Department of Old and New Testament

Permanent URI for this community

https://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/1031

Browse

Browsing Department of Old and New Testament by browse.metadata.advisor "Kotze , Gideon"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The centralization of the worship of Yahweh according to the Jewish and Samaritan Pentateuchs : a textual and theological study
    (Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University, 2017-12) Paulo, Bonifacio; Jonker, Louis C.; Kotze , Gideon; Stellenbosch University. Faculty of Theology. Dept. of Old and New Testament.
    ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The aim of the present study is, firstly, to understand the theological implications of the phenomenon of centralization of worship in Deuteronomy 12 according to the Jewish and Samaritan Pentateuchs; secondly, to investigate the different wording between the two readings and the possible factors that contributed to their development; and thirdly, given these different sectarian readings, to understand what might be the place of the Samaritan Pentateuch in the enterprise of Bible translation. To address these objectives, the researcher chose to use an integrated method, which gives him the freedom to bring different approaches, such as historical-scientific, textual/literary, and theological, into conversation. It is through this method that the outcome of this study is outlined as follows: From a historical-scientific viewpoint, it is most likely that the origin of ancient Israel is to be placed in the context of the Mediterranean region in the Iron Age I period. Furthermore, despite their belligerent relations, both Judean and Samaritan populaces are likely to be genetically related and, therefore, from the same ancestral origins. Theologically, the centralization of worship had, to some extent, contributed significantly to the shaping of the ideologies of the Jerusalem temple and Davidic/Israel’s election. In response to these ideologies, the Samaritans rejected any tradition related to Jerusalem temple and to Davidic kingship and put an exclusive claim on the Mosaic tradition as the only authoritative script. Addressed from a textual/literary approach, the two Pentateuchs share the same roots – the Mosaic tradition – and the differences between them are mainly due to editorial activities, where editors acted in favour of their respective site of worship. Lastly, with regard to the place of the Samaritan Pentateuch in the work of Bible translation, it is noted that, despite the different emphases on the place of worship, it has much in common not only with the Jewish Pentateuch but also with other textual witnesses such as the Septuagint and the Dead Seas Scrolls. Moreover, like other textual witnesses, the Samaritan Pentateuch held a significant level of authority over ancient Israeli communities, including Qumran and the early church. If this is the case, then the place of the Samaritan Pentateuch in the enterprise of Bible Translation needs to be reconsidered.