The Samaritans have a curious insertion towards the end of parashat Pinchas:
That is, after Bemidbar 27:23, they insert the command portion of Devarim 3:21-22:
(Except they left off the Elokeichem from pasuk 22.)
This is a typical Samaritan modification and harmonization. Since Devarim asserts that Yehoshua was commanded this 'at that time', the command to Yehoshua should ideally also appear in that earlier text. (Meanwhile, it is obviously an insertion and tampering with the text. Indeed, the very point of mentioning this Devarim is to add information, to let them know what they otherwise would not have known from the earlier text.)
I don't know that this charging of Yehoshua regarding Sichon and Og is best inserted here of all places. There might well be better guesses. But I suspect the decision to insert it here is the link (gezeira shava) formed by וְאֶת-יְהוֹשׁוּעַ צִוֵּיתִי in Devarim 3 and ויצוהו in Bemidbar 27:23.
That is, after Bemidbar 27:23, they insert the command portion of Devarim 3:21-22:
(Except they left off the Elokeichem from pasuk 22.)
This is a typical Samaritan modification and harmonization. Since Devarim asserts that Yehoshua was commanded this 'at that time', the command to Yehoshua should ideally also appear in that earlier text. (Meanwhile, it is obviously an insertion and tampering with the text. Indeed, the very point of mentioning this Devarim is to add information, to let them know what they otherwise would not have known from the earlier text.)
I don't know that this charging of Yehoshua regarding Sichon and Og is best inserted here of all places. There might well be better guesses. But I suspect the decision to insert it here is the link (gezeira shava) formed by וְאֶת-יְהוֹשׁוּעַ צִוֵּיתִי in Devarim 3 and ויצוהו in Bemidbar 27:23.
2 comments:
We would never do that, tampering with the text? See this.
madaral:
No, we would not. To explain:
1) While the Samaritans worked to harmonize and smooth out texts, Chazal and the Masoretes worked to preserve the text, with the difficulties intact. That there are these apparent discrepancies between these three versions of the charging of Yehoshua -- rather than having Eleazar inserted in each place, and having the public there in account -- goes to show that they didn't tamper with the text.
2) But it depends what you mean "we". If you mean Chazal and the Masoretes who worked to preserve every irregular spelling and discrepancy and make meaning out of it, no. If by "we" you mean MUCH further back than Chazal, when the Biblical text was first written (as Rabbi Zev Farber is describing, then that is another story entirely.)
3) Just because the Biblical critics claim that these are three versions of the same story -- rather than three distinct stories, or two stories with a divergence in the telling due to different concerns of the storyteller -- doesn't automatically make it so. We don't NEED to see a redactor adding in Eleazar and the public. This is just the "model" they constructed. See this parshablog post where I critique the Rabbi Farber's approach (and High Biblical Criticism) in general, with specific examples.
kol tuv,
Josh
Post a Comment