See, e.g., Anderson and Giles,Samaritan Pentateuch, p. 74; E. Eshel and H. Eshel, “Dating the Samaritan Pentateuch’s Compilation in Light of the Qumran Biblical Scrolls”, in Sh. M. Paul et al. (eds.), Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (VTSup 94 Leiden, 2003), p. 218. Pummer,Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, p. 24, mentions only the second and third point; S. Schorch, “Der Pentateuch der Samaritaner: Seine Erforschung und seine Bedeutung für das Verständnis des alttestamentlichen Bibeltextes”, in J. Frey, U. Schattner-Rieser, and K. Schmid (eds.),Die Samaritaner und die Bibel / The Samaritans and the Bible (Berlin, 2012), p. 11, lists all three before rejecting the first two.

See, e.g., Anderson and Giles,Samaritan Pentateuch, p. 74; E. Eshel and H. Eshel, “Dating the Samaritan Pentateuch’s Compilation in Light of the Qumran Biblical Scrolls”, in Sh. M. Paul et al. (eds.), Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (VTSup 94 Leiden, 2003), p. 218. Pummer,Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, p. 24, mentions only the second and third point; S. Schorch, “Der Pentateuch der Samaritaner: Seine Erforschung und seine Bedeutung für das Verständnis des alttestamentlichen Bibeltextes”, in J. Frey, U. Schattner-Rieser, and K. Schmid (eds.),Die Samaritaner und die Bibel / The Samaritans and the Bible (Berlin, 2012), p. 11, lists all three before rejecting the first two.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See J. H. Charlesworth, “What Is a Variant? Announcing a Dead Sea Scrolls Fragment of Deuteronomy”,Maarav 16 (2009), pp. 201-212, 273-274 (with images athttp://www.maarav.com/current16_2.shtml). A. Lange,Handbuch der Textfunde vom Toten Meer, Vol. 1:Die Handschriften biblischer Bücher von Qumran und die anderen Fundorten (Tübingen, 2009), p. 106, questions the authenticity of the fragment based on “paleographic inconsistencies” and the square script. However, according to Pummer,Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, p. 26: “There is no doubt that the fragment is authentic”.

See J. H. Charlesworth, “What Is a Variant? Announcing a Dead Sea Scrolls Fragment of Deuteronomy”,Maarav 16 (2009), pp. 201-212, 273-274 (with images athttp://www.maarav.com/current16_2.shtml). A. Lange,Handbuch der Textfunde vom Toten Meer, Vol. 1:Die Handschriften biblischer Bücher von Qumran und die anderen Fundorten (Tübingen, 2009), p. 106, questions the authenticity of the fragment based on “paleographic inconsistencies” and the square script. However, according to Pummer,Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, p. 26: “There is no doubt that the fragment is authentic”.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Schenker, “Le Seigneur”, p. 345. Schenker mistakenly has the number eleven here (failing to count 12:14), but he corrects this at “Textgeschichtliches zum Samaritanischen Pentateuch”, p. 114.

Schenker, “Le Seigneur”, p. 345. Schenker mistakenly has the number eleven here (failing to count 12:14), but he corrects this at “Textgeschichtliches zum Samaritanischen Pentateuch”, p. 114.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Schenker, “Le Seigneur”, p. 347.

Schenker, “Le Seigneur”, p. 347.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Schenker, “Le Seigneur”, p. 348.

Schenker, “Le Seigneur”, p. 348.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Schorch, “Der Pentateuch der Samaritaner”, pp. 11-12; idem, “Samaritan Version of Deuteronomy”, p. 32. Knoppers,Jews and Samaritans, pp. 184-187, expresses some doubts about this text-critical argument, pointing to Josh 9:27 where the formula has an imperfect tense, and 1 Kings 8:16, where God says that he had chosen no city prior to his choice of Jerusalem. But Knoppers does say that the Samaritan readingbaḥarcan no longer be considered a clearly sectarian reading.

Schorch, “Der Pentateuch der Samaritaner”, pp. 11-12; idem, “Samaritan Version of Deuteronomy”, p. 32. Knoppers,Jews and Samaritans, pp. 184-187, expresses some doubts about this text-critical argument, pointing to Josh 9:27 where the formula has an imperfect tense, and 1 Kings 8:16, where God says that he had chosen no city prior to his choice of Jerusalem. But Knoppers does say that the Samaritan readingbaḥarcan no longer be considered a clearly sectarian reading.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Schenker, “Le Seigneur”, p. 350.

Schenker, “Le Seigneur”, p. 350.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Carr,Formation of the Hebrew Bible, p. 168. On the date of the destruction of the Gerizim sanctuary, which is most probably later than 128bce, see Ingrid Hjelm, “Mt. Gerizim and Samaritans in Recent Research,” in Mor and Reiterer, Samaritans: Past and Present, p. 35.

Carr,Formation of the Hebrew Bible, p. 168. On the date of the destruction of the Gerizim sanctuary, which is most probably later than 128bce, see Ingrid Hjelm, “Mt. Gerizim and Samaritans in Recent Research,” in Mor and Reiterer, Samaritans: Past and Present, p. 35.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Schenker, “Textgeschichtliches zum Samaritanischen Pentateuch”, p. 118.

Schenker, “Textgeschichtliches zum Samaritanischen Pentateuch”, p. 118.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See Schenker, “Le Seigneur”, p. 349.

See Schenker, “Le Seigneur”, p. 349.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Schorch, “Samaritan Version of Deuteronomy”, pp. 29-30 (Schorch’s argument implies a Gerizim cult by the early eighth century). Many previous scholars have argued for the northern origins of Deuteronomy; see J. H. Tigay,Deuteronomy (jps Torah Comm.; Philadelphia, 1996), pp. xxiii-xxiv; and further references in J. R. Lundbom,Deuteronomy: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, 2013), pp. 10-11. On the hypothesis of northern migrations to Judah in the late-eighth century, see I. Finkelstein and N. A. Silberman, “Temple and Dynasty: Hezekiah, the Remaking of Judah and the Rise of the Pan-Israelite Ideology”,jsot 30 (2006), pp. 259-285; but see also now the cautions expressed by N. Na’aman, “Dismissing the Myth of a Flood of Israelite Refugees in the Late Eighth Centurybce”,zaw 126 (2014), pp. 1-14; and Knoppers,Jews and Samaritans, 69-70.

Schorch, “Samaritan Version of Deuteronomy”, pp. 29-30 (Schorch’s argument implies a Gerizim cult by the early eighth century). Many previous scholars have argued for the northern origins of Deuteronomy; see J. H. Tigay,Deuteronomy (jps Torah Comm.; Philadelphia, 1996), pp. xxiii-xxiv; and further references in J. R. Lundbom,Deuteronomy: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, 2013), pp. 10-11. On the hypothesis of northern migrations to Judah in the late-eighth century, see I. Finkelstein and N. A. Silberman, “Temple and Dynasty: Hezekiah, the Remaking of Judah and the Rise of the Pan-Israelite Ideology”,jsot 30 (2006), pp. 259-285; but see also now the cautions expressed by N. Na’aman, “Dismissing the Myth of a Flood of Israelite Refugees in the Late Eighth Centurybce”,zaw 126 (2014), pp. 1-14; and Knoppers,Jews and Samaritans, 69-70.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Schorch, “Samaritan Version of Deuteronomy”, p. 29. On the origins of Samarian worship at Gerizim, see Kartveit,Origins, pp. 354-59; Knoppers,Jews and Samaritans.

Schorch, “Samaritan Version of Deuteronomy”, p. 29. On the origins of Samarian worship at Gerizim, see Kartveit,Origins, pp. 354-59; Knoppers,Jews and Samaritans.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Schorch, “Samaritan Version of Deuteronomy”, p. 30 (emphasis his).

Schorch, “Samaritan Version of Deuteronomy”, p. 30 (emphasis his).)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Schorch, “Samaritan Version of Deuteronomy”, pp. 30-31.

Schorch, “Samaritan Version of Deuteronomy”, pp. 30-31.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Schorch, “Samaritan Version of Deuteronomy”, pp. 31-32.

Schorch, “Samaritan Version of Deuteronomy”, pp. 31-32.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Schorch, “Samaritan Version of Deuteronomy”, p. 25; cf. Schenker, “Le Seigneur”, p. 349; Nelson,Deuteronomy, p. 148; B. M. Levinson,Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (New York, 1997), pp. 23-24 n. 1.

Schorch, “Samaritan Version of Deuteronomy”, p. 25; cf. Schenker, “Le Seigneur”, p. 349; Nelson,Deuteronomy, p. 148; B. M. Levinson,Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (New York, 1997), pp. 23-24 n. 1.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Schorch, “Samaritan Version of Deuteronomy”, p. 33. See also Knoppers,Jews and Samaritans, pp. 207-8, where Knoppers argues that Judeans read the altar command of Deut 27:4 in light of Exod 20:24-26, which commanded an altar distinct from the central sanctuary of Deut 12:5.

Schorch, “Samaritan Version of Deuteronomy”, p. 33. See also Knoppers,Jews and Samaritans, pp. 207-8, where Knoppers argues that Judeans read the altar command of Deut 27:4 in light of Exod 20:24-26, which commanded an altar distinct from the central sanctuary of Deut 12:5.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Knoppers,Jews and Samaritans, p. 212.

Knoppers,Jews and Samaritans, p. 212.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Cf. Kartveit,Origins, pp. 355-356, who suggested that the command in Deut 27:4 led the Samarians to build their sanctuary on Gerizim. If Ulrich’s textual reconstruction proves convincing, Kartveit’s proposal would need to be amended to something along the lines of what I have suggested above. See also Knoppers,Jews and Samaritans, p. 206.

Cf. Kartveit,Origins, pp. 355-356, who suggested that the command in Deut 27:4 led the Samarians to build their sanctuary on Gerizim. If Ulrich’s textual reconstruction proves convincing, Kartveit’s proposal would need to be amended to something along the lines of what I have suggested above. See also Knoppers,Jews and Samaritans, p. 206.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Pummer, “Samaritans and Their Pentateuch”, p. 239, believes that the Samarians would have “considered Jerusalem a legitimate place of worship in addition to Mount Gerizim”; see also pp. 249-251. On the temple at Elephantine, see the summary in B. Porten, “Elephantine Papyri”,abd vol. 2, p. 449. On the background of the Elephantine community, see the brief comments of J. Joosten, “The Aramaic Background of the Seventy: Language, Culture and History”,bioscs 43 (2010), pp. 68-69. Cf. also the discussion of the “house of Onias” (the temple at Leontopolis; cf. Josephus,b.j.1.33; 7.420-36;a.j. 13.62-73) in the Mishnah,Menaḥot 13.10.

Pummer, “Samaritans and Their Pentateuch”, p. 239, believes that the Samarians would have “considered Jerusalem a legitimate place of worship in addition to Mount Gerizim”; see also pp. 249-251. On the temple at Elephantine, see the summary in B. Porten, “Elephantine Papyri”,abd vol. 2, p. 449. On the background of the Elephantine community, see the brief comments of J. Joosten, “The Aramaic Background of the Seventy: Language, Culture and History”,bioscs 43 (2010), pp. 68-69. Cf. also the discussion of the “house of Onias” (the temple at Leontopolis; cf. Josephus,b.j.1.33; 7.420-36;a.j. 13.62-73) in the Mishnah,Menaḥot 13.10.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Schorch, “Samaritan Version of Deuteronomy”, p. 35; Carr,Formation of the Hebrew Bible, p. 168.

Schorch, “Samaritan Version of Deuteronomy”, p. 35; Carr,Formation of the Hebrew Bible, p. 168.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation