Subject: RE: tc-list Gen.32 and Samar

From: Curt Niccum <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 10:24:40 -0600

The text of the Samaritan Pentateuch was once easily dismissed as merely a
theologically edited text. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has since
changed that perception (for most). There are manuscripts at Qumran which
contain the "Samaritan" text without the variant readings (very few in
number, by the way) motivated by Samaritan theology (assuming that the
Samaritans actually did the changing rather than one of the more "orthodox"
:-) Jewish groups). Gregor correctly notes that the Samaritan text can
preserve an independent tradition. (Whether or not that is true of Gen.
32:23 I do not know, nor do I have the time to examine witnesses.)
Basically, due to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, scholars can no
longer disregard the Samaritan text as biased or the Septuagint as a free or
poor translation. 

Curt

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Jim West [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent:	Friday, January 29, 1999 4:43 AM
> To:	[email-masked]
> Subject:	Re: tc-list Gen.32 and Samar
> 
> At 03:41 PM 1/29/99 +0100, you wrote:
> >Greetings,
> >
> >I am writing a paper on Gen.32,23-33 and I wonder if someone could share
> >his/her views on importance of Samaritan Pentateuch to TC of MT. For
> >example, should one accept reading of Samar in 32,23? There are no other
> >traditions that would support Samar, but Samar on the other hand may have
> >preserved text independent of Masoretic tradition.
> 
> Most likely the tradents of the Sam. Pent. merely did here what they do in
> a
> number of places- i.e., offer a reading which supports Samaritan theology.
> 
> >
> >Hope my question is not too simplistic for this list (till now I have
> >benefited a great deal - thank you).
> >
> 
> Not at all.  The Sam. Pent. is useful, but in matters textual it has to be
> taken with a huge grain of salt and its readings must generally be
> supported
> by another textual tradition.  That is how I handle it anyway.
> 
> >Thank you in advance for your help.
> >
> >Gregor P. Turkanik
> 
> best,
> 
> Jim
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> Jim West, ThD
> Quartz Hill School of Theology
> 
> [email-masked]
> http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

---

From: "William L. Petersen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:00:54 -0500

Just to second Curt Niccum's comment with a specific example:

Von Gall's edition of the Samaritan Pentateuch shows that some Samaritans
had a version of the Shema which was, apparently, binary
("heart--strength"), as do some early Christian sources.  My recollection
is that one Samaritan MS gives this binary version, which also shows up in
Justin (Dial. 92.3 [twice], Apol. 16.6), Vetus Latina MS *k*, and, perhaps,
Tatian's Diatessaron.

A careful examination of the Samaritan Pentateuch shows that it preserves
ancient traditions--such as this one--*which are otherwise unattested in
the MT and LXX.*

Once again, this points up the axiom I have stated again and again:  If
one's field of reference is delimited, then it is easy to make
generalizations;  however, the broader one's array of sources, then the
more difficult it is to do so.

Before making an argument about the MT/LXX and the relationship to the NT,
I always like to check Samaritan sources, for sometimes one finds
interesting things....

--Petersen, Penn State University.