Subject: Re: tc-list sam. pent.

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:47:32 +0000

At 02:17 PM 1/29/99 -0500, you wrote:

>But, Jim, this was not why mss were put away in a genizah.

?
Why were they?  To remove them from circulation or to dispose of them with
dignity even though they were corrupted, right?

>That's because they are the earliest OT mss we have. Do you usually tend
>to prefer later mss to earlier ones?

I tend to respect mss more if they have age and use.

>I'm puzzled by your attitude, Jim.

Sorry- I didnt intend to be puzzling.

>But Jim, you seem to be doing the opposite of what you preach. Because you
>seem to be accepting existing and widely accepted presupposition that Sam.
>Pent. is unreliable.

No- I have not "adopted" that position.  Adoption implies that it belongs to
someone else and then you take it for your own.  My attitude towards the Sam
Pent. is based on actually reading the whole bloody thing and comparing it
to the MT.  Where they differ, the sam. pent. appears to me to be attempting
to justify a theological position which supports samaritan theology.

It seems to me that the majority of scholars (and i aint one) have seen
something similar to what I have.

>Best wishes,

To you as well Yuri.  Nice to hear from you.

>
>Yuri. 
>                                                         
>Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

Jim

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

Jim West, ThD
Quartz Hill School of Theology

[email-masked]
http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

---

From: Jack Kilmon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 15:50:19 -0800

> >to prefer later mss to earlier ones?

I have also wondered whether the genizoth idea was more viable that
the "hide em before the Kittim get here" idea in 68ish with the texts
being deposited cumulatively over a long period of time.  The only
thing I wonder about, however, are the presence of texts not
considered "sacred" hence deserving of genizahing (is that a word?).

I have never looked at the catalogues of the genre of texts found in
other ancient genizahs like the one in Cairo.  Come to think of it,
however, CD was also there too, wasn't it?

Jack

---

From: Yuri Kuchinsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 11:20:42 -0500 (EST)

On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Jim West wrote:

[Yuri:]

> ? Why were they?  To remove them from circulation or to dispose of
> them with dignity even though they were corrupted, right?

No, Jim. As M A Robinson already noted, genizah was primarily a way to
deal with worn out sacred texts. Since they were too worn out to be
useful, and destroying them would be sacrilegious, they were put away in a
genizah. Genizah was like a cemetery for old and treasured texts.

What did they do with the texts that were deemed "heretical"? They burned
them.

> No- I have not "adopted" that position.  Adoption implies that it
> belongs to someone else and then you take it for your own.  My
> attitude towards the Sam Pent. is based on actually reading the whole
> bloody thing and comparing it to the MT.  Where they differ, the sam.
> pent. appears to me to be attempting to justify a theological position
> which supports samaritan theology.
> 
> It seems to me that the majority of scholars (and i aint one) have
> seen something similar to what I have.

But that was precisely my point, Jim. You're following the majority, while
also claiming to question "existing presuppositions".

Yours as always,

Yuri. 

http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm                  

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

---

From: "Bernard A. Taylor" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 11:56:50 -0800

> My

Jim,

>From where I sit, there are two clear issues re the SP.

1. In places the text is modified to insert or justify Sam. theology.
However, these are basically easy to identify.

2. There is the bulk of the text that was not of interest or concern
theologically to the Samaritans, and has been transmitted independently
as part of their tradition. Time and again I find interesting variants,
some of which are shared with the LXX, for instance. More than once I
wish that the text extended beyond the Pentateuch.

I have the five Isaeli fascicles that have MT and SP in parallel/
synoptic relationship, with all places where the two texts differ in
larger type. It makes it easy to spot the differences, and fun to
compare the texts.

For me at least, this is where the value of the text lies, not in such
things as the "eleventh commandment" or the pervasive changes in
Deuteronomy.

Bernard Taylor

---

From: Ian Hutchesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 21:39:50 +0100

Yuri wrote:

>As M A Robinson already noted, genizah was primarily a way to

Are there any ancient documents to support this view or does it only go
back to the middle ages? If there are, I'd be happy to know the references.

>What did they do with the texts that were deemed "heretical"? They burned

Again the sources to this would be rather interesting.

Thanks,

Ian

---

From: Ian Hutchesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 21:44:39 +0100

>things as the "eleventh commandment" or the pervasive changes in

Sadly, I haven't any experience with the diversity of the Samaritan lit.,
although I do know that the DSS often favour Samaritan readings over the MT
(but there is no regularity). Could you kindly give a few examples of the
"pervasive changes in Deuteronomy"?

Thanks,

Ian