The starting point of the counting of the shemittahs and Jubilees

(Opinion 1). The Arabic Book of Joshua (start of ch. 15) says the counting was from the day of crossing the Jordan. This means the theoretical day one for future calculation was when the Israelites were still in the Transjordan. Presumably it was the day after the thirty days of mourning for Moses, and the day when Joshua started preparations (Joshua ch I at the start).

(Opinion 2). A.F. (30:12), quoting the late editor’s additional chapter (ch. 38) makes day one the first day of year 2, coinciding with the arrival of the Mishkan on Mt. Gerizim. BUT some mss. of A.F. have an editorial alteration making the text of A.F. agree in substance with the Arabic Joshua additional ch. 38 (i. e. opinion 1). I think A.F. might have been speaking loosely.

I think you should ask Benny if the views of the Arabic Joshua and A.F. are known to him. Be warned that in this instance Vilmar went against ALL the mss. of A.F. (of both versions) and printed what is in the Arabic Joshua instead, so that wa-kanu yusmit.u “they used to count the shemittahs” is printed instead of wa-s.aru yusmit.u “they started counting the shemittahs” !!!! The secondary change of wa-s.aru (with s.ad) to wa-saru (with sin) in modern mss. of A.F. has the same effect. The copyists of the modern mss. of A.F. must have disagreed with what he wrote. (By modern mss. I mean mss. written after 1850).

(Opinion 3). I think this is the current view. Two sets of counting, one starting on the first of the first and used for everything affecting the Tabernacle and theoretical counting from Creation, and one starting on the first of the seventh, used for the counting of shemittahs and Jubilees. The warrant would have to have been the date of the setting up of the altar and the twelve stones on Mt. Gerizim on the first day of the seventh month of year one, marking the completion of the process of arrival. This agrees with what Epiphanius says about the Dositheans, Jewish practice is the same I think, except that the Rabbanite Jews have made up the name “New Year” for the Mikra Kodesh of the first day of the seventh month, obscuring the facts on purpose.

What starts the counting? According to opinion 1, entry into Canaan (starting theoretically from the first day of preparations, and coming into practice on the day of crossing the Jordan). According to opinion 2, it is the arrival of the Tabernacle on the Mountain. According to opinion 3, it is the completion of the requirements of Dt XXVII, on ONE UNIQUE occasion, marking the completion of the process started with the crossing of the Jordan. This makes the counting

It is opinion 3 that best fits the words of the Samaritan Tenth Commandment. See my book Principles of Samaritan Halachah on these verses.

Opinion 2 makes the Tabernacle and the Mountain the two reference points, with counting dependent on the sanctity of the Mountain. Opinion 3 makes entry into the land of Canaan the reference point with recognition of the sanctity of the Mountain. Opinion 1 makes entry into Canaan the only reference point, with the Mountain relevant by implication.

Here is some information I would like you to pass on to Benny. There is evidence from the Masorah itself that the verses mentioning the altar and the twelve stones to be erected on Mt. Gerizim were originally present even in the Masoretic Text before a very late change deleted them. Argument one. The Masoretic division by means of what is called petuh.ah and setumah marked in printed editions of the Masoretic Text by the letters Pe and Samech is incompatible with the Jewish way of counting ten items, in both Exodus and Deuteronomy. This is not the place to give the technical details, but if you have a look you will see what I mean. Argument two. The Masorah has no full division after the end of what is counted by Jews as the tenth and last item in Deuteronomy ch. V verse 21. There is only the minor division setumah which is the same as the division that separates the commandments from each other. Argument 3. Origen marks the verses that are in the Samaritan text of Exodus but not in the Masoretic text with an asterisk. (We do not know how he marked them in Deuteronomy). What Origen uses an asterisk for is to mark what is in the Masoretic Text but not in the Septuagint. Most scholars these days assert that in this ONE place Origen used the asterisk to mark what is NOT in the Masoretic Text but is in the Samaritan. This is a stupid argument. In other places where he wants to show that something is in the Samaritan but not in the Jewish text he puts it in the margin and writes the letters sam meaning Samaritan in front. He does not use an asterisk. If Origen marks these verses mentioning Mt. Gerizim with an asterisk, then he means they are in the JEWISH Hebrew text used by him but not in the Greek.

What is very bad is that the modern critical edition of the Septuagint (the big one, not the one published by Rahlfs) and the critical edition of the Mt known as BHKK do not tell you that Origen has an asterisk before these verses in Exodus. I had to look the edition of the Hexapla by Field. (Origenis Hexapla, ed. Frederick Field, 2 vols., Oxford 1875). I would never have known this fact if the late Prof. Adrian Mikolashek had not shown me the evidence when we were in a library near Chantilly in 1995. He was the one that pointed out the significance of the evidence of the divisions in the Masorah.