Disturbing new article by Samaritan scholar (to Ya`aqov Walker)

[Zvi]

Shalom Ya`aqov.

Granted, the orthographic and syntax evidence goes totally
unreferenced by the author since virtually all of it validates the
Masoretic Torah,and he totally ignores the altar found on Mt. 'Aival
that matches the Torah's requirements for the Blessing and Cursing
ceremony point by point.
I'd love if you weigh in on the points brought up by the author to
rebut as many of his contentions as you're able to. Todah

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"As time goes by the consideration of the Biblical research and the
history of the People of Israel is changing to the right consideration
in dealing with the Torah Version in the hands of the Israelite
Samaritans. There is a growing number of researchers who can no longer
ignore the overwhelming evidence of archaeological findings as well as
deeper comparative studies between different biblical sources and
different translations.

"Until a decade ago even well known Biblical scholars used to claim
the next three following claims against the Israelite Samaritan
Version of the Torah.

"1. The Samaritan sages of old made adjustments to the texts in the
books of Moses, which explains the lack of double texts in the
Massoretic = Traditional version of the Torah [i.e. the Jewish
Version].

"2. The Samaritan sages added to the text to adjust it to their belief
in Mount Gerizim, such as adding the Tenth Commandment about building
an altar on Mount Gerizim, which is not in the Jewish Version. They
also changed the text in Deuteronomy 27:4-6 from building an altar to
the Almighty "On Mount Gerizim" to "On Mount Ebal" [sic; the author
mixed the mountains up] as it is written in the Jewish Version.

"3. The completeness of the Jewish Version was preserved throughout
the many generations until present times, however the Samaritan
Version has been corrected by Samaritan sages with additions and
changes, and sometimes with no need for a change.

"These are the main claims against the Samaritan version of the Torah.
These claims were considered valid and accepted naturally in the [sic]
biblical research. However, as biblical research and biblical
criticism began to be exposed to new criteria that were not known to
scholars in the near past, like the finding of 510 inscriptions on
stone on Mount Gerizim in the last 25 years, thanks to the excavation
of Dr. Yitzhaq Magen since 1983; additional discoveries from the Dead
Sea Scrolls, deeper comparative studies of Bible sources and its
different ancient translations – the picture started to get clearer
slowly in regard to the Israelite Samaritan Version of the Torah. Now
it is easy to reject all these three claims one by one, and there is a
new stream of Biblical scholars in a way of thinking "out of the box"
in which the conclusions of the former Bible researchers are not
sufficient for them any more.

"The first claim is that the the [sic] Samaritans have harmonized the
texts by adjusting texts (identical texts between the books of Exodus
and Numbers to the Book of Deuteronomy) using the same words but
inserted throughout the different books of Moses. It is known that the
Book of Deuteronomy repeats events that happened to the Sons of Israel
and Greek Translation of the Bible, The Septuagint that was composed
in the third century BCE, in 1900 of 3000 significant differences
between the Samaritan and Jewish versions, the LXX is identical to the
Samaritan version and contradicts the Jewish Version. It is logical to
say that the most ancient manuscripts of the Pentateuch prior to the
third century BCE were available to the translators of the LXX, much
more ancient than the Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran with dates between
the second century BCE to the first century CE. Following this logic
the Samaritan Version of the Torah preserved the most ancient texts of
the Torah.

"Therefore it is not logical to make claims against the Samaritans in
adjusting texts within the Five Books of Moses when identical versions
were found in Qumran and when there was much better suitability [sic]
between the Samaritan Version and the LXX than the Jewish Version. It
is not recommended to understand that the remaining 1100 significant
differences of the 3000 are identical between the Jewish version and
LXX, maybe only less than half of them, because the other differences
of the 1100 show independent variants of the LXX that do not appear in
the Samaritan text nor in the Jewish version.

"This first claim about harmonization of the Samaritan text is
rejected also from the next point of reason: If Samaritan sages
harmonized the texts systematically to harmonize them exactly in the
same words within the books of Exodus and Numbers to the Book of
Deuteronomy, why according to this system didn't they write the
Decalogue in Exodus Chap. 20 and the Decalogue in Deuteronomy 5 using
the same words since both Decalogues are different from one another by
many words?

"The second claim is that the Samaritans changed the original text of
the Torah in many places in order to adjust it to their belief in
Mount Gerizim. The main claim in this regard is that the Samaritans
added a tenth commandment about building an altar to the Almighty on
Mount Gerizim. It claimed that they also changed the word ×™×`חר =
Will chose to ×`חר = Has chosen in 22 different verses in
Deuteronomy and also changed the text in the Book of Deuteronomy 27:5
×`×"ר ×¢×™×`ל = In Mount Ebal to ×`×"ר×'×¨×–×™× = in Mount Gerizim
as the place of the altar to the Almighty built by Joshua right after
the entrance into the promised land.

"The question remains of why the Samaritans added a tenth commandment
to the Decalogue if it is so clear from the Torah that the place of
the Altar on Mount Gerizim was the sole chosen place? Only what should
be done [sic] is to read together the end of Chap. 11 in Deuteronomy
with the beginning of Chapter 12 to find out that offering the
blessings on Mount Gerizim is the title of the words of Chap. 12 about
destroying all places of worship in favor of one chosen place of
worship [we must remember that the division of the text into chapters
was done by a Christian monk in the thirteenth century CE].

"Moreover, the opposite could be claimed against the Jewish sages of
the Second Temple Period in reducing [sic] the Tenth Commandment from
the original text about building the Altar on Mount Gerizim, because
it didn't fit their belief in the Jerusalem Temple, that was
consecrated many hundreds of years after the Torah; therefore, in
order to complete the number of the Commandments to 10 they made the
introductory words of the Decalogue as a commandment although it is
clear that it is not a commandment and it does not contain any
commandment but only words of introduction of the Almighty before
starting the Ten Commandments. Hence the Ten Commandments in the
Jewish version have one commandment missing.

"This claim of the Samaritan sages was reinforced recently in the
identical words of the building of the Altar to the Almighty "on Mount
Gerizim" as it is in Deuteronomy 27:5 in a fragment from Qumran
exposed by Prof. James Charlesworth of Princeton University, USA. The
fragment was written in Aramaic [sic] by a Jewish scribe, since there
were not [sic] Samaritans in Qumran. This text about building the
Altar "on Mount Gerizim" ×`×"ר×'×¨×–×™× is similar to the text in
some translations of the Bible.

"Before Qumran discoveries the Samaritans and some scholars did claim
against the lack of logic to the text of the Jewish Version in Duet.
27:5 "On Mount Ebal" ×`×"ר ×¢×™×`ל instead of "On Mount Gerizim"
×`×"ר×'×¨×–×™× . First, because it is not logical that an Altar of
the Almighty would be built on the Mountain of Cursing, and secondly,
on Mount Gerizim where the blessing was offered stood the 6-7 main
tribes of Israel, Simon and Levi, Judah and Yissaschar, Joseph
[Menashe and Ephraim] and Benyamim [sic], while on the Mountain of
Cursing=Mount Ebal stood the less important tribes of the second and
third positions: The tribes of Reuben and Zebulan [sic] and the four
tribes the sons of the concubines, Dan and Naphtali, Gad and Asher.
This fact shows exactly the priority of Mount Gerizim over Mount Ebal
as the place of the first Altar of the Almighty built by Joshua. Yes,
many scholars think today that the variant "In Mount Ebal" ×`×"ר ×
¢×™×`ל was installed by the Jewish sages against the sole sacred
place of the Samaritans.

"Also in the matter of ""Has chosen" ×`חר in the Samaritan version
against the variant "Will chose" ×™×`חר in the Jewish version it is
all clear with the newly discovered fact that in some manuscripts of
the LXX the variant "Has chosen" ×`חר like in the Samaritan Version
appears, which proves that not only the variant "Has chosen" ×`חר
reflects the fact of the sole holiness of Mount Gerizim as the places
where the Almighty chose to dwell His Name there [as demonstrated
above by putting together the end of Duet. 11 and the beginning of
Duet. 12], but also it proves that the variant "Will choose" ×™×`חר
is a Jewish correction in order to adjust the text of the Pentateuch
to a future choice of the chosen place to a period much later than the
period of the Torah.

"The frustration of the ancient Jews to accept the fact that Jerusalem
was never mentioned in the Torah has effected some scholars from old
generations. [The place Shalem ×©×œ× mentioned in Genesis is today
the Arabic village Salem east of the city of Nablus, that is called in
Samaritan sources "Shalem Rabta" = the big Shalem = ×©×œ× ×¨×`ת×"].

"The fact that the Torah never meant Jerusalem as the chosen place
appears in Duet. chapter 31 when the People of Israel were ordered to
read the Torah in the chosen place at the Festival of Tabernacles at
the end of the seventh year to the entrance of the People of Israel to
The Promised Land. In this seventh year Jerusalem was a tiny city and
waited hundreds of years for David and Solomon the kings to make it an
Israelite cult center.

"Concerning the third claim of the Jews, and many past scholars, there
were few decades [sic] that the Jewish Version was completely
preserved through all generations as an authentic text while the
Samaritan sages have corrected the original text sometimes with no
need.

"After all that was written above it is now clear that the Jewish
sages of the Second Temple period have disqualified the Samaritan
sages with their own defect, when they themselves indeed corrected the
text in order to adjust it to their belief in Jerusalem, by reducing
[sic] one commandment, by changing every "Has chosen" in regard to the
chosen place of the Almighty to "Will chose", by changing in Duet.
27:5 "On Mount Gerizim" to "On Mount Ebal" and by omitting what they
considered as double texts on the books of Exodus and Numbers vis a
vis the Book of Deuteronomy.

"The question is when were those Jewish corrections of the original
text of the Torah made? Many scholars have confirmed the corrections
but they don't agree about its [sic] time. There are those who think
that the changes were done at the time of Josiah king of Judea in the
Seventh Century BCE, following the "discovery" of the Book of
Deuteronomy in the Jerusalem Temple, when writers of the destroyed
Kingdom of Israel escaped from the Assyrian invaders to Judea. Than
[sic] changes were done in the text of the Torah as part of
reformation, king Josiah did so to reinforce the holiness of the
Temple of Jerusalem. It is hard to accept such a determination since
the Assyrians never stopped in borders of Judea but put Judea also
under their jurisdiction.

"There are scholars who delay the changes that the Jews made in the
original text of the Torah to the time of the Hasmoneans in the second
century BCE in the framework of the reformations that they did to
reinforce the holiness of Jerusalem. It is hard to accept this
determination since the fragment from Qumran of the second century
shows that the variant "On Mount Gerizim" is still kept at this time
also in the Jewish text.

"It should be suggested that all changes the Jews have done to the
original text of the Torah were made until the end of the first
century CE when they completed the process of changing the script from
ancient Hebrew to Aramaic. At that time they completed all changes
including the reduction of text to the edition of the Jewish
Traditional Version [MT]."

Benyamim Tsedaka
A.B. - The Samaritan News. issue no. 1103-1104, February 15, 2012

[יעקב/James Walker‎]

Shalom Zvi,

I don't have the time to do a full essay, but you said it best - the late Second Temple Hebrew dialect of the Samaritan Pentateuch, combined with Archaeological evidence is the final word on the issue. Comparisons to the Septuagint Greek (LXX), which apart from a few fragments at Qumran) is only known from Christian editions from the 300s, are tenuous at best, and ignores the fact that the Greek translation (Aquilas) and Syriac Aramaic translation (Peshitta) used by the Jewish world before the spread of Christianity as a dominant religion in the west and near East both agree word-for-word with the Masoretic text, except in rare cases of paraphrase.

The SamP represents exactly what the Samaritans did during the days of Ezra and Nehemiah - a falsified claim in the name of God to discourage the final chosen place being outside of Shomron, the capital of the Northern Kingdom.

Pay close attention to how this started: a false prophet were hired by Sanballat, governor of Shomron, to try to prevent the Temple being restored, and the prophet even told Nehemiah to run into the Holy Place (obviously a set-up):

Nehemiah 6:1 "Now it happened when Sanballat, Tobiah, Geshem the Arab, and the rest of our enemies heard that I had rebuilt the wall, and that there were no breaks left in it (though at that time I had not hung the doors in the gates), ² that Sanballat and Geshem sent to me, saying, “Come, let us meet together among the villages in the plain of Ono.” But they thought to do me harm.

³ So I sent messengers to them, saying, “I am doing a great work, so that I cannot come down. Why should the work cease while I leave it and go down to you?”

⁴ But they sent me this message four times, and I answered them in the same manner.

⁵ Then Sanballat sent his servant to me as before, the fifth time, with an open letter in his hand. ⁶ In it was written:

It is reported among the nations, and Geshem^[a] says, that you and the Jews plan to rebel; therefore, according to these rumors, you are rebuilding the wall, that you may be their king. ⁷ And you have also appointed prophets to proclaim concerning you at Jerusalem, saying, “There is a king in Judah!” Now these matters will be reported to the king. So come, therefore, and let us consult together.

⁸ Then I sent to him, saying, “No such things as you say are being done, but you invent them in your own heart.”

⁹ For they all were trying to make us afraid, saying, “Their hands will be weakened in the work, and it will not be done.”

Now therefore, O God, strengthen my hands.

¹⁰ Afterward I came to the house of Shemaiah the son of Delaiah, the son of Mehetabel, who was a secret informer; and he said, “Let us meet together in the house of God, within the temple, and let us close the doors of the temple, for they are coming to kill you; indeed, at night they will come to kill you.”

¹¹ And I said, “Should such a man as I flee? And who is there such as I who would go into the temple to save his life? I will not go in!” ¹² Then I perceived that God had not sent him at all, but that he pronounced this prophecy against me because Tobiah and Sanballat had hired him. ¹³ For this reason he was hired, that I should be afraid and act that way and sin, so that they might have cause for an evil report, that they might reproach me.

¹⁴ My God, remember Tobiah and Sanballat, according to these their works, and the prophetess Noadiah and the rest of the prophets who would have made me afraid."

On a related note, look at the alternate high priest priesthood strategically married into Sanballat's family, as found in the closing lines of Sefer Ezra-Nehemiah:

Nehemiah 13:
"²⁸ And one of the sons of Yoyada, the son of Elyashiv the Kohen Gadol, was a son-in-law of Sanballat the Horonite; therefore I drove him from me. ²⁹ Remember them, O my God, because they have defiled the Kehunnah [priesthood] and the covenant of the priesthood and the Levites.

³⁰ Thus I cleansed them of everything pagan. I also assigned duties to the priests and the Levites, each to his service, ³¹ and to bringing the wood offering and the firstfruits at appointed times. Remember me, O my God, for good!"

It's hasty, but hopefully this response will encourage others to continue their research.

-Ya`aqov Walker

[Yaaqov Ben Yisrael]

Shalom Ya'aqov and Zvi,

 

 I would like to request some examples of your claim "the late Second Temple Hebrew dialect of the Samaritan Pentateuch". I have never examined the ST according to this standard and I am genuinely interested. From the papers I have read, which I admit are normally the older, free ones, the ST and the DSS have similar language. From what I have read in the ST, it resembles the MT in almost every case, stylistically, except in those places they differ (mostly in the full writing of the ST versus the defective spelling of the MT [aside from the references to Gerizim]). According to Vanderkam and Tov, the ST dates to as early as the 2nd century BCE. I will also begin to re-read the ST's I have paying close attention to the dialectic style variations in both.

 

Yaaqov ben Yisrael

[Yaaqov Ben Yisrael]

Of course, this will have to wait till I return home. I am in Germany at the moment, but I will be back to the U.S. july 31st.

[Yaaqov Ben Yisrael]

I have been doing some reading on the theory that the ST dates to the late 2nd temple period. It seems that many of those who hold this view point to the work of Zeev ben Hayyim and his transcription of the ST vocalization. Professor Schorch holds the view that the ST and the vocalization tradition which is current among the Shomerim dates to the late 2nd temple period, to which he also assigns the written text. Ben Hayyim, on the other hand, holds the traditional vocalization to be of the late 2nd temple period, while he holds the text of the ST to be possibly as late as the 1st temple period.

 

In Schorch's paper, "Spoken Hebrew of the Late Second Temple Period According to Oral and Written Samaritan Tradition", Schorch argues that the traditional vocalization, which was transcribed by Ben Hayyim, proves that both the written Text as well as the vocalization of the ST was of the same time period. He gives many instances in which the ST holds to internal passives while the MT does not, but then demonstrates that the MT has the same frequency of internal passives, often in the same instances as the ST. The differences of styles, as Schorch proves, are apparent in both Texs: he does not provide proof of date based upon orthography of the ST text, but on the authority he assigns to Ben Hayyim's transcription of the Samaritan vocalization tradition.

 

 The main objection to Schorch and his thesis of the date of the ST that I raise is that the examples Schorch provides are all based upon the transcription of Ben Hayyim. The written Text of the ST and the MT agree in many places that are argued to be different by Schorch due primarily upon the vocalization. Even in those places where there are written differences (pa'al passives versus pu'al) the meaning are the same and the phenomena is attested in both manuscripts. Schorch argues the 2nd temple period as the writing of the ST and the standardization of the vocalization of the St. If he is correct on the vocalization, this would predate the MT by at least 9 centuries: hence the ST vocal tradition is older than the MT which utilizes the Tiberian vocalization of the post Roman occupation of Israel. Tov argues that the Tiberian system of vocalization is late (as late as the 8th century ACE), but not artificial, and that the Samaritan vocalizations are indeed older (Tov Criticism of the Hebrew Bible 48-49).

 

 The Text of the ST and the MT only vary in a relatively few places, for the most of the variances are in writing only, and a minority of places in the content (such as mentions of Gerizim). For the most part, these Texts are the same. Without the evidences of the two vocalization "traditions", there is no way to prove which was indeed the earlier text as they are both attested in early writing such as the Qumran scrolls. I, personally, am of the opinion that both Texts could date from the same time, or, that both could have developed simultaneously. Even if, as some scholars hold, the text and vocalization of the ST date from the late 2nd temple period, this doesn't prove which Text is older or more valid: the oldest Texts we have of either the ST or MT is later than that period anyway. The Qumran scrolls are the oldest dated texts of the Torah and validates both Texts to various degrees. However, I also hold that the Samaritan vocal tradition may reflect a later period than the 2nd temple period. Vocalization traditions are formulated upon the current vocalizations of those who read the Texts. Even in the MT there is evidence of different spelling and vocalizations based upon a later tradition of pronunciations which did not exist or were not current in the times the Text were written: so vocalizations do not provide absolute proof of when a Text was written, nor of when a vocalization was formulated. The MT vocalizations are based upon the Tiberian system and are the standard of vocalizations since the MT was vocalized. This does not in any way provide absolute proof as to what the original vocalizations were when these Texts were written, but represent a standardization of the vocalizations as promoted by the tradition of the Masoretes.

 

Yaaqov be Yisrael 

[Zvi]

Shalom Yaaqov,

"Vocalization" is expressed by the diacritical vowel signs, I suppose. Even the ST has had a partial vowelization system developed for it. 

If the variants in the ST text that are traditionally thought to have originated in the 2nd century BCE can be convincingly traced to the 6th century BCE beyond any doubt, this would be quite disturbing from a Jewish perspective.

All praise be to YHWH

Zvi

[Yaaqov Ben Yisrael]

Shalom Zvi,

 

For the most part, the two Texts (ST and MT) agree, which is amazing to have the Torah from two opposing traditions to be so close, damned near identical (which goes toward the authenticity of the Text itself). The majority of the differences are in orthography, mainly full v/s defective, only in a minority of places does real differnces matter (the cases of Gerizim and those places where the Text is made more continuous in the ST). What should be done is a study of how the tow styles compare to ancient texts found in Israel. Other than this, I don't see how, based soley upon orthography (which is nearly identical) can prove which has the earliest date.

 

Given time, perhaps there will yet be discovered the Stone Tablets which will settle the debate.

 

Yaaqov ben Yisrael

[Zvi]

Shavu`a Tov Haverim.

Ya`aqov, 

Whatever the case -- and I hope you are right that the orthographic differences do not enable to date the Samaritan variants -- I thank you for managing (apparently) to get Mister Sedaqa off of his excessive excitement about the DSS fragment of Devarim 27 stored in Azussa Uni  which contains the name Gerizim instead of `Aival (although you were not performing any service for me). Most of what you told him had never occurred to me to write. This seems to have been a humbling lesson for him.

Zvi

[Zvi]

Shalom Yaaqov,

Starting from 5:10 at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tabXMzIB1HI (if the motion could be slowed down) and starting from 1:47 at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0W30Ba4p-s&list=WL4F172C970D2141E6 , it is evident to those with a good command of Hebrew pronunciation and a reasonable acquaintance with Torah verses how similar the Samaritan vocalization sounds to the Jewish.

Zvi 

[Yaaqov Ben Yisrael]

Shalom Zvi,

 

 I have been diligently researching when vowel letters entered into the Hebrew. The vowel letters began in Phoenician, an early dialect of Canaan. From Phoenician, it entered into Hebrew, another early Canaanite dialect. The earliest examples of Hebrew do not have vowel letters. Since this is the case, it can be reasonably surmised that the MT actually represents the oldest form of the Torah as it does not utilize vowel letters as frequently as the ST. The DSS uses vowel letters more frequently than the ST which can be used to argue that the ST predates the DSS manuscripts. However, this opinion is not easily tenable. That the MT uses vowel letters, even rarely, indicates that it too was a possible production of the time of Second Temple Hebrew, whether early or late is merely a guess. At best, both the MT and ST could have been produced at relatively the same period while both the MT and ST could have predated the DSS manuscripts. I am attaching a file for the latest paper I read concerning Ancient Hebrew Phonology.

 

 

Yaaqov ben Yisrael

[Yaaqov Ben Yisrael]

Shalom Zvi,

 

 I stand corrected for the entrance of vowel letters to Hebrew. According to David Freedman (Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic Orthography), none of the Phoenician inscriptions use vowel letters, however all of the earliest Aramaic, Hebrew and Moabite inscriptions do. So vowel letters could not have entered Hebrew via Phoenician.

 

I have a DjVu file, which was too large to attach here, Textbook of North West Semitic Inscriptions which I will try to upload to Dorshe HaTorah.

 

Yaaqov ben Yisrael