stephan huller

Which is consistent with Pauline thought elsewhere in the apostolic writings. Where did this idea originate? Whatever the case it seems centrally rooted in the loss of sacredness in a/the traditional sanctuaries. People overlook this when they interpret the material - especially John chapter 4. We see 'Judaism' in terms of post-destruction and/or the Hadrianic ban from setting foot in Palestine (= the galut). Up until a certain point in the Israelite culture 'the story' of the people assumed that the Patriarchs 'happened' the Jews were liberated from Egypt and then with Joshua's crossing of the Jordan a new chapter in the lives of the people of Israel began. The Samaritans and Jews once believed together that Gerizim was that sacred place. Then the apostasy of Shilo, and then after the Exile the eventual rise of Jerusalem as a rival cultic center.

With the Common Era Christianity necessarily assumes that 'the holy place' (whatever that was) was no longer holy. If Christianity began as a specifically Jerusalem-based Jewish sect that means Jerusalem, if it was rooted in Samaritanism it took its origin from the Dositheans (as Pseudo-Tertullian seems to echo). It could be a combination of the two. Who the fuck knows.

The bottom line however is that while we take for granted the loss of sacredness the idea is at the heart of these statements. The Christians not sacrificing and not venerating Gerizim, Shechem, Jerusalem or whatever are together a temple. This is important. Could this point of view have developed while the Jerusalem temple was still operational? In my mind, not if Christianity was a specifically Jewish sect but then again we know so little, my opinion is worthless. My guess however or my sense is that this notion of - you don't have to have a 'somewhere' to venerate God is key to understanding and dating Christianity - either to any time after the destruction of the Samaritan sanctuary (c. 110 BCE) if a Samaritan sect and a date to be determined by people smarter than me if a specifically Jewish sect.

Note that the Epistle to the Hebrews has often been argued to be a Samaritan composition because of the reference to the end of sacrifices. this can be resolved however if a date after 70 CE is argued for the composition.

Jeffrey Gibson

It has? And often?? By whom?? Names please


Jeffrey

stephan huller

My teacher I R M Boid for starters (one of the only scholars respected by the Samaritans themselves). The Samaritan connection has been discussed by many people both inside and outside of the study of Samaritanism. Knox is most often associated with the idea - Knox, E. A., "The Samaritans and the Epistle to the Hebrews." The Churchman n.s. 41 (1927) 184-193. Most other studies cite him but the idea is basically accepted in some form by most Samaritanologists. See also Trotter, Robert J. F. Did the Samaritans of the Fourth Century Know the Epistle to the Hebrews? LUOSMS 1. Leeds: Leeds University Oriental Society, 1961.

stephan huller

A recent conversation with an anonymous - but highly respected native Samaritan scholar - about the relative worth of various scholars of Samaritanism:

This took place this week on Facebook. The basic problem - aside from Crown being dense - is that he can't read Arabic. Since most Samaritan materials are preserved in Arabic, it would be like being a virgin sex educator or a driving instructor who only knew how to ride a bicycle. A similar situation exists with MacDonald's English translation of the Mimar - could read Arabic but not Aramaic so it's mostly useless.

Jeffrey Gibson

Which ones?


The issue isn't how often he is cited, but how often he is agreed with. And if you've done any real reading in the literature on Hebrews, let alone the major commentaries on it (e.g. those of Attridge, Andriessen, Bénétreau, Bleek, Bonsirven, Braun, Ellingworth, Feld, Grässer, Grosheide, Haering, Hegermann, Héring, Hughes, Ketter, Koester, Lane, Klijn, Médebielle, Michel, Montefiore, Schlatter, Strathmann, Windisch) Spicq, Bruce, Lane, Attridge, , it ain't much.


So we must have different ideas about what the word "often" means.

See the review of the thesis in The Epistle to the Hebrews:Its Background of Thought by L.D. Hurst.

Wow. So a group's knowing Hebrews is the same thing as Hebrews originating from that group?

Jeffrey

stephan huller

But how many of these people actually studied the Samaritan tradition in any depth? It's like citing all the scholars who think that Marcion corrupted Luke or who hold to a whole host of opinions merely because they haven't considered all the possibilities.

No its not. It has to do with accepting the limitations of people's experiences and knowledge base. The argument that Hebrews has or does not have anything to do with the Samaritans cannot be settled by people who haven't spend the time to study the Samaritan sources themselves.

stephan huller

And if I understand your criticism of my original post, it has to do with the word 'often':

This is a relative term because I tend to have associations with people who have interest in Samaritanism and read books and articles related to Samaritanism. You seem to read different books. As my interest in rooted more in Samaritanism than in New Testament literature, I use the word 'often' and you take exception to that term. But it is 'often' enough from my perspective to be properly designated as 'often.'

Jeffrey Gibson

Now you are shifting the goal post. The original claim was that "the Epistle to the Hebrews has often been argued to be a Samaritan composition (because of the reference to the end of sacrifices")

And BTW, so far as I can see, the reference to the end of sacrifices (in Hebrews?? in the Temple?? does Hebrews actually speak of this? or is to their efficacy?) is not the reason, let alone one among the reasons, that Knox and McDonald and Isser and then Scobie have claimed to be a Samaritan composition have done so. And even Knox admitted that there were grave problems with the idea.

Have you actually read him?

Jeffrey

stephan huller

I think it should be obvious what I was saying in the post:

1. the opinion I cite is from I R M Boid
2. the follow up post was to demonstrate his credibility with Samaritans
3. he referred me to Knox's opinion
4. Knox's opinion has come up in discussions and texts related to the Samaritans

The fact that Boid thought it was possible and plausible was good enough for me. There are simply too many things to read and not enough time. Considering Boid is respected by people I respect (Schiffman praised him recently to me in a conversation I had just before the Golb verdict remembering that he dedicate one of his books to his ex-wife and laughed). That means to me it is probably a reasonable position considering Boid is a reasonable and learned man.

Jeffrey Gibson

That's like saying that because alien abductions is something frequently spoken of by UFO nuts, that it is spoken about often in the larger community of those who are interested in the issue of the possibility of extraterrestrial life.

If your intent was to make the limited claim that you are now making ("often vis a vis the small group to which you belong") you should have initially made that claim rather than the more global one (implying all Hebrews scholars) that you made.

Careful, Stephen, your petulance is showing again.

Jeffrey