Has the Samaritan Book of Joshua Been Found?

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXXV, Issue 10016, 5 December 1908, Page 2 (Supplement)

Has the Samaritan Book of Joshua Been Found?

Dr Moses Gaiter", 'the Superior Habhi <-.[ the':Spanish and Portuguese Jews, in England, 'aii'd'a' scholar of i'ecognisetf standing in post-biblical Jewish 'literature, has'■■ secured from the religious authorities of I he Samaritans in Nablus tlie riiUnuscript of"a book of Joshua. This has been hailed in many quarters as'the Samaritan version of the Biblical book of that time, and has been particularly welcomed by some critics on the '.ground that'it proves' the claim of Old Testament criticism that the book of Joshua originally constituted with the .five books of Moses one codex called the Hexateuch. Especial interest attaches to this discovery because the Samaritans recognised and were thought to possess only the Pentateuch. This manuscript, lioweveryis'ari old revision, presenting dozens of variants from the Hebrew' text,' and agreeing in many particulars with the Septuagint, which, in turn, differs from the official Hebrew reading's in many ■points. Dr Gaster lias published the text of his firid in the current volume of the Zeitschrift. der, deutschen Morgenlandwchen Gesselschdft, to which he has added corjious literary note's! " The claim that this is really, a Samaritan version of the book of Joshua is. particularly emphasised ,by the Frankfurter Zeitung. Thus : 'The discoverer and editor of this new work has a. right' to claim that on. th'i whole this must'be a.. Samaritan, translation, of the Hebrew and Biblical book, and .that in its departures from the orthodox text it ■is . exceedingly, instructive. The manuscript itself is at'least two 1 ; thousand years old and was writen. in the, second! century" before Christ, and is accordingly fully on® thousand years older than the oldest Hebrew manuscript extant, viz., the St. Petersburg codex of the Lesser Prophets, which comes from the eighth; or ninth Christian century. The newly found manuscript gives us exact information conv cerning tha death of Moses) making it 2794 years after the creation of the world, which in tiint places the date 2110 before Christ and not, as currently' supposed; 1316 B.C. The Samaritan Joshua begins with this notice'of the death of Moses, and reports a. tax levied by Joshua, not mentioned in the Bible. On the other hand*, it furnishes also a. large. number of details concerning the re-establishment of many Mosaic institutions, which during th.3 stay ini the desert had .beeinneglected. The story of the theft' of Achan is in many respects different, as tine Samaritan text reports that he stole a golden idol, and not .a, Babylonian mantle and coin as reported in Josh. v.ii. 21. The way in which the culprit was discovered is , also narrated differently, and it is stated that when Achan's name appeared, the ' stones on the breastplate of the high priest- were darkened:. In Josh, v.iii. 3 thirty thousand! warriors are mentioned, while the Samaritan speaks oa'ily of three; thousand. Most notable is the fact that chapter x., verse. 2, in which Joshua makes the famous demamdl of the sun and the moon to standi still, is not found in the new manuscript at all. On the other hand, it contains a statement not found in the Bible, concerning- the capture of the lands beyond the Jordan "toy the tribes of Reuben,' Gad, and half of Manasseh." Over against the somewhat enthusiastic claims for this version, which include also the insistence that the traditional Hebrew form of this book wij'l be materially changed, other scholars are equally pronounced in .reducing the value of the literary find 1 to a. minimum. Professor Holscher, an Orientalist of the Halle theological faculty, has published in the lA.llgemeinie Lutherische Kirchenzeitung, of Leipsic, a lengthy discussion of the matter. He says : "It is a mistake to claim for this manuscript such a phenomenal age. Li. reality the book itself is not even, a Samaritan version of the book of Joshua a.t all, but- is simply a- chronicle of a kind found in Samaritan and. other Oriental literatures in considerable- numbers. Indeed, the manuscript itself distinctly claims to bo only 6uch a compilation, as the heading' clearly says : "This is ,a. Chronicle of the Times of Joshua.' And further, the contents and the styleshow that the author wrote under the influences of Mohammedan thought, as the presence of Islam appears at various points. This nnrch, however, is true in the claims of Gasfer, that such a book of Joshua really did at one .time exist in Samaritan, and it is a- fact- that, this present book is evidently based on this old Samaritan. Joshua, but it is not this book iteelf. It is an exceptionally valuable chronicle, because of its having drawn its data, from so good, a source. But- the reail Samaritan Joshua yet remains' to bo discovered." With this judgment other careful scholars . evidently agree. At the recent International Congress of Orientalists, held at Copenhagen, Dr Juhadii, of Bagdad, read a paper on this new document, in which he aimed to show that it was not a genuine Joshua, and Dr von Gall, of Mayence, has published in; the Frankfurter Zeitung- a lengthy discussion in which he states the following: "In reality this edition is not based on an old manuscript as claimed, but- on a copy of this made as recently as 1905. Dr Gaster declares himself that he has often examined the literary treasures of the Samaritans, but lias never been able to find this old manuscript. Possibly it is only a retranslation from the so-ca!ped Arabic book of Joshua, but this Samaritan Joshua is not at all the same work as the Hebrew book of that name. Indeed, it shows the influence of later Ta.lmudic thought throughout and is not a pre-Christian product. The find is a and. welcome one, but it is not a new recension of a Biblical, book."