Save

Cult Centralization in the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origins of Deuteronomy

In: Vetus Testamentum
View More View Less
Full Access

Scholars have long understood the cult centralization formula of Deuteronomy (Deut. 12:5, etc.) to limit worship to Jerusalem, “the place which God will choose for his name to dwell.” The common theory posits that though the formula, and the book in which it was contained, was written long after Jerusalem had become the primary cultic site in Judah, it was framed with an imperfect tense verb in order to keep up the pretense of Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy. However, the Samaritan Pentateuch has a perfect tense verb in this same formula in all twenty-one occurrences in Deuteronomy. Whereas scholars have typically seen this to be a strictly sectarian reading pointing to God’s prior choice of Gerizim as the holy site of the Samaritans, Adrian Schenker has recently argued persuasively for the priority of the Samaritan reading and that themt’s imperfect tense is, in fact, the sectarian alteration. This new way of understanding Deuteronomy’s centralization formula has ramifications for the origins of the book and its reception in Judah. This paper explores these issues, suggesting that the best way of understanding the authority that Deuteronomy gained in Judah is to combine Schenker’s argument about the centralization formula with E. Ulrich’s reconstruction of the text of Deut 27:4. This results in an original text of Deuteronomy that asserts that God had chosen the place for his name already at the time of Moses but did not yet identify the location. In turn, the argument presented here helps to explain the reception Deuteronomy enjoyed among both Judeans and Samaritans.

Abstract

Scholars have long understood the cult centralization formula of Deuteronomy (Deut. 12:5, etc.) to limit worship to Jerusalem, “the place which God will choose for his name to dwell.” The common theory posits that though the formula, and the book in which it was contained, was written long after Jerusalem had become the primary cultic site in Judah, it was framed with an imperfect tense verb in order to keep up the pretense of Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy. However, the Samaritan Pentateuch has a perfect tense verb in this same formula in all twenty-one occurrences in Deuteronomy. Whereas scholars have typically seen this to be a strictly sectarian reading pointing to God’s prior choice of Gerizim as the holy site of the Samaritans, Adrian Schenker has recently argued persuasively for the priority of the Samaritan reading and that themt’s imperfect tense is, in fact, the sectarian alteration. This new way of understanding Deuteronomy’s centralization formula has ramifications for the origins of the book and its reception in Judah. This paper explores these issues, suggesting that the best way of understanding the authority that Deuteronomy gained in Judah is to combine Schenker’s argument about the centralization formula with E. Ulrich’s reconstruction of the text of Deut 27:4. This results in an original text of Deuteronomy that asserts that God had chosen the place for his name already at the time of Moses but did not yet identify the location. In turn, the argument presented here helps to explain the reception Deuteronomy enjoyed among both Judeans and Samaritans.

References to the place that God “will choose” (yibḥar) appear twenty-one times in the Masoretic Text (mt) of Deuteronomy.1 The Samaritan Pentateuch (sp) features the perfect verbal form in each of these verses, so that rather than the place God “will choose” it is the place God “has chosen” (baḥar).2 The Dead Sea Scrolls support neither reading because of their fragmentary nature,3 but until recently scholarly consensus has charged the Samaritans with ideological textual revision in changing the verb to the perfectbaḥar, looking back at God’s prior choice of Shechem and Mt. Gerizim, whereas themt preserves the original imperfectyibḥar, looking forward to God’s choice of Jerusalem. However, a recent proposal by Adrian Schenker, accepted already by several scholars, reverses this explanation, labeling themt’s imperfect as the sectarian revision while thesp’s perfect represents the original reading of Deuteronomy. This paper will consider the implications of this argument for the origin and reception of Deuteronomy.

Thesp “emphasizes the central theological tenet of the Samaritans, i.e. the belief in the sanctity of Mt. Gerizim”.4 Traditionally scholars have considered three aspects of thesp to be sectarian as indicating a preference for Gerizim as the place of worship: (1) the location of the altar in Deut 27:4; (2) the perfect formbaḥar in place of themt’s imperfectyibḥar in all twenty-one appearances of the centralization formula in Deuteronomy; and (3) the Samaritan Tenth Commandment in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. While there are other passages that probably also reflect Samaritan ideology,5 these three have featured prominently in the discussion.6

But the tide is turning. No one is suggesting, as far as I have seen, that thesp is not a sectarian text, but some scholars are now questioning whether its main sectarian elements, as just enumerated, are really sectarian. At least, questions surround two out of the three elements just listed; nobody yet questions the sectarian nature of the Samaritan Tenth Commandment.

Deuteronomy 27 commands the Israelites to construct an altar soon after entering the Promised Land. According to themt, this altar should be located on Mt. Ebal (27:4). Themt then presents the fulfillment of this command at the end of Joshua 8, right between the destruction of Ai and the covenant with Gibeon. But the Samaritan version of Deut 27:4 commands the construction of the altar not on Mt. Ebal but on Mt. Gerizim, the holy mountain of the Samaritans. The typical explanation of Samaritan sectarian revision has now given way to the opposite conclusion, that themt’s reading “Ebal” is the sectarian revision of an original “Gerizim” in this verse.7 This view depends on the narrative context and the attestation of this reading in ancient texts. As to context, it makes somewhat more sense to locate the altar on Gerizim, the mountain of blessing, rather than Ebal, the mountain of curse (Deut 11:29; 27:12-13). The textual attestation of the reading “Gerizim” includes not only thesp itself, but also a Greek papyrus manuscript (Pap. Giessen 19),8 a manuscript of the Vetus Latina (at Lyon), and adss fragment announced a few years ago by James Charlesworth.9 This is the preferred reading in Carmel McCarthy’s edition in Biblia Hebraica Quinta, and Magnar Kartveit judges that the scholarly tendency now favors the originality of the Samaritan reading.10 If these scholars are correct, the original form of Deuteronomy commanded the construction of an altar on Gerizim.

Scholars usually have considered the perfect verbal form “has chosen” in the twenty-one appearances of the centralization formula in Deuteronomy to be a clear Samaritan sectarian variant. This reading at one time served as Eugene Ulrich’s prime example for what a “sectarian variant” looks like.11 The alleged motivation for the change was that the Samaritans wanted to turn the focus of Deuteronomy away from Jerusalem and toward their sacred site of Shechem, near Gerizim, chosen from the time of the patriarchs (Gen 12:6; 33:18-20).

But, again, several scholars have recently taken the opposite position, suggesting that in fact thesp, with its perfect verbal form, preserves the original reading and themt’s imperfect verbal form represents the sectarian revision. This position is found in recent works by David Carr, Reinhard Pummer, and Stefan Schorch, but all of these rely on the argumentation put forward in 2008 by Adrian Schenker, who stressed the importance of a number of readings in thelxx textual tradition.12 While Wevers’ edition of Greek Deuteronomy always gives the future verbal form in the text, the apparatus occasionally attests that some manuscripts contain the aorist or similar.13 Schenker highlights these variant readings but also cites other readings not found in the Göttingen apparatus. He shows that twelve occurrences of the formula are attested in the past tense by one or two witnesses.14 Since these past-tense readings are always in the minority in the individual manuscripts, they cannot result from harmonizing activity. The relevant textual witnesses (i.e., the Bohairic, Sahidic, andvl) often exhibit an early, pre-Origenian text,15 none of them depend on thesp, and they are all independent of one another.16

Schenker thus finds that the originallxx had the aorist tense, and he concludes that the reason for this is that the Seventy translators found the perfect verbal form in their HebrewVorlage. According to Schenker, “Elle atteste ainsi la leçon du Sam comme présamaritain”.17 Schenker also highlights Neh 1:8-9:

Remember the word that you commanded your servant Moses, “If you are unfaithful, I will scatter you among the peoples; but if you return to me and keep my commandments and do them, though your outcasts are under the farthest skies, I will gather them from there and bring them to the place at which I have chosen to establish my name”.

Presented as a quotation of God speaking to Moses, these words seem to offer a glimpse at how the Deuteronomic formula was known at the time of Nehemiah’s composition, and it is with the perfect form ofbaḥar.

Thesp, the originallxx, and Neh 1:9 all suggest that Deuteronomy originally contained the perfect form in the centralization command.18 But what place was it that God had chosen? Of course, Jerusalem is not mentioned in Deuteronomy, but there is a place mentioned, a mountain, on which Deuteronomy commands the construction of an altar within the borders of the Promised Land: Gerizim, according to what, as we have seen, many scholars now consider the original reading of Deut 27:4. According to Schenker and those who have followed him, the original text of Deuteronomy enjoins cult centralization at the place God had chosen, which the text identifies as Gerizim. Themt’s future tense in the centralization formula is the ideological correction to allow it now to refer to Jerusalem, chosen by God in the future from the perspective of Deuteronomy. This change in themt would have taken place, according to Schenker, after the translation of thelxx in the early third century.19 Very early thelxx was updated to accord with the revised Hebrew text, so that the non-revised Greek wording survived in only a few marginal witnesses.

According to David Carr:

The original referents to Gerizim in Deuteronomy make sense as relatively early portions of the text, centering the inscription of the Torah in the heartland of the Israelite tribes and ultimately leading to a covenant ceremony at Gerizim and Ebal (Deut 27:12-13). The apparent alterations in the proto-mt of Deuteronomy, in turn, are best set in the context of the destruction of the sanctuary at Mount Gerizim by the Hasmonean John Hyrcanus in 128bce.20

But what does this mean about the origins of Deuteronomy? Schenker himself does not deal extensively with the question, but he does say that the text-critical evidence “stärkt die Auffassung, das Deuteronomium sei ursprünglich in Efraim-Israel beheimatet”.21 Schenker apparently believes that the Deuteronomic centralization formula initially applied to worship in the north.22 Stefan Schorch has developed these ideas further in reliance on Schenker’s work. Schorch imagines, with a number of previous scholars, that Deuteronomy originated in the north and traveled south with the refugees who fled to Judah after Assyria’s destruction of Israel in the late eighth centurybce.23 The appearance of Gerizim in Deut 27:4 convinces Schorch that this text was composed by “a follower of the Gerizim cult, and one may even be inclined to say: a proto-Samaritan”.24

But how did Deuteronomy come to be accepted as authoritative in late seventh-century Judah—not to mention possibly a precipitating factor in the Josianic Reform that had one of its goals the centralization of worship at Jerusalem—when this very document explicitly calls for worship at the northern shrine of Gerizim?25 Certainly Schorch recognizes the problem:

We may imagine that the strong Deuteronomic references to the Gerizim cult must have posed a serious challenge to Judeans. Therefore, we will have to answer the questionwhy and how Deuteronomy was adopted in the South.26

Schorch proposes two answers: first, that the book itself had an inherent authority demanding acceptance; and second, that the reception of Deuteronomy in the south entailed a “re-contextualization” of the book.27 This recontextualization involved connecting Deuteronomy to the Deuteronomistic History with its emphasis on Jerusalem. He highlights 1 Kings 8:16:

Since the day that I brought my people Israel out of Egypt, I have not chosen a city from any of the tribes of Israel in which to build a house, that my name might be there; but I chose David to be over my people Israel.28

Deuteronomy itself, though, still had the perfect formbaḥar in the centralization formula and still had “Gerizim” at 27:4.29 And later, Nehemiah 1:8-9 quoted the centralization formula, complete with perfectbaḥar, and applied it to Jerusalem, even though Gerizim was in the text of Deuteronomy.

Both Schenker and Schorch argue that the proto-mt version of Deuteronomy came into existence only when “Gerizim” was replaced with “Ebal” in 27:4 and the centralization formula was altered from past tense to future tense as part of Hasmonean-era editing. So, we are to imagine Deuteronomy holding an authoritative place among Judeans for perhaps five hundred years with the original wording intact (perfectbaḥar in centralization formula, Gerizim rather than Ebal in 27:4).

This seems to me far-fetched. I can imagine Judeans attributing authority to a northern text containing the notion that God had chosen a special place for his name, but it is hard to imagine a text intending to magnify the Gerizim cult gaining authority in Judah. Who would have promoted such a text? If the Gerizim adherents who brought the text with them promoted it, then how did Deuteronomy come to be seen in Judah as calling for centralization at Jerusalem? If the Gerizim adherents switched their loyalty to Jerusalem and promoted their text on this basis, why did they not also at this time feel it necessary to revise the location of the altar at 27:4, which, according to the theory under examination, called for centralized worship at Gerizim?

The problem is not the past-tense formbaḥar; the problem is Gerizim. Without the command to build an altar on Gerizim, the text could easily have been read in Judah as indicating that God had already at the time of Moses made his choice of a place where his name would dwell, just without yet identifying the place. Judeans would naturally read such a text as referring to God’s prior choice of Jerusalem. Nehemiah 1:9 affirms this precisely.30 But Deut 27 could not have been read in Judah as revealing the name of God’s chosen place, and surely Judeans never have read that chapter in such a way. Two possibilities suggest themselves. It may be that Deut 27 was interpreted as referring to Gerizim as the first in a series of central cultic sites culminating in Jerusalem. Several scholars have in fact argued that Deuteronomy’s centralization formula means precisely that, that God would choose a series of cultic sites, and they can cite for this reading some biblical passages indicating that God had done that very thing: Psalm 78:60-68; 2Kings 23:27; Jeremiah 7:14-16. Gerhard von Rad mentions the cult at Shechem (Josh 8:30-35) and then at Shiloh (Jer 7:12) before asserting “that the interpretation of the centralizing formula was by no means restricted to Jerusalem”.31 The majority of scholars have read Deuteronomy as indicating that God chooses a single, permanent central sanctuary, and Schorch agrees with this assessment.32 But he does recognize that some passages attest “the concept of the succession of several chosen places”, culminating in Jerusalem, and he thinks that this was one of the ways that the Judeans understood Deuteronomy’s instructions.

Following this succession theory, Judeans could accept that Mount Gerizim was one of the chosen places of the past, while Jerusalem was the chosen place of the present and the future.33

A second, and on the whole more likely, way that Judeans may have read Deuteronomy is without any explicit reference to the location of the altar. While scholars tend these days to accept Gerizim as the original text of Deut 27:4, a perhaps better reconstruction of the text was proposed by Ulrich based on a comparison of 4QJosha with themt,sp,lxx, and Josephus (a.j. 5.20; cf.a.j. 5.69). Given the textual uncertainty of Deut 27:4 and the movability of the pericope relating the construction of this altar—appearing at the end of Josh 8 in themt, after Josh 9:2 inlxx, apparently after Josh 4 in 4QJosha—Ulrich proposed that Deut 27:4 originally specified no location, but merely commanded the erection of an altar following the Israelite crossing of the Jordan. Later the Samarians inserted Gerizim in the text to legitimize their own cult, and then the Judeans inserted Ebal in an anti-Samarian move.34 Such a reconstruction makes a great deal of sense, not least in regard to the textual evidence at our disposal. It also removes the problem as to how Judeans received Deuteronomy as authoritative when the text magnified a foreign cult. The place was, in fact, unnamed, and Judeans assumed a reference to Jerusalem.

Accepting Ulrich’s reconstruction of Deut 27:4 would mean that the location of the place God had chosen was originally ambiguous in Deuteronomy. Gary Knoppers has recently argued that this ambiguity was intentional, aiming to unite disparate groups with diverse cultic loyalties.35 Regardless of whether it was intentional, the ambiguity inherent in Deuteronomy with regard to the chosen place certainly played a role in the ancient reception of the text. Deuteronomy never names Jerusalem. The identification of Jerusalem as the chosen place appears most explicitly in Kings, beginning in 1 Kings 8 at the dedication of the Temple.36 The Samarians, whose biblical canon ends with Deuteronomy, understood the chosen place to be Gerizim, perhaps because this was Deuteronomy’s mountain of blessing (11:29; 27:12).37 At a later stage in the text’s history they probably inserted a reference to Gerizim as the location for the altar in Deut 27:4 in order to make the text more explicit. Dating such an addition is difficult, but it would probably have followed the construction of the Gerizim sanctuary in the fifth centurybce.38 Deuteronomy’s original ambiguity allowed both groups to receive it as authoritative.

This argument eliminates the necessity of locating the origins of Deuteronomy in the north. The text-critical conclusions surveyed here neither require nor disallow such a scenario. The original provenance of Deuteronomy will have to be established in reliance on other evidence.

The Judeans were content for several centuries to leave the centralization formula in the perfect tense. The change to the imperfect tense happened only after thelxx translation, as Schenker has shown that this translation originally contained past-tense forms in the centralization formula. During these centuries there were undoubtedly tensions between Judeans and Samarians, but scholars now tend to minimize these tensions.39 It seems that relations were much more amicable than previously acknowledged. Some evidence suggests that they could regard each other’s place of worship as legitimate, from the non-pejorative reference to Gerizim at 2 Macc 6:2 to the permission granted by the Judean and Samarian authorities to reconstruct the temple at Elephantine.40 This more cordial picture of Judean and Samarian relations in the Persian and Hellenistic periods may help to explain how the recently revealed Deuteronomy text with the reading “Gerizim” ended up at Qumran, or why a text with this reading served as the basis for thelxx translation.41 The late date (after the Greek translation) of the grammatical change in the centralization formula locates it during a time of heightened tension between the two groups, represented especially by John Hyrcanus’ destruction of the Gerizim sanctuary. Thus, the change from perfect to imperfect no doubt was motivated by anti-Samarian polemic. The imperfect would not have pointed the centralization command unequivocally to Jerusalem, but it may have sufficed to point it away from Gerizim. After all, Gerizim was named in the text (Deut 11:29; 27:12), and if God had not yet at the time of Moses made his choice of a special habitation then no place in the text could credibly lay claim to the title. The Judean addition of “Mt. Ebal” at 27:4 probably occurred almost simultaneously with the change of tense in the centralization command and would have been similarly motivated, with the result that the Judean text commands construction of the altar not on any site particularly meaningful to the Judeans but rather on the only other mountain in the Promised Land already mentioned in the text.

To summarize, it seems likely that the original text of Deuteronomy indicated that God had already at the time of Moses chosen a place for his name to dwell, but the text never specified this location. Judeans understood Jerusalem to be that place, and Neh 1:9 attests the view that at least some Judeans thought that God had chosen Jerusalem from the Mosaic period. The Samarians applied the chosen place to Gerizim, linking this location to the mountain of blessing in Deuteronomy. At some point, two changes appeared in the text. Samarians inserted Gerizim into Deut 27:4 to specify the location of the altar in an effort to magnify their own sanctuary. This text, with Gerizim at 27:4 and with past tensebaḥar in the centralization formula, was translated into Greek in the third centurybce. Then the Judeans replaced Gerizim with Ebal at 27:4, and they altered the centralization formula to the future tense in order to clarify that God’s chosen place was not any location named in Deuteronomy but was only revealed later, at the time of Solomon. These changes may have coincided with Hyrcanus’ destruction of the Gerizim sanctuary in the late second centurybce.42

1 Deut 12:5, 11, 14, 18, 21, 26; 14:23, 24, 25; 15:20; 16:2, 6, 7, 11, 15, 16; 17:8, 10; 18:6; 26:2; 31:11.

2 On thesp, see R. Pummer, “The Samaritans and Their Pentateuch”, in G. N. Knoppers and B. M. Levinson (eds.), The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance (Winona Lake, Ind., 2007), pp. 237-269.

3 The closest the Dead Sea Scrolls come to attesting the relevant reading is at Deut 12:5 (4QpaleoDeutr frg. 16) and 14:25 (1QDeuta frg. 12), but in both cases only the last two letters of our word are preserved, not the crucial first part of the word.

4 R. Pummer,The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus (tsaj 129 Tübingen, 2009), p. 24. The issue of terminology, whether we should speak of Samarians or Samaritans, is a difficult one; see G. N. Knoppers,Jews and Samaritans: The Origins and History of Their Early Relations (New York, 2013), pp. 14-17. I have not found it possible or helpful to strive for complete consistency.

5 See R. T. Anderson and T. Giles,The Samaritan Pentateuch: An Introduction to Its Origin, History, and Significance for Biblical Studies (Atlanta, 2010), pp. 89-103; J. Margain, “Samaritain (Pentateuque)”,DBSup vol. 11, coll. 762-773.

6 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.

7 M. Kartveit,The Origins of the Samaritans (VTSup 128 Leiden, 2009), pp. 300-309; D. Carr,The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction (Oxford, 2011), p. 168. Cf. E. Tov,Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (3rd ed.; Minneapolis, 2012), p. 88 n. 140, who judges that the Samaritan reading “should probably be considered non-sectarian and possibly original”. For the view that the reading is a Samaritan ideological revision, see already W. Gesenius,De Pentateuchi Samaritani origine, indole et auctoritate: commentatio philologica-critica (Halle, 1815), p. 61 at §16.V; more recently R. D. Nelson,Deuteronomy: A Commentary (otl; Louisville, 2002), p. 314.

8 On the religious provenance of Pap. Giessen 19, see now A. Schenker, “Textgeschichtliches zum Samaritanischen Pentateuch und Samareitikon: Zur Textgeschichte des Pentateuchs im 2. Jh. v.Chr”, in M. Mor and F. V. Reiterer (eds.), Samaritans: Past and Present. Current Studies (Berlin, 2010), pp. 108-113. On the Samareitikon, see also R. Pummer, “The Greek Bible and the Samaritans”,réj 157 (1998), pp. 269-358.

9 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”.

10 C. McCarthy, ed.,Deuteronomy (bhq fasc. 5; Stuttgart, 2007), p. 75, cf. pp. 122-23; cf. eadem, “Samaritan Pentateuch Readings in Deuteronomy”, in C. McCarthy and J. F. Healey (eds.),Biblical and Near Eastern Essays: Studies in Honour of Kevin J. Cathcart (London, 2004), p. 125, where she leaves the matter open; Kartveit,Origin, p. 302. This reading earlier received support in R. H. Pfeiffer,Introduction to the Old Testament (rev. ed.; New York, 1948), pp. 101-2 (citing still earlier literature); O. Eissfeldt,The Old Testament: An Introduction (New York, 1965), p. 216 with n. 9; and p. 695.

11 E. Ulrich, “The Absence of ‘Sectarian Variants’ in the Jewish Scriptural Scrolls Found at Qumran”, in E. D. Herbert and E. Tov (eds.), The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries (New Castle, Del., 2002), p. 181; cf. Tov,Textual Criticism, p. 88.

12 A. Schenker, “Le Seigneur choisira-t-il le lieu de son nom ou l’a-t-il choisi? l’apport de la Bible grecque ancienne à l’histoire du texte samaritain et massorétique”, in A. Voitila and J. Jokiranta (eds.), Scripture in Transition: Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo (Leiden, 2008), pp. 339-351; idem, “Textgeschichtliches zum Samaritanischen Pentateuch”, pp. 105-121; S. Schorch, “The Samaritan Version of Deuteronomy and the Origin of Deuteronomy”, in J. Zsengellér (ed.), Samaria, Samarians, Samaritans: Studies on Bible, History and Linguistics (Berlin, 2011), pp. 23-37; Carr,Formation of the Hebrew Bible, p. 168; J. Dušek,Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions from Mt. Gerizim and Samaria between Antiochus III and Antiochus IV Epiphanes (Leiden, 2012), p. 90; Pummer,Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, pp. 24-25. This represents a change in Pummer’s view (under the influence of Schenker) from that presented in “The Samaritans and Their Pentateuch”, p. 244.

13 J. W. Wevers (ed.),Deuteronomium (Septuaginta 3/2; Göttingen, 1977); cf., e.g., the apparatus at Deut 12:5, p. 174.

14 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.

15 lxx ms 72 gives a mixed text, andlxx ms 16 gives a text characteristic of thecatenae.

16 Schenker, “Le Seigneur”, p. 347.

17 Schenker, “Le Seigneur”, p. 348.

18 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.

19 Schenker, “Le Seigneur”, p. 350.

20 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.

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

22 See Schenker, “Le Seigneur”, p. 349.

23 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.

24 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.

25 Not all scholars are convinced of the relationship between Deuteronomy and Josiah’s Reform; see recently E. Nicholson, “Reconsidering the Provenance of Deuteronomy”,zaw 124 (2012), pp. 538-540.

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

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

28 mt. Note the fuller reading in 4QKgs indjd 14, pp. 171-83 (ed. J. Trebolle Barrera), partially preserved in theog of our verse and paralleled in 2 Chr 6:5-6. I thank E. Ulrich for pointing me to this variant and for other helpful comments he made on a late draft of this paper.

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

30 S. Schorch, “Which Bible, Whose Text? Biblical Theologies in Light of the Textual History of the Hebrew Bible”, in H. Assel et al. (eds.),Beyond Biblical Theologies (Tübingen, 2012), pp. 359-374, considers this to be a way some Judeans read the text (pp. 372-373); cf. idem, “Samaritan Version of Deuteronomy”, p. 32; Schenker, “Textgeschichtliches zum Samaritanischen Pentateuch”, p. 115.

31 G. von Rad,Deuteronomy: A Commentary (otl; Philadelphia, 1966), p. 94; see also Lundbom,Deuteronomy, p. 426; S. Richter, “The Place of the Name in Deuteronomy”,vt57 (2007), p. 366.

32 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.

33 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.

34 E. Ulrich, “4QJoshuaa and Joshua’s First Altar in the Promised Land”, in G. J. Brooke (ed.),New Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Paris 1992 (stdj 15 Leiden, 1994), pp. 89-104; idem, “4QJosha,”djd 14.143-52 (with plates XXXII-XXXIV). After surveying the various interpretations, A. Lange,Handbuch, pp. 197-198, sides with Ulrich; Knoppers,Jews and Samaritans, 203 n. 83, considers Ulrich’s reconstruction plausible (see also p. 204). Kristin De Troyer regards theog as the earliest witness, the Qumran scroll as the latest; “Building the Altar and Reading the Law: The Journeys of Joshua 8:30-35”, in K. De Troyer and A. Lange (eds.),Reading the Present in the Qumran Library: The Perception of the Contemporary by Means of Scriptural Interpretations (Atlanta, 2005), pp. 141-162. M. N. van der Meer,Formation and Reformulation: The Redaction of the Book of Joshua in the Light of the Oldest Textual Witnesses (VTSup 102 Leiden, 2004), argues for themt arrangement, suggesting that 4QJosha did not transpose the passage but rather duplicated a part of it (the reading of Torah) because the redactor of this scroll interpreted Deut 27 as issuing two commands (p. 513); E. Noort, “The Traditions of Ebal and Gerizim: Theological Positions in the Book of Joshua”, in M. Vervenne and J. Lust (eds.), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C. H. W. Brekelmans (betl 133 Leuven, 1997), p. 170, thinks the reading Ebal may be original, based partly on archaeology.

35 Knoppers,Jews and Samaritans, p. 212.

36 1 Kings 8:16, 44, 48; 11:13, 32, 36; 14:21; 2 Kings 21:7; 23:27.

37 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.

38 Ulrich, “4QJosha”, p. 146, says that it makes sense “either as an ancient northern claim or as a late Samaritan claim”.

39 See most recently Knoppers,Jews and Samaritans, which argues this position extensively.

40 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.

41 For an argument that Samarians were involved in the original translation project, see J. Joosten, “Septuagint andSamareitikon”, inFrom Author to Copyist: The Composition, Redaction and Transmission of the Hebrew Bible (ed. C. Werman; Winona Lake, Ind., forthcoming), preliminary version available online athttps://www.academia.edu/4142538/_Septuagint_and_Samareitikon_.

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

  • 6

    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.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    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”.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    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.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Schenker, “Le Seigneur”, p. 347.

  • 17

    Schenker, “Le Seigneur”, p. 348.

  • 18

    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.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Schenker, “Le Seigneur”, p. 350.

  • 20

    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.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

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

  • 22

    See Schenker, “Le Seigneur”, p. 349.

  • 23

    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.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    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.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26

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

  • 27

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

  • 29

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

  • 32

    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.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33

    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.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35

    Knoppers,Jews and Samaritans, p. 212.

  • 37

    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.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 40

    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.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 42

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

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 271 81 3
Full Text Views 283 20 0
PDF Views & Downloads 122 46 0