Current State of Samaritan Studies (Hexateuch)

[John2]

So the fact that "Jerusalem" isn't mentioned in the Pentateuch allows for the idea that Jerusalem was the actual cultic center of the nascent cult of the Pentateuch? How is that exactly? How is it possible that a religious cult centered on sacrifice has all the sacrificing occurring SOMEWHERE ELSE and the story ends with no entry into the land and Joshua ends with the establishment of a covenant AT THIS OTHER PLACE? I am trying to understand how something other than 'habit' explains Jerusalem as the starting point of the sacrificial cult associated with the Pentateuch? Is 'habit' even an argument?

But isn't Salem Jerusalem? It is according to Ps. 76:1-2 and the Genesis Apocryphon 22:13, at least, and there appears to be some foreshadowing of the priesthood in Jerusalem in Gen. 14:18-20 with its references to bread and wine, God being the creator of heaven and earth, and Abram giving tithes to a priest of God there.

God is known in Judah, His name is great in Israel. His tent is in Salem, His dwelling place in Zion.

... and he went to Salem, which is Jerusalem.

Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine—since he was priest of God Most High — and he blessed Abram and said: “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth, and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand.” Then Abram gave Melchizedek a tenth of everything.

It isn't much, but given the existence of a portable tabernacle (at least in the story) and Jews not fully conquering Jerusalem until David's time and not building a Temple there until Solomon's time, what more was there to say about Jerusalem in the Torah?

And Jerusalem is mentioned several times in Joshua, including 15:63, which mentions a partial Jewish presence there before David ("And as for the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out; but the Jebusites dwelt with the children of Judah at Jerusalem, unto this day").

[Russell Gmirkin]

I don't understand the obsession with the Samaritans or Gerizim. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Gerizim is only mentioned a couple of times in Deuteronomy. Nothing about Genesis-Numbers shows any focus on either Samaria or Jerusalem. Indeed, it is noted by scholars that the Pentateuch is somewhat peculiar in that it shows little interest in the regions that later came to be dominated by the Jews and Samaritans. Most of the story takes place in Egypt and Arabia, and even east of Palestine.

It does not seem to me that the Pentateuch was written "in order to establish a cult at Gerizim," rather Gerizim is a one of many places mentioned. It is sort of the final location of the blessings in the story, where the journey sort of comes to an end, but really even the end of Deuteronomy does not really appear to be the end of the story. Its clear that everything is not resolved.

Clearly Moses does not enter the promised land. Joshua is established as his heir. The story at the end of Deuteronomy seems setup for continuation, as happens in Joshua, which is not accepted by the Samaritans. But it is not as if Deuteronomy ends with a clear final declaration of anything, other than the status of Moses as the Lord's ultimate prophet. But even the Samaritan Pentateuch still mentions Mt Sinai and Mt Paran.

It seems to me that the Pentateuch was not "designed" for the purpose of establishing either the Jerusalem cult nor the Samaritan one. Both groups used the text in ways that were unforeseen by the writers.

I pretty much agree with your perspectives, except that Joshua is in direct continuity with Deuteronomy and appears to have Samari(t)an influence in the prominence of Shechem as a religious center. It seems to me that the Hexateuch was not about establishing Gerizim or Jerusalem as the preeminent cult center. In the world of the Hexateuch, Gerizim, Ebal and Shechem were well-known important religious centers (Deuteronomy-Joshua), and there were also a variety of other minor altars and religious sites in Judah and Samaria (Genesis). There doesn't seem to be polemics against the Persian Era temple at Jerusalem, which was smaller than the complex at Gerizim, but re-established a bit earlier. It seems to me they both just coexisted, much like Jerusalem and Samaria were both consulted on religious matters by the Judean troops at Elephantine in ca. 400 BCE, and much like Judah was one of the twelve Yahweh-worshipping tribes of Israel in Genesis-Joshua. They all seem to have gotten along together just fine. The animosity between Judean and Samaritan (and their respective temples) seems to be post-Pentateuchal.

[neilgodfrey]

I couldn't care less if the Hexateuch was written on my uncle Gert's birthday for an original cultus in Mellonville. No interest at all. No agenda. No 'defense' of any kind.

Well it's very obvious that you do care greatly and it clearly offends you enough to lash out with abusive and foul language if anyone suggests anything opposed to your particular Samaritan viewpoint might be have some validity -- even the notion of a shared Samaritan authorship with Samaritans the dominant party is enough to set you off the rails and lapse back into insult.

So what is your personal interest in the Samaritans and how did it arise?

[Russell Gmirkin]

The idea of this forum (I was one of the first members) was that . . . we would . . . .avoid argument by citation and name, rank etc

SA on 3rd Nov:

My best friend in the scholarly world Rory Boid and Benyamim Tsedaka a Samaritan were my instructors on these principles of purity. Rory wrote . . .

etc.

Of course I am quite familiar with the writings of Ruairidh Bóid and John Bowman, and Robert Cargill by reputation, but I haven't read anything (yet!) by Benyamim Tsedaka, who seems an interesting fellow. I'll have to chase down some of his works. Unfortunately he doesn't have a presence on Academia.edu.

[rgprice]

I pretty much agree with your perspectives, except that Joshua is in direct continuity with Deuteronomy and appears to have Samari(t)an influence in the prominence of Shechem as a religious center. It seems to me that the Hexateuch was not about establishing Gerizim or Jerusalem as the preeminent cult center. In the world of the Hexateuch, Gerizim, Ebal and Shechem were well-known important religious centers (Deuteronomy-Joshua), and there were also a variety of other minor altars and religious sites in Judah and Samaria (Genesis). There doesn't seem to be polemics against the Persian Era temple at Jerusalem, which was smaller than the complex at Gerizim, but re-established a bit earlier. It seems to me they both just coexisted, much like Jerusalem and Samaria were both consulted on religious matters by the Judean troops at Elephantine in ca. 400 BCE, and much like Judah was one of the twelve Yahweh-worshipping tribes of Israel in Genesis-Joshua. They all seem to have gotten along together just fine. The animosity between Judean and Samaritan (and their respective temples) seems to be post-Pentateuchal.

Exactly. But the thing is that while there is much focus on the Pentateuch or Hexateuch, it seems to me that both collections are inadequate and that whoever was writing them did not intend for only the first 4 or 5 books to be the complete story. That's the thing, yet there is a focus on this collection of 4 or 5 books, but its not like Friday the 13th parts 1-4, which constitute a complete story arc, and then the story was re-booted later by different people. Friday the 13th part 4 has a clear definitive ending, that was obviously intended by its writers to be the final end of the series.

No such end exists in the Pentateuch/Hexateuch. One could argue that the end of Joshua perhaps seemed final, but even this is quite doubtful. It seems to me that the story was always intended to go all the way through Kings. What would be the point of ending the story with Joshua?

If you are writing a history of your people, then the history has to come up to the present or at least the completion of your kingdom. So even if the story was not originally intended to go past Kings, surely whoever started writing Exodus intended to at least go up through Kings to provide the story of the Israelite kingdom.

We understand that the Pentateuch is Torah because the Pentateuch contains the laws and the foundation. That make sense, but it does not seem to me that the Pentateuch is really distinct from the rest of narrative that runs all the way through the rise and subsequent fall of the Israelite kingdom. If you weren't planning on going that far, why even write Exodus at all? Surely the writers of Exodus had Kings in mind.

I mean, writing only the Pentateuch/Hexateuch would be like writing a history of America that begins with the fleeing of Pilgrims from England, has them arrive in America and establish Jamestown, and then just ends there. I mean that's not a history of America. Why would you even do that? The intent would be to start with Jamestown and then work all the way up at least to the Civil War.

So to me the Pentateuch/Hexateuch is not a complete body of work. The Samaritans may only accept the Pentateuch, but that doesn't mean that really it was always just the Pentateuch and everything else is an afterthought. From Joshua to Kings can't be an afterthought, it is a part of what makes the story arc complete.

So no, I don't believe that originally it was some group that intended to establish a Gerizim based cult and to establish Gerizim as the focal point of worship, who cared nothing about the rest of the history of the Israelites. That was not the goal of the writers.

[Secret Alias]

I've always said that the most compelling thing that Gmirkin's theory addresses is the abrupt ending of the Pentateuch. Long before I heard of this theory (you see I am a creative person too and work in a creative field: entertainment) I mused that Philo and his Egyptian community must have read the Pentateuch differently. Also the description of the Holy Holies in the Stromata implies (to me at least) that they had a flimsy tabernacle, the one prescribed in the Pentateuch itself. My friend and mentor Rory Boid (again a personal reminiscence of a conversation rather than an 'appeal to authority') did a lot of work on the Dosithean community and published or was about to publish a study of the Samaritan text of Joshua. Some of his points might have relevance for Gmirkin and possibly future papers to bolster his theory (you see my creativity is freely given to everyone).

1. the Dositheans appear to have been especially associated with Egypt and Alexandria
2. according to Boid rather than holding the mountain as sacred and offering sacrifices on the mountain they took the place where Jacob saw God descend from the mountain and argued the mountain had lost its holiness in eras of disfavor
3. they were especially attached to the idea (this is what I think is relevant for Gmirkin) that because the Pentateuch only proscribes a flimsy tabernacle that the move to permanent structures like the one at Jerusalem (and perhaps Gerizim although Boid said he saw no evidence of this at Gerizim) was contrary to the spirit of the Law

Boid argued that Stephen and much of early Christianity's opposition to the temple might have sprung from Dositheanism. Why does this matter for Gmirkin's theory? How did the Samaritans and Jews function in eras where they were cut off from 'native' cultic centers (Jews for Jerusalem, Samaritans from Gerizim)? Is it too much to suggest that Clement of Alexandria knew of a replica tabernacle like the one described in the Pentateuch as occupying some place in Egypt?

This is where I am going with this.

Yes, the Pentateuch tells the story of Abraham and his sons establishing an altar at Gerizim. And it would be natural to assume that when the cultus was first established in the Land it was established at Gerizim. However, the Pentateuch only tells the story of the construction of the desert tabernacle. Why is this? If it can be argued that Gerizim is the place where the altar WILL stand the ending of the Tetrateuch or Pentateuch with only a desert tabernacle must also have significance. Is it possible that these texts were written in a period where NO PERMANENT ALTARS were established and the nascent Israelite community to whom the author(s) of the Hexateuch and Pentateuch appealed their message gathered around these flimsy impermanent tabernacles and that the Dosithean community remembered this state of affairs and maintained an aversion for permanent structures/altars etc? I don't know. But the fact that Dositheans were especially numerous in Egypt (down to the sixth century) might imply (I say might) that a desert tabernacle community of this sort existed in Alexandria and was known to Clement (because of his description).

Maybe Russell can find something in this https://www.academia.edu/42197042/THE_F ... N_AD_DINFI This fucker is so badass. Here is his paper on Samaritan Judges https://www.academia.edu/42189713/The_T ... hua_Judges https://www.academia.edu/84384867/Editi ... Pentateuch I have to admit I miss him. Really really smart (almost genius) guy.

[Secret Alias]

His scanning of his articles on Academia.edu is borderline mentally retarded. I've got to talk to him about rescanning these articles. How can someone so smart be so stupid.

[Secret Alias]

Clement's description of the desert tabernacle http://hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2011/04/ ... ndria.html and http://hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2017/10/ ... sited.html. The reference is found in Stromata 5.6

[Secret Alias]

Benyamim Tsedaka, who seems an interesting fellow

He's just a Samaritan. Knowledgeable. Has some formal education. But not a 'scholar' per se. But authoritative on the Samaritan tradition.

[Secret Alias]

I will try this again. Josephus has this legend of a temple at Leontopolis. But if I was a Jew or Samaritan and I lived in the Ptolemaic kingdom and others were in control the two other temples in a foreign kingdom what would prevent me from following literally the prescription of the Pentateuch and building a desert tabernacle? If anything this would be more to the letter of the Law than either of Gerizim or Jerusalem. The state of the Jewish/Samaritan communities of Egypt would have been more like the ancient Israelites too. Is it possible to theorize that the original cultus was similarly 'stranded' in Egypt and later spread to Gerizim and Jerusalem? Something like that. Bye.