Subject: Re: tc-list sam. pent.

From: "Bernard A. Taylor" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 21:44:07 -0800

Ian Hutchesson wrote:

> 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"?

Ian,
At stake is the issue of which is the true temple (and true way of
worship): Mt Gerizim or Jerusalem. Whereas in the MT Moses speaks of
'the place which the Lord will choose,' SP speaks of 'the place which
the Lord has chosen,' intended to refer to the prior selection of Mt
Gerizim. The selection is found in Ex 20 where the 10 comms are followed
by an "eleventh commandment" to build the temple on Mt Gerizim.

Second, the choice of the respective locations for the reading of the
blessings and curses in Deut 27-29 (Mt Gerizim and Mt Ebal) is the
opposite of that in the MT. I choose my words carefully, since some
scholars in fact argue that SP retains the original.

There are other classic differences: in Gen 2:2 (SP & LXX), God ends his
work on the sixth day, not the 7th day of the MT.

It is also pervasive to supply missing narrative. If an answer or
response infers information, the question/narrative, etc. is often
supplied so as to make the text more internally consistent.

I don't have the texts in front of me, but there are some examples off
the top of my head.

Bernard Taylor

---

From: Ian Hutchesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 05:48:48 +0100

Thanks, Bernard, for the information.

>worship): Mt Gerizim or Jerusalem. 

This is actually quite a hot subject that must have had currency for quite
a while, going back, if we can trust Josephus on this, to the time that a
temple was built on Gerizim for the Zadokite Manasseh -- though Josephus
probably hides more than he tells us.

>Whereas in the MT Moses speaks of
>[..]

(Strangely, this example has just come up in James Adair's post of OT
cruxes today!)

>supplied so as to make the text more internally consistent.

Is some of this material possibly original and been lost in the MT?  I
remember from Qumran at least one example of a text discovered that was
earlier and longer than the MT tradition, which  made its context more
understandable.

>I don't have the texts in front of me, but there are some examples off

I'd heard a few, but you've given me a few others to get me thinking. If
more come to mind, I'd be happy to hear about them!

Thanks again,

Ian

---

From: Jack Kilmon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 23:57:34 -0600

> earlier and longer than the MT tradition, which  made its context more

I think you are thinking of the Samuel A scroll which is longer than the
MT
version and closer to the LXX version and considered by some to be more
original tha  the MT.

Jack

-- 
______________________________________________

taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

Jack Kilmon
[email-masked]

http://www.historian.net

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 12:39:48 -0500 (EST)

Emanuel Tov, in his _Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible_, says that
about five percent of the texts found at Qumran may be classified as
either pre-Samaritan or close to the presumed Hebrew source of LXX (p.
115--I've heard that in a later article Tov changes some of the
percentages of Qumran "text-types" he gives in TCHB; does anyone have
additional information?).  Pre-Samaritan texts from Qumran include
4QpaleoExod-m and 4QNum-b.  Pre-Samaritan elements in these texts include
(1) harmonizing alterations (including supplying missing narratives, as
Bernard mentioned), (2)  linguistic corrections, (3) content differences,
and (4) linguistic differences (Tov 85-93).

******************************************************
James R. Adair, Jr.
Director, ATLA Center for Electronic Texts in Religion
******************************************************

---

From: Richard J Saley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 17:16:27 -0500

Jimmy,

The reference you're looking for is:

Emanuel Tov, "Groups of Biblical Texts Found at Qumran."  _Time to Prepare
the Way in the Wilderness_.  STDJ 16.  Ed. Devorah Dimant and Lawrence H.
Schiffman.  Leiden, 1995, pp. 85-102.

On p. 101 Tov increases the percentage of texts classified as  either
pre-Samaritan or close to the presumed Hebrew source of LXX from 5% to 10%.

Dick Saley