Talk:Samaritan Pentateuch/Archive 1

Archive 1

Link

Quite a lot of information about the textual variants of the Samarian text was obtained from the Dead Sea scrolls. This should be included. --Zero 03:01, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I added a link to my page which discusses the differences between the Samaritan version and other versions. Would it be appropriate to link to my book which shows the two texts side-by-side with differences highlighted? (http://web.meson.org/religion/torahcompare.php)

Also, the image shown labeled "Samaritan Pentateuch" is in Samaritan writing—but it isn't the Pentateuch. In fact, it looks like the language is actually Arabic and not Hebrew (might be Aramaic). I'm not sure about that, but it definitely doesn't read like any part of the Pentateuch I've seen. Clsn 02:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Info on other page

Here's some info on Bible conspiracy page: AnonMoos 08:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Samaritans hold that the Talmud was merely the attempt of those taken into the Babylonian Captivity to reassert their political authority over those Hebrews who remained in Judah, and also that they contaminated Judaism with Zoroastrianism; Samaritans view Ezra as the great corrupter of scripture (rather than the great restorer). The Samaritans have their own version of the first six books of the Bible, with the first five being known by scholars as the Samaritan Pentateuch, showing many variations from the masoretic text of the Torah (which is used by non-Samaritan Jews, and which is a major basis for most Christian Bible translations). A few of these differences are related to Samaritan beliefs (such as changing the roles of Gerizim and Ebal), while most are due to small spelling regularizations and modernizations of archaic or difficult-to-understand Hebrew forms in the Samaritan text (as opposed to the Masoretic text, where there was much more emphasis on lectio difficilior). However, the Samaritan text is still an important resource for Biblical textual scholars, since it is an early independent witness to the history of the Biblical text (there has been little or no influence or harmonization between Samaritan and Jewish text versions since before the Maccabee period).

Stolen scrolls not mentioned

Hostage Scrolls:

The Samaritans, now reduced to only 600 people, must come up with a million dollars in ransom to get their holy books back. The two scrolls, said to be 700 and 400 years old respectively, were stolen from a Samaritan synagogue in the West Bank city of Nablus over three years ago. The thieves spirited the scrolls out of the country, and only recently did they surface in Amman, Jordan, where they were viewed by Samaritan elders. It is believed that they were stolen by a person who was familiar with where they were kept. Most of the Samaritans live on the mountaintop above Nablus, which is their holiest site. It is there, they believe, that God commanded Abraham to offer his son Isaac in sacrifice. Quoted from Watching the world, Awake magazine! --Anaccuratesource (talk) 02:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the accuracy of the story. See the version here which says "Three years ago, I returned to the Samaritan village. The old High Priest had died, but other villagers told me that the stolen scrolls had been returned. No ransom, they said, had been paid." In any case Awake is not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. Zero^talk 06:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I actually discussed with Mr. Ben Tsedaka:

Dear...,

"The number of the Israelite Samaritans is now nearly 750. 400 in Holon, south of Telaviv, Israel and 350 in Kiriat Luza, Mount Gerizim, Samaria.

The stolen Torah's are in the hand of a Saurian prince who bought them from the thieves. He demands $M7 as ransom.

I am a member chancellor of the Michigan State University committee that started digitizing the Samaritan ancient manuscripts.

Fondly,

Benny" - Oct 11, 2009

Fondly, Benny" - Oct 11, 2009 --Anaccuratesource (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Needs more sources

The sections at the end, "Support for the Samaritan text" and "Support for the Masoretic Text" need more fleshing out. The first only references one author and the second only references a Dead Sea Scroll, which would basically be original research except maybe sources could be found discussing these comparisons. The names of the sections could probably be changed as well. I fixed a link to one of the references and some capitalization, but someone who has access to good sources will need to fix the rest. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Page move

section heading made more neutral May 2009 page move conducted without discussion, against Google Scholar usage

• Samaritan Torah 78 hits
• Samaritan Pentateuch 2460 hits

In ictu oculi (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no real problem with the move back to SP, but, it would have been nice if we had a discussion on the Talk page before-hand, particularly as: a) you cite the lack of discussion as part of your motivation; b) if the move from SP to ST was in 2009 (2, almost 3? years ago) it didn't seem to bother too many people between then and now (so there must have been some general support for it being ST instead of SP). As I said, I don't really have any problems with it being at SP, just wanted to call attention to the lack of discussion before-hand and some thoughts connected to that. — al-Shimoni (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Imeriki al-Shimoni. Your comment very welcome. You're correct yes, I should have given more than that 80 minutes warning before moving the page back. It's more that the WP:RS 2460 to 78 is so clearly in favour of the normal academic title, and no apparent activity on Talk, it seemed after 80 min work it was best to just close and move on.... I probably should have left for 48 hours, but it was all flagged in advanced and sourced. And I'm very happy/open to hear discussion if anyone's interested. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The Talk page attracts new threads at the rate of about one a year. Might have a long wait. PiCo (talk) 12:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

True, not the busiest of articles. — al-Shimoni (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Abisha Scroll and Samaritan Scriptures

Everyone familiar with the subject writes about the Abisha Scroll and or the Samaritans that are only a small group of the descendants of the Samaritans, but no one presents the Abisha Scroll or Samaritan Scriptures for reading. Does anyone know where I can get an accurate digital copy and or a printed copy of the Samaritan Scriptures?

JosephLoegering (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I just added some external links to public domain (copyright expired) books which contain the text of the Samaritan Pentateuch. Der Hebräische Pentateuch der Samaritaner is perhaps the best of the bunch as its author used all published manuscripts available in 1918 to compile a critical edition of the text. However, the Abisha Scroll had not been published at the time, so his work suffers from the defect of not including its variant readings. If anyone knows of a transcription of the Abisha scroll available on the Web, it would be a good addition to include under External Links. Mike Agricola (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Article Revison

I took some time to revise this article. New sections were created to cover aspects of the SP that seemed important yet weren't discussed at all beforehand and existing material was reorganized (e.g. some of the material in the previous lead section was too specific for that part of the article, so it was moved elsewhere). Please note though that I have preserved all existing references. Anyways, here's a couple specific points to draw attention to:

(1) I removed the part of the previous lead section which reads: "...while others are major, such as the commandment to be monogamous which appears in the Samaritan text. (See Lev 18:18.)" I was unable to find support for this sort of variant in Leviticus 18:18 in any reliable published source. However, there is a SP variant (shared by the Septuagint) in Genesis 2:24 which some scholars argue supports monogamy, but others argue that "it need not do so". I didn't discuss this example in the article because scholars don't agree on its significance, but if others feel it should be mentioned, here's a link to a published reference discussing this topic.

(2) I trimmed the "Background" section down a bit (and moved it to "Samaritan Traditions"). On the one hand I thought it may be useful to retain some background contextual info. such as the Samaritan's claim to be descended from the northern Kingdom of Israel. On the other hand some statements like "There have been numerous conflicts between Jews and Samaritans in history" seem better suited for discussion in the Samaritans article than here. --Mike Agricola (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Self-published sources

Aleksandr Sigalov, we have rules against use of self-published sources, see WP:SELFPUBLISH. I don't see a reason on your web pages to make an exception in your case. In order to make an exception we would need evidence that you are recognised as an expert on this subject by the professionals, or for example if your translation got a favorable review in an academic journal. Certainly, as it stands you cannot use your own self-published work as a reference for an assertion. You might be able to get a mention in the External Links section, but still we would need some evidence other than yourself that your translation is well-regarded. If you want an independent opinion on application of the rules you can post a question at WP:RSN. Zero^talk 00:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I did not know about this rule, so I guess I must apologize. I'll leave the page as is. Aleksig6 (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The link to Aleksandr Sigalov's work reads "Samaritan Pentateuch in English and Hebrew (with Idiomatic Translation, Morphology and DSS variants)", however the section on his site "Samaritan Pentateuch in Enlish" is clearly not the Samaritan Pentateuch in English. For example see Deuteronomy 27:4 at https://sites.google.com/site/interlinearpentateuch/online-samaritan-pentateuch-in-english/deuteronomy which reads "mount Ebal" rather than mount Gerizim. The section Interlinear Pentateuch does however seem to be a transliteration of the Samaritan Pentateuch into English. There does not seem to be contact info on that site, otherwise I would have taken it up with him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.110.36 (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I've corrected the mistake in Deut. 27:4 in English and Russian translations. Thank you. I've added contact info on my web site so feel free to contact me if you find more mistakes. Aleksig6 (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

date

Recent scholarship puts a date at 128 BCE and gives a note from the early 1950s. That doesn't seem very recent in terms of scholarship. Sceptic1954 (talk) 11:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC) John Hyrcanus gives a source which states that on archaeloglical grounds the destruction is dated to 111-110 BCE. Sceptic1954 (talk) 07:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

bad link

The McMaster collection says that August von Gall's work should be cited or linked as follows: https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/handle/11375/14652 71.163.117.143 (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

"The Truth"

The article currently, and interestingly, states: 'Samaritans commonly refer to their Pentateuch as ... "The Truth".' Isn't the Jewish Pentateuch sometimes known as "the Law". So is the word "Truth" here a genuinely different Hebrew word, or is it the same word being translated into English in two different ways?

It would be useful if this "Truth" translation (perhaps as distinct from "Law") could be cited. Further, if "The Truth" is, indeed, a name used for this Pentateuch, then it would also be useful to note whether this "Truth" is related to the words of Jesus, used twice in John 4:23-24, to the Samaritan woman: "...in spirit and truth".

Feline Hymnic (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

SP is NOT a version

The word version is no longer used. It is of course POV. The SP is better described as an examplar, e.g. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=W3ZgSxuGwVEC&pg=PA121&dq=samaritan+pentateuch+exemplar&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3aCEVOvHOaSU7AafsICoDQ&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=samaritan%20pentateuch%20exemplar&f=false pg 121. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theredheifer (talk • contribs) 18:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZkBasQYRy4sC&pg=PA9&dq=samaritan+pentateuch+exemplar&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3aCEVOvHOaSU7AafsICoDQ&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=samaritan%20pentateuch%20exemplar&f=false pg 9 Theredheifer (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cafcNYVV7f8C&pg=PA125&dq=samaritan+exemplar&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9sWEVJm9O4Sp7AbO6oHACw&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=samaritan%20exemplar&f=false

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=e0FrevlVXjUC&pg=PA200&dq=samaritan+exemplar&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mceEVL_SLc-y7QavuoDwDQ&ved=0CCQQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=samaritan%20exemplar&f=false pg 200 Theredheifer (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Removal of RS material

This statement was removed on the grounds of POV. According to a view based on the Biblical book of Ezra, the Samaritans are the people of Samaria (the Northern Kingdom) who parted ways with the people of Judah, (the Judahites) in the Persian period. However it is in the RS. It can be attributed to the author if we wish but it can't be removed on the grounds of being POV. The statement that replaced is an alternative POV, and it does not have an RS. It can be restored if an RS is found. Theredheifer (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Translation of the Samaritan text

Does anyone have a copy of this translation? If so, it'd be good to redo the articles various verse translations, some of which are quite poor English.

Tsedaka, Benyamim, and Sharon Sullivan, eds. The Israelite Samaritan Version of the Torah: First English Translation Compared with the Masoretic Version. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2013.[1] Google book, too.

This is a significant, scholarly edition. Thanks. ProfGray (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

For example, if you search the Google Book for "Exodus 20," at page 173 you can see the translation of Exodus 20:17, which is in the current article. ProfGray (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

online material

Von Gall: https://archive.org/details/derhebrischepent01gall

Bruell: https://archive.org/details/targumshomronial00fran

Walton's polyglot: http://bibletranslation.ws/palmer-translation

or http://bibletranslation.ws/down 108.18.136.147 (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Walton is also available at Internet Archive. Most of the parts are unlocked. I am trying to get the poster to unlock Part 3 with Leviticus thru Judges. All the parts are enormous and being able to set bookmarks is important but you can't set bookmarks on a locked file. 01:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

important source

Haseeb Shehadeh of Helsinki U has published a two-volume edition of the Samaritan Arabic Version. It has both the Abu Sa'id text and the older text, as well as footnotes. There is a preface in English but the introduction is in Hebrew -- but if you read Arabic it's not a big step to learn Hebrew. Try Super Book Deals where I got a copy, but don't own financial interest in the site. Those interested in comparing to the Saadiah Gaon Arabic can find the latter online free; there seems to have been an even earlier Samaritan version that was based on Saadiah Gaon. 100.15.138.239 (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC on Samaritan Pentateuch translation

I, Aleksandr Sigalov, was the first to publish Samaritan Pentateuch in English and Russian. I published my work in March 2012 (month before Tsedaka). I do not understand why you do not give me credit? Have you actually read Tsedaka translation? His translation does not correctly reflect the Samaritan Torah text! My translation more precise, FIRST and also I present the original text so anyone can see for themselves what the text really says. I am the expert on the Pentateuch (I have been studying it for over 10 years) so I want this fact referenced in the article.

Someone said that it is self-published source but it would be impossible to publish what I wrote in paper form (too big). Besides, paper books are kinda 19th century technology so what is the difference? Besides like I said, you can judge it by accuracy of the translation.

Link to my Pentateuch is in the article. 172.56.44.115 (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Are there any scholarly sources (a peer-reviewed journal article or book, for example) that agree that your translation is better than Tsedaka's? Wikipedia generally doesn't rely on self-published sources unless experts in the field consider them reliable. You can read Wikipedia's policy about sources here: WP:RS. Alephb (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I've tried to look into your translation, Mr. Sigalov, and I'm afraid its not the kind of source that Wikipedia can rely on. It's not mentioned in any of the mainstream scholarly publications. Even though you consider yourself "the expert" on the Pentateuch, no serious scholar agrees with you about that. Wikipedia does not rely on people who simply call themselves "experts." Wikipedia relies on those who are considered experts by academic publishers, institutions, and peer-reviewed sources. Wikipedia will have to wait until you publish in mainstream venues before it treats you as an expert source. Alephb (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I knew that I would get a response like this. So I will bring it out with the Arbitration Committee. I will also dispute the link that you removed from the article.172.58.19.68 (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Good luck with that, Mr. Sigalov. Alephb (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I would like to get the credit in the article and I want my link to be restored in the External Links section.172.58.19.156 (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Main discussion is here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Samaritan_Pentateuch_translation

I see no reason in what is written above not to have the translation as an external link. Debresser (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

In order to avoid decentralized discussion, I won't repeat myself here, but for anyone who's interested I've gone into somewhat greater depth on this question over here: RSN. That seems to be where the most in-depth discussion of this question is, so I'll keep my comments limited to there for now. Alephb (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

This is clearly block evasion by User talk:Aleksig6. Doug Weller talk 10:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)