine origin of the KJV. But I was initially surprised to see you take up Pete the mountainman's foolishness. I think you are biased in favor of shaming religion and I think my conclusion is more accurate that whatever nonsense you raise against me (other than I am a horrible person which is true).

I think Gmirkin's work would make a great movie premise. You know? It's kind of "interesting." Not sure that it would be a big hit or a box office smash but it's simple enough to appeal to the kind of people that hunt on Youtube or Tiktok for "breakthrough theses" you know hidden truths etc.

The problem with the thesis seems to be that there isn't enough time from 270 BCE to explain how specifically Jewish or Jerusalem-centered sectarian fragments appeared at Qumran as 250 - 225 BCE texts. It's possible of course. But it's problematic. It's also problematic that there doesn't appear to be any Greek words or the influence of Greek terminology in the Hebrew. The one example that Gmirkin points to actual works against his theory as it is only found in the MT and the LXX and the SP agree against the presence of Greek influence (and the Greek influence of the MT might be from some intermediate source anyway).

It's also problematic that Deuteronomy was not written by the same people who wrote the first four books. The Hebrew is different. That would suggest some time was needed to get from four books to five books and then again more time from five books to six books. While the fragments at Qumran dated to 250 - 225 BCE ish don't make this development impossible it's another brick in the wall.

Also that Josephus cites a source who argues on behalf of Jews and Samaritans counting sabbatical years at the coming of Alexander is yet another brick in the wall. I also don't think that Greek sources were necessary to develop the first chapters of Genesis. The author(s) could have gone directly to Mesopotamian sources or intermediaries who were non-Greek.

Similarly Aristeas and Philo have separate testimonies identifying the Seventy as translators rather than authors of the Torah (however defined). That Philo says that a popular festival memorialized the completion of the translation necessarily means it was "common knowledge" in antiquity. That, rather than the influence of Aristeas alone explains why everyone in antiquity treated the LXX as a translation. Given that everyone in Alexandria and the Greek speaking world thought that the LXX was a translation and the learned Origen desperately sought to learn Hebrew and learned to devalue the authority of the LXX seems to indicate that there was a consensus in the age that the Hebrew was not written by the same people who translated not wrote the LXX.

[Secret Alias]

And this is another thing. Gmirkin's theory is interesting. I admit it. But does it have "more going for it" than the development of the Tetrateuch, Pentateuch and Hexateuch in the Persian period? That's the ultimate question.

You're whole support of the hypothesis is that you can't disprove the idea that the Pentateuch was written in 270 CE.

But the "Pentateuch" is a misnomer. There were four books (the "Tetrateuch") written at one time and then Deuteronomy "second law" and then Joshua. These were not all written by the same people. The Hebrew in Deuteronomy is different then the first four books. So now what? There's a gap between 270 BCE for the one "book" of four and then at some later time Deuteronomy and then Joshua. We've discussed this before.

Yet I don't know how much value "you can't disprove X" is in the grand scheme of things.

You can't disprove that the Pentateuch was written by aliens. You can't. It's unlikely because we don't have documents written by aliens. But it's an equally unproven hypothesis.

You can't disprove that the Pentateuch was written in Latin and then Greek and then Hebrew. You can't disprove that the Pentateuch was written by Latin-speaking space aliens. The list goes on and on.

Do I think that Josephus's story about Alexander coming to the Levant while Jews and Samaritans were calculating sabbatical years was true, had truthful elements, is based on some sort of 'fact(s).' Yes I do. I think there is something to the story. I don't think it was made up by Josephus out of thin air. I think that something led Josephus's source to report this story. Is it a factual report? Did he have "on the ground" reporters covering the situation? No. But I think Jews and Samaritans were counting sabbatical years and Alexander showing up during one of these years was duly noted.

That's what I think. I don't know if I can prove it any more than Gmirkin can prove that Philo and his Alexandrian community was wrong when they memorialized the Seventy merely composing a Greek translation of a Hebrew original.

I think the Pentateuch was originally written in Hebrew. I can't prove it. It could have been originally written in Aramaic or Greek or even Latin. It seems UNLIKELY that it was written in Latin. But then again it seems unlikely to most scholars that the Pentateuch was written at Alexandria in 270 BCE. Why doesn't THAT ever factor into your likely/unlikely appraisal i.e. that this theory has been around for almost 20 years and no one buys into it beside you, Gmirkin and a handful of others. Doesn't mean he couldn't be correct. I am just saying at the end of the day it's more likely the Pentateuch was written in the Persian period.

[neilgodfrey]

But the truth is I treat an artist differently than common folk. Just a bias I have. We all have them.

I have artist friends and I don't treat them any differently from "common folk". They are common folk, too. I also have scholar friends. I treat them the same as "common folk" because they, too, are common folk -- we are all common folk.

I have worked and played with scholars and artists & musicians for many years. They really are "common folk" like us! I have worked and played with disabled and unskilled workers also for many years. It would never occur to me to make a distinction in how I treat any of them.

If things are different in your part of the world I am glad I do not live there.

[neilgodfrey]

Tamar was highly respected enough to be included in the family tree of Jesus.

Who the fuck cares. Jesus was highly respected enough to have had a religion founded in his name. What does that have to do with either Samaritan or Jewish studies?

Can you please respond -- without the language flourish -- to my actual argument. We are talking about the idea that the Tamar story was written to shame and disgrace Jews. I have presented evidence that the story was not seen in the way you have characterized it. Can you understand that point of view?