stephan huller

And poor Samaritans. For centuries no one took their reading even seriously. Peoiple can dismiss my interest in the Marcionites and say it's speculative. Fair enough. But the Samaritans? Go to Holon in what used to be called 'Mark town' (seriously) and any scholar could meet one of these historical curiosities. But they don't they just stick by this absurd Jewish interpretation of a text which was clearly written with Gerizim at its center. Just look at all the topographical references for crying out loud. The Torah has NOTHING, NOTHING to do with a Judaic cult. And yet hundreds of thousands of books have been written 'assuming' the Jews were right and that God didn't like the Samaritans.

It's ridiculous.

But re-read the Torah again with fresh eyes with an interest only to topography and you will plainly see, the text was written with Gerizim as the focal point of the cultus. It's impossible to miss. Ebal is like the cross-eyed ugly sister (even though it is actually a taller 'mountain'). The Samaritans explain this curiously (or did) with the claim that the top of the mountain is missing. Seriously. I think it is the origin of the heavenly Jerusalem concept. The top of the mountain left because people were sinful and will return in better days. So now all we have is this rather unimpressive holy hill (although still a lot more impressive than 'mount' Zion.

stephan huller

And going back to the article by this Hoffman characeter in Haaretz. Has ever even read any Samaritan literature? Where the fuck does he get this stupid comment:

'pseudo-Kabbalist' masters? Has he ever read the Mimar? At least numerology is limited by the values of the letters in a word. Marqe's kabbalah is WAY WAY WAY out there. I am talking pictogram comic books with the letters of a word. Anyway, I don't think this will interest anyone so I will stop here ...

hjalti

stephan, I don't get why you are so angered by his comment. Surely he's just saying that if we realise that the OT we have isn't 100% the original, then this bible-code nonsense can't be correct.

stephan huller

I am not mad. You're right. I misunderstood the context of his statement. Thanks

Toto

maybe not related - Good Samaritans

hjalti

Maybe not very related, but hilarious:

stephan huller

Three quick bits of trivia. 1) as I am sure many know there is no qualifying adjective 'good' in the gospel narrative. He is simply 'a Samaritan.'

2) Origen preserves an interpretation from memory of the parable where Jesus is the victim and 'Christ' is the Samaritan.

3) for what it's worth the Samaritans have preserved a hostile tradition treating the name 'Yeshu' (Jesus) as an acronym the exact wording escapes me just now but translated to 'if you see him hang him.' I will try and remember it today. The Jews have something similar.

Stuck in traffic.

stephan huller

Actually in the Jewish one the letters correspond to the abbreviation (יש"ו) for the Hebrew expression ימח שמו וזכרו (yimmach shemo vezikhro), meaning "May his name and memory be blotted out." The Samaritan one is different

bacht

question: When (if ever) did the ark of the covenant end up in Jerusalem?

stephan huller

I have never taken up the issue or even considered the fact that the original ark of the covenant survived into the Second Commonwealth period to be honest. There were three temples existing contemporary with one another - the one at Gerizim, Jerusalem and Alexandria (which scholars identify as being at Heliopolis because of Josephus). It would seem impossible to believe that each one of these buildings could have claimed to have had the original artifact. To this end it would be hard to believe that the existence of houses of God depended on possessing relics associated with the Exodus. Indeed I can't see how such an object would have survived the Babylonian captivity or how and when it was returned to any one of these places.

Indeed (from memory) Josephus account admittedly confused account of a Samaritan leader claiming to find hidden relics associated with the original Israelites would imply at least that sacred objects had disappeared in the contemporary age

The man who excited them to it was one who thought lying a thing of little consequence, and who contrived every thing so that the multitude might be pleased; so he bid them to get together upon Mount Gerizzim, which is by them looked upon as the most holy of all mountains, and assured them, that when they were come thither, he would show them those sacred vessels which were laid under that place, because Moses put them there. [Ant 18:2]

The Samaritan Chronicler Abul Fath relates of another confused account of an individual called 'Sakta' (booths) who had some association with the tabernacle. The history is very confused in all accounts it is very difficult to make sense of any of it with any degree of accuracy.