Toto

Nothing was deleted except for some duplicated urls.

DCHindley

Oh, OK, you got me! <whimper>

So, I stand corrected, you linked to four articles.

The first was the article "The Samaritan Pentateuch", published in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1915),

The second is a self-published web page on the Samaritan Pentateuch by Mark Shoulson, an IT/Computer Engineer who reads Hebrew (last updated 2008), and has published a book comparing the Hebrew texts of the Jewish and Samaritan Pentateuchs,

The third was an article on Samaritans published in the Jewish Encyclopedia (1905) and

The fourth is a Stanford University genetic research project published under the name "Reconstruction of Patrilineages and Matrilineages of Samaritans and Other Israeli Populations From Y-Chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA Sequence Variation" in the journal HUMAN MUTATION 24:248-260 (2004) - and since Rick's link is a dry hole, here is a link to a PDF of the paper.

BTW, that is quite a chip you have on your shoulder. If you keep up the attitude, I predict you will soon be banned for trolling. All we're asking is that you clearly identify your sources of info (we all can do it, really) instead of posting links - one of which was dead and also incorrect (the one on y-Chromosomes), and in summarizing them not overstate their conclusions.

DCH

judge

1.Is that reseach paper peer reviewed?

From the paper:
2.Do we have evidence that the Assyrians conquered the Northern Kingdom in 721 B.C. ?

spamandham

Ok, so your point is that every male Cohen for the past 3400 years has had a Y chromosome. Thanks for the biology brief.

spin

This theory is based on a facile reading of the Letter of Aristeas which dates the translation of Hebrew literature to the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, though the story in the letter is not historical, as it still has Demetrius of Phalerum in power, though he was sent into exile when the new king ascended to the throne. Aristeas is not a historical work, so it is no help for dating the Hebrew literature. It's legendary content is now ascribed to pseudo-Aristeas.

The relevant literature from Qumran is not denominated "Samaritan", but "proto-Samaritan". The problem of terminology arises from F.M. Cross's far too simplistic understanding of the range of literature at Qumran. There was a wide range of biblical literature traditions featured at Qumran. There are forms of Hebrew which reflect what would become the Greek forms, others that would become the Samaritan, others that would become the Massoretic, and others that clearly feature either a mixture or other stylistic elements as well. Check out Eugene Ulrich, "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (or via: amazon.co.uk)", Eerdmans/Brill, 1999.

Thank you for supplying the citation. I'll certainly give it a good read, though I can say now that it doesn't quite tell the story you seem to think it does.

Your theory of "the Torah/Samaritan story" itself isn't based on any demonstrable facts, just assertions and unspelled out theories.

And your other assertions don't cut it either.


spin

judge

Delete

DCHindley

Per the publisher's blurb:

Human Mutation is a peer-reviewed journal that offers publication of original Research Articles, Methods, Mutation Updates, Reviews, Database Articles, Mutations in Brief (MIBs), Rapid Communications, and Letters on broad aspects of mutation research in humans. Reports of novel DNA variations and their phenotypic consequences, reports of SNPs demonstrated as valuable for genomic analysis, descriptions of new molecular detection methods, and novel approaches to clinical diagnosis are welcomed. Novel reports of gene organization at the genomic level, reported in the context of mutation investigation, may be considered. The journal provides a unique forum for the exchange of ideas, methods, and applications of interest to molecular, human, and medical geneticists in academic, industrial, and clinical research settings worldwide.

DCH

semiopen

Rick, I'm still confused about your dating of the Torah.

In at least one case it is 3400 years, in another you say it diverged.

My sense of what happened is that for quite awhile after the Babylonian Exile the Samaritans assimilated Judean additions into theirs. A specific example is passover. Other examples would include Genesis 1.

You implied LXX was better aligined with the Samaritan Torah (sorry if I misunderstood). If that's the case there are many digs at the Northern tribes; consider the story of Joseph.

He is portrayed as effeminate. I read one interesting commentary where the other suggested that the Torah Trope where he says no to Potiphar's wife implies a different interpretation of the scene. The commentary suggests that his time in jail was divine punishment for not schtuping her like most normal boys would have.

The point is that the Torah has many digs at Israel. Sorry, I haven't read the Samaritan Torah, but from what you've said there doesn't apear to be many differences between between it and LXX.

Perhaps you OP is has too many different aspects to be kept under control.

The CMH link in these guys is interesting, but the population is small. The Kohanim would probably have gone into exile with the nobles after the Assyrians conquered the country. The remaining population would have been lower class and mixed with both the new settlers as well as Judeans. The current Ashkenazai Jewish population is not really Palestinian in origin, the claims of a forced diaspora in the Common Era being quite dubious.

Therefore, I'm not sure what the point is, these people are Palestinian.

Keith&Co.

Um...maybe i'm missing something.

If one of these perfect Samaritan wives cheated on her husband with one of the 100% Samaritans (not her husband), or the 60% or the 13% of the Jews that had the Cohen gene, and produced male offspring of that pairing, say five generations back, then the modern generation would still show that 100% of the males had the Cohen gene as you'd expect if she DIDN'T play Mr. Wobbly Hides His Helmet with someone outside the conjugal bed. Right?

Or if she dallied and produced a daughter, who then had a son by a Samaritan, then the results would be the same, from a genetic test, as if she'd kept her legs together.

So, the idea that genetics gives us an incontestable claim of 3400 years of fidelity isn't really,....what's the scientific term? Worth a crap?

We'd actually need 3400 years of genetic information to compare parents to offspring to be sure that they never cheated. (Although, that would only be evidence that none of them cheated with and produced a child. Not quite the same...)

Oh, well, if you want to claim that you're sure, you can always just make the statement and call any critics idiots or ignorant or whatever. But if you're going to pretend your claims are supported by evidence, you need to show actual evidence for the claims, not the opinions.

And for most of those 170 generations, the genetic evidence available is (cue Church Lady)... Could it be...silence?

semiopen

The argument for fidelity has also been made with the Jewish Kohanim. The idea is that only a small rate of Mamzer production (from non CMH bearing males) would have obliderated the CMH. I'm not so sure about this but maybe; the actual bearing of mamzers is different than just hanky panky.

The mutation rate of the Haplotype is used to determine the number of generations to the MRCA (Most Recent Common Ancestor). The Samaritan mutation rate seems very low. It may be possible that the current Samaritans go back only as far as their geneologies go or about 400 years... just a guess.

Regarding Y-chromosomal_Aaron which I posted earlier.

Most of this stuff is too difficult for me but 2400 - 300 = 2100 which is about the time of Jesus. 2400 + 300 = 2700 or about the time of the defeat of Israel. How Zadok and King David get into the discussion is anyone's guess.

Also the discussion of the tribe of Levi is strange. My opinion (shared by some others) is that Levi wasn't really a tribe, just guys interested in doing religious stuff who could come from anywhere.

One would think that after the amount of time that has passed genetic research would be a little clearer, but I think the number of geneology companies that keep stuff secret or have an economic advantage in telling their customers that they are directly descended from Aaron contributes to this.