Sunteți pe pagina 1din 319


Editors David J.A. Clines Philip R. Davies Executive Editor John Jarick


General Editors Thomas L. Thompson Niels Peter Lemche Associate Editors Frederick H. Cryer Mogens Miiller Hakan Ulfgard

Sheffield Academic Press

This page intentionally left blank

The Samaritans and

Early Judaism
A Literary Analysis

Ingrid Hjelm

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 303 Copenhagen International Seminar 7

To Thomas

Copyright 2000 Sheffield Academic Press Published by Sheffield Academic Press Ltd Mansion House 19KingfieldRoad Sheffield SI 19AS England

Typeset by Sheffield Academic Press and Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain by Biddies Ltd Guildford, Surrey

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 1-84127-072-5

Preface Abbreviations Introduction Chapter 1 7 8 11


The Earliest Jewish Sect: The Position of J.A. Montgomery The Original Israelites: The Position of M. Gaster A Postexilic Political Schism: The Position of A. Alt Decisive Elements in the Formation of a Distinct Samaritan Community in the Hasmonaean Period: The Positions of H.H. Rowley, G. Holscher, W.F. Albright and M. Smith Taking up Old Ideas: The Positions of P.M. Cross and H.G. Kippenberg Breaking the Two-Episode Paradigm: The Position of R.J. Coggins Chapter 2

13 22 30

33 41 48


A.D. Crown's Late Dating for a Distinctive Samaritanism Samaritans as Original Israelites? The Position of E. Nodet Chapter 3

53 61

The Pentateuch Manuscripts Translations The Special Features of the Samaritan Pentateuch

76 83 85 87

The Samaritans and Early Judaism Samaritan Theological Literature Chronicles Halakhic Literature Commentaries on the Pentateuch 94 97 103 103

Chapter 4


Rabbinic Judaism in the Light of the Samaritan Question Christianity in the Light of the Jewish-Samaritan Question The Request for an Identification of Simon the Just and Ben Sira 50.25-26 The Foolish People in Shechem: Who Are They? Shechem in the Old Testament Tradition The Levites in Jewish Traditions Zadok; pTTC '33 D^H D^HDH and the Levites Jews, Conflicts and Reputation Chapter 5

104 115 125 138 146 152 158 171


General Introduction to Josephus's Works Examination of Josephus's Various Descriptions of Samaritans Josephus's Terminology Josephus between Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities Concluding Remarks to Josephus's Presentation of Samaritans Mount Gerizim, Tell er-Ras Chapter 6

183 192 216 222 226 234

Prophets in Samaritan Tradition The Historiography of the 'Postexilic' Period Chapter 7

254 258


Bibliography Index of References Index of Authors

286 300 315

Never again will a single story be told as though it's the only one. John Berger

In its earliest form this monograph was an entry in the annual prize essay competition in Old Testament exegesis at the University of Copenhagen in 1996. The original essay, Samaritanerne og den antikke j0dedom, was fortunate enough to be awarded a gold medal. The editors of the Copenhagen International Seminar, Niels Peter Lemche and Thomas L. Thompson, recommended that I revise it and publish it in English in their series. For support and assistance in producing the original prize essay and this monograph I would like to thank the following: Pere Etienne Nodet of the Ecole Biblique for lending me his English manuscript of A Search for the Origins of Judaism, which has been a considerable inspiration in my own work; Professor Emanuel Tov of the Hebrew University for his hospitality and friendship during my stay in Jerusalem; Dr Richard Harper, director of the British School, Dr John Woodhead, vice director at the British School and his wife Karin, the staff at the school and my fellow residents for their interest and support and my son Andreas for being a courageous and wonderful companion during our stay. Professor Niels Peter Lemche of the University of Copenhagen and Lektor Per Bilde of Aarhus University for their advice and corrections of earlier drafts of this thesis; Professor Thomas L. Thompson of the University of Copenhagen for his neverending encouragement, inspiration and support as well as the revision of my English. For financial support for research in Jerusalem, I am indebted to the Thora Odlands Fond, Tribute to the Danes through Scholarships Fund and the Copenhagen University Fund. Finally, I want to thank every scholar whose works and ideas I have used and exploited, whether it has been with pleasure or annoyance. None has been without its use, as one can never know to whom one is indebted. Ingrid Hjelm Copenhagen



AnLeeds ANRW


Anchor Bible David Noel Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992) Kitab al Tarikh of Abu'1-Fath Analecta biblica James B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950) The Annual of Leeds University Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase (eds.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1972-) Alter Orient und Altes Testament American Schools of Oriental Research Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute American Theological Library Association Australian Theological Review Biblical Archaeologist Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Biblia Hebraica stuttgartensia Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament Bibliotheca orientalis Bible Review

Catholic Biblical Quarterly Corpus inscriptionum semiticarum Corpus Papyrorum Judaicum Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Dead Sea Discoveries Dead Sea Scrolls Encyclopaedia Judaica Eretz Israel


F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Leiden, 1923) HDR Harvard Dissertations in Religion Hen Henoch HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs HTR Harvard Theological Review HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual IDBSup IDB, Supplementary Volume IEJ Israel Exploration Journal JA Journal asiatique JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JJS Journal of Jewish Studies JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies JQR Jewish Quarterly Review JRAS Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series JSS Journal of Semitic Studies JTS Journal of Theological Studies KS Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel (3 vols.; Munich: C.H. Beck, 1953-59) LCL Loeb Classical Library NKGWPhil.-Hist. Klasse Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften zur Gottingen NovT Novum Testamentum NovTSup Novum Testamentum, Supplements NTOA Novum Testamentum et orbis antiquus NTS New Testament Studies OLZ Orientalische Literaturzeitung OTP James Charlesworth (ed.), Old Testament Pseudepigrapha PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly RB Revue biblique REJ Revue des etudes juives RevQ Revue de Qumran SET Studies in Biblical Theology SJLA Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity SP Samaritan Pentateuch SPB Studia postbiblica SSEA Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities ST Studia theologica SUNVAO Skrifter utgitt au der Norske UitenskapsAkademi i Oslo TSK Theologische Studien und Kritiken VT Vetus Testamentum VTSup Vetus Testamentum, Supplements


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenshaft Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlandischen Gesellschaft Zeitschrift des deutschen Paldstina-Vereins Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

'When shall we take them back?' This talmudic utterance (Mass. Kut. 28) forms the backbone of most of Jewish and Christian discussions about Samaritans since Josephus wrote his various origin stories of the Samaritans in the first century of this era. The utterance both implies that the Samaritans have left 'us' and that 'we' are the ones to decide when 'we' will accept them as part of 'our' community. The forcefulness of this view on Samaritans, formed by Judaism's self-understanding of having developed from the Old Israel's transformation of past traditions to become the New Israel, has been determinent for most scholars' writings about the Samaritans for the past century. Scholars have worked hard to establish the origin of Samaritans in accord with these stories, to overcome contradictions and confusion as well as to harmonize Josephus's stories with other stories. Most of these efforts have proven unsuccessful. Whether one places the origin of Samaritanism in the eighth-century Assyrian policy of deportation, based on a story of 2 Kings 17, in a fifth-century expulsion of a priest serving at the temple in Jerusalem, based on a remark in Nehemiah 13, in a fourthcentury deceit of the Persian King Darius at the advance of Alexander the Great, based on Josephus's Antiochus IV story and the books of Maccabees, all resolutions have agreed on the worthiness and reliability of one or other Jewish story about Samaritan origin and the Samaritan community's departure from a Jerusalem centred Judaism. This departure was followed by a final schism, usually dated to the second century BCE, based on Josephus's John Hyrcanus story and scholarship's claim for a development of the Samaritan Pentateuch at that time. Against this view stands Samaritan self-understanding that they belong to the Old Israel, have an unbroken chain of high priests and a cultic continuation that has kept their heritage unchanged. While Judaism argued for the necessity of a new beginning after the Babylonian exile, Samaritans insisted that their old tradition be maintained. As Abraham had left the godless world of Haran to go to Shechem, so


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Samaritansin their postexilic returnbrought home their old tradition (kept in custody in Nineve) from Haran. The discussion clearly places itself in an implicitly much broader discussion about the new and the old Israel, with the Samaritans opting for continuity and the Jews for new beginnings in the Ezra-Nehemiah traditions. Such a new beginning, however, according to Samaritan understanding, had already taken place in the time of Eli and had proven false. Each having opted for their own tradition we are left to ask whether ancient 'historiography' is anything but competing stories? Is scholarship forever doomed to justify one or another's story? Giving up the priority of the biblical tradition, based as it is on the false assumption that not only the Bible, but also its stories, belong to our origin, we might, however, be able to establish each tradition in its own right. Competing stories are competing stories belonging to those who wrote them. Historical reality belongs to the world that created these stories. It is not necessarily reflected in any simple truth about the past.

Chapter 1


The Earliest Jewish Sect: The Position ofJ.A. Montgomery1 Published in 1907 and reprinted with few revisions in 1968, this was the first work that, on the basis of the Samaritan sect's own sources, sought to describe the history of the sect and its relation to Judaism, Christianity and Islam in the past and the present. In the previous century, scholarship had centred around studies of the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) and its relationship to the Masoretic Text. Studies of the copy of the SP brought home by Pietro Delia Valle in the 1620s seemed to support the text of the Septuagint against the various Hebrew texts. It thereby became important for the anti-Reformation's fight for the establishment of a textus receptus.2 The title of Montgomery's book places it in a Jewish as well as a sectarian context. Montgomery's working hypothesis found its inspiration in K. Lincke's Samaria und seine Propheten,3 which he judged had 'unsuccessfully attempted to establish the theory that the Samaritans were true descendants of the Northern Israelites in a direct line from Elijah, Elisha, Hosea and the Yahweh-worshipping family of Jehu'. Using 'authoritative' sources from the Christian period (New Testament, Josephus and Talmud), Montgomery concluded that the Samaritans 'were nothing else than a Jewish sect'. The one essential difference between them and Judaism was that 'their cult centres on Gerizim, not on Zion'.4 This denial of any other differences marked the perspectives
1. J.A. Montgomery, The Samaritans: The Earliest Jewish Sect: Their History, Theology and Literature (Philadelphia: John C. Winston, 1907; repr. New York: Ktav, 1968). The 1907 edition is used throughout this work. 2. This question will be dealt with more extensively in Chapter 3. 3. Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1903. 4. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 46.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

of Montgomery's judgment of Samaritanism's dependency on Judaism and his denial of the fact that postexilic Judaism had as its programme the rejection of the older cult and the image of the old Israel. Both of which Samaritans claimed to be part of their heritage. It is noteworthy that Montgomery stated without hesitation that the differences in adherence to the cult between the North and the South was 'much too exaggerated' and was based on the fact that it was 'orthodox Judah who wrote the history'.5 At the same time, his own conclusions were based on these very same 'historians', who considered those who did not belong or submit to 'orthodox' Judaism to be heretics and schismatics. According to Josephus, in his use of the ideology of 2 Kings 17, the Samaritans were also considered to be of doubtful stock.6 According to Montgomery the origin of the sect should be sought in the change of political circumstances in Samaria resulting from the deportations and settlements of foreign peoples, such as recounted in 2 Kings 17; Ezra 4.2-9; Isa. 7.8 and in Assyrian Annals. We should not believe, however, that these Northerners instituted a spiritualistic and monotheistic belief that developed into a Samaritan religion, as happened in the 'Jewish church'; or that such a syncretist religion could develop into a 'triumphant monotheism'. This would have demanded a spirituality far beyond what could be ascribed to the Samaritans as such. When, in spite of that, the northern kingdom developedat least regarding a minor remnantinto a faithful Yahwism in spite of the influence from foreign peoples, this was due to the support from a more 'resistant' Judaic society.7 Because only part of the population had been

5. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 47. 6. Josephus, Ant. 9.277-91. Montgomery is here in full accord with E. Schiirer, Geschichte des judischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1885) (whom he does not refer to), who stated that although Samaritans are of mixed stock they rightly are to be considered to belong to the Jewish people since they have adopted Jewish worship of Yahweh to such an extent that only Gerizim and Jerusalem marks the difference. 7. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 54. Evidence for this hypothesis was based on: (1) Hezekiah's passover as told in 2 Chron. 30, which also included the people from Ephraim who caused a delay of the celebration; (2) the capture of Manasseh to Babylon (2 Chron. 33.11); (3) the reform of Josiah (2 Kgs 23), which includes all the cult places in Samaria; (4) the deputation from Shechem, Shiloh and Samaria, which paid the mourners in Jerusalem a visit of condolence after the destruction of the temple (Jer. 41.4-6).

1. The Two-Episode Paradigm


exiled from Samaria and later from Judaea,8 there remained a core of 'old Israelite blood' that joined together under the Judaic crisis in mutually supporting the survival of their common religion. The return from exile did not break this agreement, for, during the reign of Darius I (521-385 BCE), the return of Zerubbabel had created expectations of the coming of the Messiah, which joined Judaean, Samaritan and Babylonian Israelites together in a new enthusiasm powerful enough to overcome old differences.9 Opposition to this enthusiasm was not to be found within Judaism itself and the 'am ha'ares of Ezra 4.4 was not the Samaritans, as was usually asserted on the basis of Josephus's interpretation. They were non-Israelite peoples who moved into Judaea during the Babylonian exile.10 The real opponents to the activities of the returnees were the political governors of the Persian province of Aber-Nahara, such as the

8. Comparing biblical references from 2 Kgs 17; Isa. 7.8; Ezra 4.2, 9 and Assyrian Annals 11-17, 20-23, 67, 94, 95, Montgomery made the conclusion that not the whole population had been deported and that it was mainly the leaders of the people, while the poorer country people remained 'without king, without prince, and without altar, and without sacrifice and without pillar, and without ephod or teraphim' (cf. Hos. 3.4). This remaining group was added to by immigrants from various places in Mesopotamia for around a hundred years (cf. Samaritans, pp. 4853). For later discussions, see J.B. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1968); B. Oded, Mass Deportation and Deportees in the Neo-Assyrian Empire (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1979), who on the basis of a study of 157 Assyrian texts concluded that several deportations took place, involving very different numbers of people, having different purposes and comprising entire regions, cities or families, and were not subsequently followed by similar migrations. See also Th.L. Thompson, Early History of the Israelite People (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992); Th.L. Thompson, The Bible in History (London: Cape, 1999), pp. 190-99, 210-27; H. Barstad, The Myth of the Empty Land (Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1996); L.L. Grabbe (ed.), Leading Captivity Captive: 'The Exile' as History and Ideology (JSOTSup, 278; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998). 9. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 62: an expectation which was carried out by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah. Montgomery here found support in the view of Wellhausen, that Zech. 6.9-13 referred to Zerubbabel, for whom the crown was designed. 10. Reflected in fact in 1 Esd. 3.45 and 4.50, but in sharp contrast to Josephus and later rabbinic tradition that stressed the ideological contrast between North and South that the South had remained empty during the exile and had avoided defilement by foreign peoples.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Horonite Sanballat 'without doubt belonging to the heathen colonisators in Samaria, Tobiah who had close relations to the Judaean aristocracy and priesthood although he was an Ammonite (Ezra 6.17ff.; Neh. 13.4ff.) and finally Geshem the Arab (Neh. 2.19; 6.6)'. These were not to be considered to belong to those who had observed the Jewish religion in Samaria. Political privileges given to the Jews caused the envious acts supported and led by these officials.11 According to Montgomery, the Bible did not connect these postexilic events, related in Ezra and Nehemiah, with the Samaritans. Scholarship's interpretation was based solely on Josephus, who, elaborating on Neh. 13.28, reported that Sanballat, being the father-in-law of Manasseh, grandchild of Eliashib and brother to Jaddua, built a temple on Gerizim to his son-inlaw and others following him after they had been expelled from the Judaean temple in Jerusalem. 12 In spite of Josephus's novelistic
11. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 65. This view is much later repeated in L.L. Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian, I (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1992), p. 121. 12. Although Josephus placed his account in the time of Alexander the Great, scholarly consensus maintained that there was only one event that had been given a different context and consequence. In Montgomery's view Josephus was dependent on a Samaritan tradition that combined the legend with Sanballat (Montgomery, Samaritans, pp. 67-69). Among Montgomery's contemporaries the historicity of the Alexander legend was met with a considerable mistrust (cf. H.H. Rowley, 'Sanballat and the Samaritan Temple', BJRL 38 [1955-56], pp. 166-98, reprinted in idem, Men of God [London: Thomas Nelson, 1963], pp. 246-76). Rowley here argued against an early view put forward by G. Holscher, Geschichte der israelitischen und judischen Religion (Die Theologie im Anbriss, 7; Giessen: Alfred Topelmann, 1922), p. 172, who, according to Rowley, Men of God, p. 258 n. 2, had previously rejected Josephus's account and regarded it as an unhistorical legend originating in Jewish-Alexandrian circles. This view is shared by several scholars as cited by Rowley, Men of God, p. 250 n. 1: R. Riietschi, 'Was Josephus von einem Sanballat ein sehr ungeschichtliches Erzahlung'; H. Willrich, 'Dass uns ein apokryphes Buch im Auszuge vorliegt, ist unzweifelhaft'; A.H. Sayce, 'The whole story seems to be derived from some apocryphal Jewish account of the Origin of the Samaritan Temple'; F. Vigouroux: 'Le recit de Josephe est plein d'anachronismes et ne saurait etre accepte'; G. Holscher, 'Die Ausbildung der jiidisch-alexandrinischen Schullegende, von der Josephus abhangig ist, ervolgte nur wenige Menschenalter vor Josephus... Von Tradition iiber mehrere Jahrhunderte fruhere Ereignisse kann damals nicht die Rede sein, wie gerade die ganz konfuse, aus blosser willktirlicher Exegese des Nehemiatextes herausgesponnene Alexander-Jaddualegende zeigt'; G.F. Moore, 'The Alexander part of the story in Josephus is not embellished legend but pure fiction of a

1. The Two-Episode Paradigm


'historiography', this could still inform us about the reasons for the expulsion.13 The reform activities of Ezra and Nehemiah had as their goal the formation of a 'church state' in Jerusalem and its immediate neighbourhood, which was supported religiously and politically by the Babylonian golah. Not everyone shared the enthusiasm for their efforts to secure 'the purity of the holy seed', and it is not difficult to imagine the opposition to these returned 'doctors of the Torah', who, irrespective of both their Davidic and high priestly lineage, introduced the priestly codex.14 The 'am ha'ares gained support from their heathen leaders, who had close relations with aristocratic circles in Jerusalem.15 Whether they met with immediate success we are not told. However, 'since (Nehemiah) had to solve the problem afresh' Montgomery concluded that 'Ezra had failed'. Nehemiah, the successor of Ezra, in office from 445-433, was a 'far more strenuous, yet withal more political, ruler'. Leaving aside chronological incompatibilities, Josephus's story about Manasseh, son-in-law to Sanballat the Horonite, offered itself as a useful solution to Montgomery's reconstruction. He and no one else was the person who laid the foundations for the Samaritan sect16 that emerged out of 'the excommunication from the Jewish church' 17 and found a home in Samaria, in Shechem, 'which was always an open town to foreigners in ancient times'. Independent of Jewish jurisdiction,
species very familiar in the Hellenistic literature of the Jews... A historian may properly decline to admit such testimony as to either fact or date'; E. Sellin, 'Es ist klar, dass es sich hier iiberwiegend um eine Legende handelt, die aus Neh. 13:28 heraus gewaschen ist'. For the later literature see below. It is noteworthy that most of these statements occur before the publication of the Elephantine papyri by A.E. Cowley in 1923. 13. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 69. 14. Montgomery's statement that the high priests were considered to be 'as secular-minded as the royalty' seems to be due to simple prejudice. The Hebrew Bible in fact places Ezra in the pre-exilic high priestly lineage (cf. Ezra 7.1-2; 1 Chron. 6.1-2). 15. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 64. 16. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 68-69 did not give any solution to Josephus's disagreement with Neh. 13 and the placement of Sanballat's son-in-law in the time of Alexander the Great, but ascribed this confusion to the incorrectness of ancient historiography and to the possibility that Josephus had other sources at hand, that is, 1 Esdras and probably some Samaritan traditions that were intended to connect certain important events to this legendary ruler. 17. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 69.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

'a home offered itself through the political favor of the political leaders and officials of that district, who were bent on doing mischief to Jerusalem and its church'. Here they had most of the holy places from Jewish ancestry and here they found a place to build a temple and establish a cult. This group later became known as Samaritans or Shechemites, a more correct designation used by Josephus. Their self-designation remained Israelite, and, leaving it to their adversaries to call themselves 'Jews', they verbally preserved Joseph's priority over Judah.18 Montgomery did not consider this to be a complete schism. In the following centuries, political, religious and family relations nourished the Samaritan sect, where a branch of the Jewish high priesthood reigned. The close agreements of Samaritan and Sadducean theology also seemed best explained by close relations between the priests in Shechem and Jerusalem, supported by the family ties of the high priestly lineage. The ultimate and irreversible schism occurred when John Hyrcanus conquered Shechem and Gerizim and destroyed the Samaritan temple in 128 BCE.19 Being only a minor group, the Samaritan sect did not play any significant role in the Maccabean uprising. According to Josephus, they even denied having any relationship with the subdued Judaeans in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. A contradiction to this statement, found in 2 Mace. 5.22-23's account, that Antiochus had placed governors in Jerusalem and on Gerizim, led Montgomery to assert that John Hyrcanus's conquest must be understood within a context in which the majority of the Samaritan population consisted of heathens who supported the occupation. It was therefore only natural that John Hyrcanus, after Judaea's annexation of Ephraim, Lydda and Ramathaim around 145 BCE, extended his reign into the central hill areas, 'and not only paid off old scores with the degenerate Syrian kingdom, but also took vengeance on the weakened Samaritan sect', whose city and temple he laid waste in 128 BCE.20 This act was
18. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 70. 19. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 71: 'We possess no further data concerning the Palestinian Samaritans until the second century BCE, in the period of the Maccabees. But the intervening age was not one that was committed to the rigorism of Ezra and Nehemiah, or of the Chasidim and the Pharisees of the second century. The fortunes of the Jewish Church were chiefly in the control of the high priesthood, which appears in general to have been utterly worldly-minded.' 20. The Samaritan Chronicle Kitab al Tarikh of Abu'l Fath (AF) relates that

1. The Two-Episode Paradigm


followed by the conquest of Samaria in 107 BCE by the sons of John Hyrcanus, who 'attempted to obliterate even the traces of the city's existence' and, by the further capture of Scythopolis, came to dominate the whole of the northern border of Samaria. In spite of asserting the opposite, Montgomery was extremely dependent on Josephus's various stories about the Samaritans. Although he had knowledge of parts of Samaritan historiography, he had no trust in its relevance for his own historical conclusions. In fact, he treated this historiography as a simple curiosity that, in its distortion of Jewish historiography, could not be taken seriously.21 When, however, seeking both to escape the influence of Josephus22 yet rejecting the contradictions to Josephus in, for example, 2 Maccabees, he was left with a historiography that found no place at all for Samaritans in the Hasmonaean period. Disappearing in the pagan population as such, they suffered equally with this population. This construction, however, does not take into consideration that it is nowhere stated that this population had suffered temple destruction and persecution. It does not consider that the debate in Josephus before the court of Ptolemy (Ant. 13.74-79) and the requests addressed to Antiochus Epiphanes (Ant. 12.237-64) deal precisely with the question of the status of Samaritan bene yisrael in relationship to Judaean bene yisrael. Most problematically, it gives no reason for the actions of John Hyrcanus; nor does it explain sufficiently what happened to the Jewish sect of Samaritans, which had been formed by the expulsion of Manasseh from the temple in Jerusalem. It does not create any continuity between postexilic Samaritans and the
John Hyrcanus conquered Samaria without taking Shechem, and later, convinced of the legality of the Samaritan cult, sent his offerings and tithes to Gerizim. This account bears clear allusions to John Hyrcanus's quarrel with the Pharisees, whom he leaves to join the Sadducees (cf. Ant. 13.288-300). Montgomery considered it to be 'a plausible hypothesis that the preservation of the northern sect during this period of absolute Jewish control of Samaria was due to the liberalistic policy of the Hasmonaeans to use the Samaritans as a counterweight to the Pharisaic rigorists' (Samaritans, p. 80 n. 20). 21. Montgomery, Samaritans, pp. 76, 80. Should he, however, grant Samaritan literature some antiquity, such as regarding the 'midrashic components of the book of Joshua', then its dependency on Jewish sources, from which it borrowed or imitated still makes it unusable for Samaritan historiography (see p. 310). 22. So, Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 156, where it is asserted that Josephus 'reflects the current Jewish prejudices of his day, and allows us to perceive some truth only through the contradiction in which he involves himself.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

pre-exilic remnant of 'old Israelite blood' who had developed into a true Yahwism because of the support 'offered to those weak brethren by the more persistent community of Juda'.23 This basic view, which we now must characterize as a caricature of the Samaritans based on an anachronistic understanding of the origins of Judaism, also coloured Montgomery's presentation of Samaritan theology. The Samaritans did not possess any 'intellectual independence'. The sect 'was content to draw its teachings and stimulus from the Jews, even long after the rupture was final'. The Pentateuch formed24 the backbone of Samaritan theology that reached its most fundamental development in the teachings of the fourth century CE Samaritan theologian Marka. This development, however, 'celebrated in the traditions concerning Baba Rabba',25 had but a brief blooming. 'The Samaritans fell back into the prosaic type characteristic of them, so that their theology has become a hard and dry product with little imagination and spiritual afflatus'. 26 The same judgment was given of Samaritan liturgy. Although this is represented, in the British Museum alone, in 12 large quarto volumes, numbering some 2000 pages, consisting of hymns, litanies, songs of praise, requiems, meditations, midrashic hymns composed for the great feasts of Passover, Pentecost and Booths (Kippur), as well as fasting liturgies and haggadic literature, they only 'rarely expose any poetic genius, but borrow and imitate Jewish and Syrian-Christian traditions'.27 Only in regard to earnestness and sincer23. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 54. 24. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 205. Montgomery did not engage himself in any lengthy discussion of the Pentateuch. The assertion made by Wellhausen that the Law must have reached its final form by the time of the exclusion of the priest who became the leader of the Samaritans about 432 BCE, he found unsubstantiated, since scholarship's knowledge of Jewish and Samaritan relationships for at least 200 years was so limited that we could not know for sure whether Samaritans and/or Jews had revised their Scriptures (cf. p. 73). Montgomery's ambiguity, however, found expression in his statement about relations between SP, MT and the LXX: 'all mysteries and theological prepossessions aside, the simplest hypothesis is that the Samaritan represents an actual early form of the Pentateuch... Indeed it is not the disagreement that is remarkable so much as the great similarity ot the two texts. Apart from the few falsifications inserted by the Samaritans, there are no material differences' (p. 289). 25. A third century CE reformer of Samaritan theology, see Chapters 2 and 3. 26. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 206. 27. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 299.

1. The Two-Episode Paradigm


ity in principles of faith did Montgomery allow the Samaritans a genuine religious spirit that 'gives a true dignity to very much that is in itself absurd and trivial'.28 Not only Jewish but also Christian theology influenced Samaritan thought. The phraseology is clearly marked by this influence, and several of the epithets attributed to Jesus can be found in the Samaritan 'belief in Moses, who, however, because of absolute monotheism, never can reach a divine status similar to that of Jesus. Moses is the sole prophet, the confidant of God, the son of his house, one with whom God talked face to face. He is the end, the limit of all revelation, a very ocean of divine utterance. Coloured by Christian terms, he is 'God's evangelist, the Pure one, the Light on Earth etc.'.29 However, Montgomery's proof of what he calls Christian influence in fact takes most of its epithets from the Old Testament. It is not owing to Christian influence that 'no prophet has ever arisen like Moses, or ever will arise; or that Moses is the absolute prophet, for all things hidden and revealed were shown him on the holy mount, so that other prophets are superfluous'. Even the assertion that 'on his account the world was made' has its first parallel in Jewish thought. The lack of interest in sacrificial laws in Samaritan theology gave Montgomery reason to conclude that the theology laid greater stress upon the moral side of the law. Expressed in haggadic form, it marks Samaritan theology with a tone of spirituality that might have been 'one of those numerous developments of Old Testament religion which were forerunners of the spiritual worship of synagogue and of Christianity'. This places Samaritan synagogue worship earlier than the similar Jewish one, 'for the glory of Gerizim fell two centuries before that of Jerusalem' .30 This constant ambiguity in Montgomery's judgment is probably given its greatest expression in his description of holy places, of which Judah can only 'boast of Hebron and Beer Sheba, and of the very modern sanctity of Jebusite Jerusalem', while 'the north was full of sanctuaries where Yahweh had appeared and where his heroes lived and died'.31 It is for Montgomery a 'strange outcome that the one-time sepa28. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 300. 29. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 226. 30. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 230. 31. Montgomery, Samaritans, pp. 15-16: 'Straight into the inviting uplands of Ephraim went the tribes of Israel...their objective was Shechem, the natural capital of the district (Jos. 1-9). Upon its two holy mountains was performed, and this according to Judaean tradition, the first formal covenant of the people with Yahweh


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

ratist tribe (Judah) became the church of Israel, while the north has at last given home to the smallest and most insignificant sect in the world'.32 The full impact of this statement is not dealt with satisfactorily in Montgomery's work. His reader is left to consider whether he in fact was so influenced by the nineteenth century's status of the Samaritan community that, in spite of considerable references to a more widespread and a more independent Samaritan religion and society in the Old Testament, in Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, in the New Testament, in, for that matter also, some of the writings of Josephus and the Church fathers, he found it impossible to conclude otherwise about Judaean-Samaritan controversies in antiquity. In spite of these inconsistencies, Montgomery's work had a considerable impact on scholarly opinions of Samaritanism. For decades it forced scholars either to challenge his obvious mistakes or to create more substantial 'evidence' in support of his historical reconstruction. Of these the latter certainly predominated.33 The Original Israelites: The Position ofM. Caster34
Caster's book forms a response to Montgomery's conclusions. Taking up the same issues and by and large using the same literature, Caster's implicit criticism of Montgomery's use of sources became a counterin their new home (Jos. 8.30ff.; Deut. 27) ...And now again the land was consecrated by the graves of Joseph and Joshua and Eleazar (Jos. 24.29ff.) and even according to an early tradition the tombs of the twelve patriarchs (Acts 7.16). This was the land of Gideon and Samuel and Saul, of Elijah and Elisha, in a word the land of Israel, whereas the South possessed no better title than its tribal name Juda, a provinicial designation, over against the noble succession of the North.' 32. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 16. 33. In fact A.D. Crown, in his presentation of Samaritan studies since Montgomery, could state that although his recent book (A.D. Crown, A Bibliography of the Samaritans [ATLA Bibliography Series, 10; London: The Scarecrow Press, 1984]) contained 2806 entries for all texts and writings from the sixteenth century until 1984 (with an addition of 311 entries for the following two years), it could be concluded that 'in many of these, Montgomery's book was still the principal reference. In many cases one receives the distinct impression that the scholars writing this material were "rediscovering" the Samaritans as if there had been no work done since the days of Montgomery'. Cf. A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck],1989), p. xvi. 34. M. Gaster, The Samaritans, Their History, Doctrines and Literature (London: Oxford University Press, 1925).

1. The Two-Episode Paradigm


weight to the pro-Judaic perspective underlying Montgomery's work. Where Montgomery failed to take seriously the sources he had at hand, Gaster sought to establish a harmonious historiography based on the SP, some Samaritan Chronicles, the Masoretic Pentateuch and the Old Testament Scriptures as well as the body of Jewish literature. The conclusions of Caster's historiography placed Samaritans in a much more independent role. They were not, as in Montgomery's book, the weak half, entirely dependent on their stronger brethren in the south, but they certainly were a people with their own strength and character, a religious and (political?) threat to their southern brethren, who were forced to fight over centralization of the cult.35 Whereas the Hebrew Bible considered the origin of the Samaritans to have resulted from the settling of heathen colonies in the northern kingdom after the fall of Samaria (referred to in 2 Kgs 17, Ezra 4 and confirmed in Josephus, Ant. 9.277-91; 10.184; 11.1-119), Samaritan tradition related the origin of the tribe(s) to the settling in 'the holy land'. The Samaritans, in Hebrew D'HQCZJ (Somerim: the keepers [of the Law]) are presented as descendants of Ephraim and Manasseh along with adherents from other tribes. Their list of high priests is traced back to Phinehas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron. The original tabernacle was erected on Mount Gerizim by Joshua, where the commandments of the Law were written (cf. also Deut. 27.2, which in the BHS is named Mount Ebal).36
35. Although Gaster could ascribe to the Samaritans the role of being the original Israelites, he still considered them to be a Jewish sect, having their background in the same Pentateuch and without any trace of heathen influence: 'The most minute investigation has failed to indicate a single trace; on the contrary, the result has been to fortify still farther, and confirm more strongly, the conviction that the Samaritans are none other than a purely Jewish sect' (Samaritans, p. 41). 36. Implicitly confirmed in Josh. 24.26: 'And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the Law of God, and took a great stone, and set it up there under an oak, that was established by the sanctuary of the Lord' (cf. Gaster, Samaritans, p. 8). Gaster did not accept Higher Criticism's attempts to take away the genuineness and antiquity of the chapter (cf. p. 8 n. 2). Gaster's acceptance of the Samaritan claim to be the original Israelites was later supported by F. Altheim and R. Stiehl, 'Erwagungen zur Samaritanerfrage', in idem (eds.), Die Araber in der Alien Welt, IV (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1967); A. Mikolasek, 'Les Samaritains gardiens de la loi contre les prophetes', Communio Viatorum 12 (1969), pp. 139-48; J. Macdonald, The Samaritan Chronicle No. II: From Joshua to Nebuchadnezzar (BZAW, 107; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1969). E. Nodet, Essai sur les origines du juda'isme: de


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Disagreements in the priestly families between the older and younger sons of Aaron, Eleazar and Ithamar, and Eli's subsequent move of the ark to Shilo marked the beginning of the Judaean-Samaritan controversies. The schism culminated in David's building of the temple in Jerusalem and became manifest during the time of Ezra.37 In order to give a certain authority to his sanctuary, Eli brought with him a copy of the Law Ithamar had had in his possession. This copy was later placed in the foundation of Solomon's temple. According to Gaster, the historicity of these events presented in the Samaritan Chronicle found its confirmation in several cases: (1) In Old Testament historiography, it is not until after the establishment of the tabernacle in Shiloh that Yahweh is named Yahweh Sebaot. (2) Eli's companion in his schismatic work is a descendant of Korah (1 Chron. 6.18-24), marking the new revolt as a reiteration of the revolt of the ancestor against Moses and Aaron (cf. Num. 16). (3) The obscure passages in the David-Saul story, relating Saul's killing of Ahimelekh and the priests of Nob and David's friendship with Abiathar and Ahimaas, could find its explanation in rival priestly families sympathizing with either one or the other. (4) The aetiological story in 2 Kings 17 about the removed peoples, which in Josephus bear the name Cuthaeans, had no impact on and no consequence for later Old Testament literature. With the exception of Ezra 4.1-2, the Samaritans cannot be traced in any biblical text. Ephraim is generally considered to be a legitimate Israelite tribe, belonging to the 'holy people' in so far as they keep the Law and accept Zion (cf. Isa. 7.8, 9; 11.11-13; Jer. 23.5-6; 31; Ezek. 37.16-19; Zech. 9.13; 10.6). Furthermore, both Hezekiah and Josiah send embassies to the 'old' Israelite tribes, unaware that these had been replaced by heathens.38 The parallel account in the Samaritan Chronicle does know of drought, famine and attacking wild beasts (so also Lev. 26), but such had been caused by the deportation of the priests, which had brought an end to the worship. After a petition to the Assyrian rulers, the high priest Serayah returned to rebuild the temple and to reestablish the cult on Mount Gerizim. Contrary to the Jewish version, in this tradition of the Samaritans, it is Serayah who asks the Jews and
Josue aux Pharisiens (Paris: Cerf, 1992); rev. Eng. version: In Search of the Origins of Judaism: From Joshua to the Mishnah (JSOTSup, 248; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997). 37. Gaster, Samaritans, pp. 8-9. 38. Gaster, Samaritans, pp. 9-17.

1. The Two-Episode Paradigm


their leader Zerubbabel to participate in the rebuilding. Since it was not comme ilfaut for the Jews to act positively to this request, the building was delayed. Not until after negotiations with the Persian king Surdi and proof given of Gerizim's priority over against Jerusalem did the rebuilding continue under royal protection. The chronological disagreement in placing Serayah as a contemporary of Zerubbabel did not affect Caster's reconstruction.39 This is surprising as his readings of Samaritan as well as biblical material is of a thoroughly historicizing character. Neither is the parallel account in Ezra about the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem considered to be either unhistorical or to conflict with the Samaritan account. The Ezra story, on the other hand, is seen to give evidence for the power of the Samaritans, namely that they could delay the rebuilding of the temple for years 'while they enjoyed the privilege of having rebuilt one on Mount Gerizim a long while before'.40 In contrast to Montgomery, the 'am hd'dres and the 'adversaries of Judah and Benjamin' are certainly the Samaritans. The unsolved question for Gaster is why the Jews rejected Samaritan support in the rebuilding. 41 His answer to this question concerns the purifying function of the exile. The returnees from the Babylonian exile were 'chastened in heart and wholly changed in their religious outlook. Every trace of ancient idolatry had been shed and pure monotheism was now the outstanding form of their worship and belief. They certainly did not have intentions of reviving old cult forms nor, by intermingling with other peoplenot even their former associates from before the exile want to risk losing what had been gained from the purifying suffering of the exile. For that reason, the Jews had to reject the Samaritan offer, avoid any kind of socializing and install the true high priest in the House of David. This was the struggle of the prophets Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. Interpreting Satan of Zech. 3.1-2 as representative of the Samaritan interests (in his attempt to convince the high priest
39. Gaster, Samaritans, p. 20. It is not clear, however, to me, on what Samaritan material Gaster based his reconstruction. The newer translations of Samaritan Chronicles do not present these confusions. 40. Gaster, Samaritans, p. 21. 41. 'It is however perfectly clear and easy to understand the refusal of the Jews to accept the invitation of the Samaritans to worship with them on Mount Garizim, but if the Samaritans came and offered to worship in Jerusalem, why should they have been refused' (Gaster, Samaritans, p. 21).


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Jehoshua that Gerizim/Shechem was the place chosen by God), Gaster placed this story in the centre of assumed postexilic discussions over cult and belief. Standing the test, Jehoshua's rejection of Satan's temptation established his legitimacy as high priest,42 a legitimacy that had been presumably rejected by the Samaritans, who otherwise claimed to have a correct and direct descendant from the Aaron-Eleazar branch of the lineage. The changing of garments in Zech. 3.3-7 illustrates the prophet's claim that, although Jehoshua was not the legitimate high priest, he now was the elected high priest.43 Although I agree with Gaster that we find these disputes in the Old Testament and that Zechariah also seeks to legitimize the high priest in Jerusalem, I do not think that Zechariah's text bears an implicit rejection of the Samaritan priesthood. The scenario is that of the book of Job. The fire and the removal of filthy garments are metaphors for 'removal of iniquity'. This is clear from v. 4. That this recognition in a context of cult centralization implies rejection is conjecture and stands in contrast to Gaster's interpretation of Zech. 4.14 that the olive trees reflect a future reunification of the two priestly families. The text as such seems not to have such a perspective, and we are far better off if we consider the two olive trees as symbolic representations of Jehoshua and Zerubbabel; namely of priesthood and kingship. The legitimacy of Jehoshua is confirmed in 1 Chron. 6.1-15. As son of Yehozadak son of Serayah he belongs to the lineage of Eleazar-Levi. This is the claim found also in Samaritan traditions, which, as we have seen, placed Serayah in their high priestly genealogy. The recurrent Old Testament motif of conflict of brothers certainly is also representative, and seems to be so fundamental for the Judaean-Samaritan conflict that we come across it over and over again. Of greatest importance is that Ezra is also placed in this genealogy, although he never bore the title of high priest: a title that is, however, remarkably absent in both Ezra and Nehemiah.44 According to Jewish as well as Samaritan tradition, Ezra transcribed the Hebrew text into the Aramaic script from the old characters still found among the Samaritans. In Gaster's interpretation of the event
42. Gaster, Samaritans, pp. 23-24. 43. Gaster, Samaritans, pp. 23-24. 44. Gaster, Samaritans, p. 27: 'as for his title, it is noteworthy that his genealogy is given, though many links are missing, and that he is described as the safer mahir' meaning 'a very high functionary, either equal to the high priest or commander of the army'.

1. The Two-Episode Paradigm

there could only have been one reason for such a drastic step; namely to break completely and to eliminate the Samaritan text from circulation among the Jews, to relegate it to a place of inferiority or to declare it spurious as well as incorrect and unreliable, as was often declared in the Rabbinic writings, and to wean the people from any contact or any knowledge of the old script. The new alphabet formed the impassable barrier between the two.45


According to Samaritan tradition, Ezra not only transcribed the text, he also falsified it, adding an extra commandment to replace the original commandment that the altar should be on Mt Gerizim, and further changed the wording of Deut. 27.4 to Ebal against an original Gerizim. This explains why 'the Levites read the Law to the people under the command of Ezra and with the assistance of Nehemiah'.46 Gaster's interpretation of these events is complicated by his attempts to incorporate what he think is the prophets' 'hope of reunification' by Samaritan submission to Zion and Jerusalem. Not only Zech. 4.14, but also Ezra 10 and Nehemiah 13 as well as Hag. 2.11-12, are directed towards Judaean-Samaritan relations.47 Stretching his argumentation beyond what in fact is said in these texts, it seems that Gaster, in his attempt to save the Jewish people from having fallen so deeply into apostasy that they even intermingled with heathen nations, allocates more cases to this argumentation than is dealt with in the texts.48 It is a wonder why Gaster did not bring in such texts as 2 Chronicles 30 and
45. Gaster, Samaritans, p. 28. 46. Gaster, Samaritans, p. 30: 'This will explain the failure of Ezra's activity until his work was taken in hand by Nehemiah and carried through owing to the authority wielded by the latter. The High Priest and his family, the princes of Judah, and all those who lived in amity with the Samaritans unquestionably offered great opposition and resistance to Ezra's reformative work and were able to thwart it during the years that Ezra was alone.' 47. See Gaster, Samaritans, p. 29. Gaster considered the Ashodim to be a euphemism for Samaritans, whom they avoided mentioning. 48. See p. 22: 'The relations between the Samaritans and the returned Jews must have been of a friendly character at the beginning; after all, they were conscious of being parts of one nation, they practically spoke the same language, worshipped the same God, followed the same injunctions, and had the same laws. The Jews could therefore easily have intermarried with the Samaritans, for it is not to be assumed from the records of the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, that the Jews had so far forgotten themselves as to intermarry with the heathen inhabitants'; p. 29: 'In order therefore, to carry out his decision, Ezra had first to break the family relations: hence the stern decree of divorce.'


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Jeremiah 30-31, which seem more appropriate to his argument about reunification. Placing the schism in the time of Ezra (dated to the mid-fifth century), Caster had no need for Josephus's Manasseh legend about the coming of Alexander the Great. This legend, based on Neh. 13.28 and Josephus's elaboration of it, has no place in Samaritan writing, and Manasseh is not placed in the Samaritan list of high priests.49 The increased animosity between the two groups, accusations of idol worship, of breaking of the Law, of fraternizing with the occupying power, combined with discussions over cult and belief for centuries, finally caused the Hasmonaean destruction of the Samaritan temple in the time of John Hyrcanus50 Also in contrast to Montgomery, Gaster argued for the antiquity of an unchanged Samaritan theology extending back some 3000 years. Any assertion of borrowing, copying or adapting their theology to the surrounding cultures, heathen or Jewish, was left unsubstantiated. As a minority group the Samaritans had to defend themselves against Judaism's accusations of having falsified the Law. 'They dared not give up a minute particle of their tradition.'51 That the opposite should be the
49. Gaster, Samaritans, pp. 32-34. 50. Gaster, Samaritans, pp. 35-36: 'There was no love lost between the two parties, and no sooner did John Hyrcanus obtain practical autonomy for Judea than he attacked the Samaritans, destroyed their temple, and annexed those portions of their territory which abutted on the northern frontier of Judea.' 51. Gaster, Samaritans, p. 46. Similar, but less radical views were later put forward by J. Macdonald, The Theology ofjhe Samaritans (NTL; London: SCM Press, 1964), p. 29: 'It has become customary for people to assume that the Samaritans were always the borrowers and not the lenders. Thus it is usual to claim that whenever Samaritan Literature presents ideas similar to those of some or other Near Eastern religion it was the former that incorporated the ideas of the latter. Such a claim is far from proved and no clear evidence has been presented up til now in support of it. Any claim for Samaritan borrowing from Judaism is nonsense, as anyone who has read all the available material must judge. What is true beyond doubt is that both Samaritanism and Judaism developed from a common matrix. Both possessed the Law, albeit they were at variance over points of difference in their respective texts of it, and both were evolving in an atmosphere wherein many ideas and ideals were being nurtured.' This argument's categorical refusal to consider Jewish dependence should not be compared to Macdonald's view that Samaritans 'were considerably influenced by the Greek philosophers' (Theology, p. 30), that gnosticism 'certainly influenced the Samaritans' (pp. 31-32), 'that at least in later times, they were closely influenced by the New Testament' (p. 33), and that they

1. The Two-Episode Paradigm


case was for Gaster quite as impossible. Agreements in interpretation of the Law expressed in halakhah by both Jews and Samaritans are due to a common Pentateuch (which must have had divine and unchangeable character for both groups long before the development of oral traditions). This can be clearly demonstrated by the fact that Samaritan halakhah in some instances agrees with the so-called Sadducaean interpretation, while in many others it agrees with the so-called Pharisaean interpretation. In contrast to Judaism, Samaritanism did not experience a break from the tradition. In Jewish tradition this was the necessary consequence of the Babylonian destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. The Samaritan list of high priests can be dated back to Adam, while the worship on Gerizim is understood never to have ceased as 'they have never been removed from Mount Gerizim'. Gaster in fact argues here against the Samaritan self-understanding that they had been removed three times: in the time of Saul, at the exile and finally in the time of the Jewish king Simon. These removals, however, caused no break with tradition. The return from the Babylonian exile is a return to the old cult place, a return to the old code, re-establishing the former cult.52 I do not wish to engage myself in a lengthy discussion about Gaster's presentation and judgment of Samaritan literature, but some few remarks must be made. Without direct evidence, admittedly difficult to establish, Gaster considered the Samaritan texts to be of a considerable antiquity and to have been copied accurately for centuries. The asserted differences between the Samaritan, the Masoretic and the Septuagint Pentateuchs were all due to later rewritings of the various texts in book form. These were 'not invested with the same sacred character as that with which the scroll was endowed'. 53 Only the scroll was used for divine service and should remain unblemished. For that reason, the former judgments of differences should be reconsidered and the discussion about the Samareiticon and the LXX taken up once again. This argument of Caster's has been seen for the last 50 years in quite another light. With the finding of the scrolls in the caves of the Judaean desert, Caster's argument fell apart. The establishment of an unchangeable textus receptus was finally accepted as belonging to a much later period. Gaster's other arguments regarding palaeography, colophons
'did not avoid considerable influence from Islam' (pp. 37-39), since he is here speaking from both a different perspective and time. 52. See Chapter 6. 53. Gaster, Samaritans, p. 103.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

and passeq in the Masoretic texts (where they deviated from the Samaritan texts) created few interested comments in following decades. The same must be said of his arguments about the Samaritans having been originally Israelites and preserving Hebrew in its most archaic form.54 Albeit this argument found its roots in both Jewish and Samaritan tradition, few scholars accepted it as historical. For years to come, the presentation of the Samaritans given by Josephus found its way into most of the 'historiographies' on both Judaism and Samaritanism. A Postexilic Political Schism: The Position of A. Alt55 Montgomery and Gaster both operated within what can be called a twoepisode paradigm. Placing the origin of either Samaritans or Jews in the first episode of separationwhether this be in post- or pre-exilic timesand a subsequent final schism in the fifth-second century BCE, the division of Jews and Samaritans begged explanation beyond pure political circumstances related to the formation of the Jewish state and the subsequent reign of the Hasmonaeans. The assertion of hostilities in the intervening period is conjectural. It does not explain steps taken by the Hasmonaeans or give reason for the hatred arising from such events. This problem forms the background of Alt's judgment of political circumstances in Palestine during Assyrian and Persian times. Historicizing the biblical accounts, Alt reached the conclusion that the schism was purely political. The building of the temple on Gerizim was an unavoidable consequence of Persian policy, whichwith Nehemiah gave Judaea an independent political role similar to what Samaria had enjoyed for 300 years.56 The ruling classes in Samaria,57 placed there
54. Gaster, Samaritans, p. 107: 'We thus have here four stages of development: first the old Hebrew writing, then some time afterwards the separating dot, then the transliteration of the old Hebrew writing into the square associated with the name of Ezra, and lastly the final evolution of the difference between the final and the medial letters. This development of course covers a long period and is probably the work of centuries. The Samaritan scroll shows the period of the separating dot, and thus from the point of view of palaeography has preserved a most archaic form which in all its details is entirely independent of any Jewish or other known influence.' 55. A. Alt, 'Die Rolle Samarias bei der Entstehung des Judentums' (1934), KS 2, pp. 316-37. 56. Alt, 'Rolle Samarias', p. 337: 'Das sich die Provinz Samaria auf diesen Umschwung hin auch als Religionsgemeinschaft unabhangig von Jerusalem kon-

1. The Two-Episode Paradigm


first by the Assyrian governors and later by the Babylonian and Persian authorities, had jurisdiction also over Judaea and its remaining poor landed population. When the Persians, however, sent home Judaea's exiled aristocracy58 this population, called 'am ha'ares, fought to remain under Samaritan rule. Aided by the governor, they appealed to the Persian king to stop what they considered to be usurpers of 'government'. The immediate result was favourable to the 'am ha'ares. Judaea was without its own governor and the Samaritan jurisdiction had no intention of giving up its influence in this area. It was not until the time of Nehemiah and the establishment of an independent Judaean province that the neighbouring provinces were deprived of influence in Judaic policy.59 This did not lead to the establishment of two equal regions.
stituerte und durch offiziellen Ausbau der Verehrung Jahwes auf dem Garizim ein kultisches Element, das ihr bis dahin gefehlt hatte, in ihren Bestand einfiigte, war die unausbleibliche Folge.' 57. Alt, 'Rolle Samarias', p. 320: 'Nicht minder wichtig fur die Rechtslage und fur das innere Leben der neuen Provinz ist aber zweitens die Ersetzung der deportierten bisherigen Oberschicht, die damit fur immer aus der Geschichte Palastinas ausscheidet, durch eine neue, die auf dem gleichen Wege der Deportationen aus anderen Teilen des Grossreiches zusammengeholt wird, also weder in sich selbst noch mit der an ihren Platzen belassenen Untersicht der Provinzialbevolkerung einen angestammten, nicht erst durch die Massnahmen der assyrische Regierung kiinstlich hergestellten Zusammenhang besitzt'. At the core of Alt's argument lies the assumption that these people remained unassimilated. Cf. p. 322: 'Es ist daher ein griindlicher Irrtum, wenn man sich die Entwicklung der Dinge in der Provinz Samaria von der Assyrerzeit so vorstellt, als ware da allmahlich ein Ausgleich zwischen der alteinheimischen und der neugefiihrten Bevolkerung eingetreten, und wenn man gar diese angebliche Volkermischung zur Grundlage fur das Verstandnis der spateren samaritanischen Religionsgemeinde machen will, als ware bei ihrer Entstehung eine Religionsmischung mit im Spiel.' 58. Alt argued that the exiled Judaean high society had not been exiled in the technical sense of the word, but was only removed for a limited period from its homeland, and was never replaced by a foreign upper-class group, as had happened in Samaria (cf. Alt, 'Rolle Samarias', p. 326). With the return of this 'exiled' upperclass group, its submission to Samaritan authority created the conflicts described in Ezra and Nehemiah. The Samaritan upper class, called 'am ha'ares, were those who for political reasons sought to delay the building of the temple in Jerusalem. 59. Alt, 'Rolle Samarias', p. 331: 'hatte es dort von anfang an einen persischen Statthalter gegeben, so miisste er an mehreren Stellen genannt sein, wo man in Wirchlichkeit nicht ein Wort von ihm lest, Ex.: Ezra 5:3ff, 4:8, 7:12ff; Neh. 2:7ff.' The mention of former governors in Neh. 5.15 does not necessarily refer to the same function, and it is possible that it refers to the Samaritan governors (p. 333


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Jerusalem kept its priority at least until the end of the Persian period. In Samaria, it was only the central area and Gerizim that had cultic independence.60 Supporting Alt's assertion of Jerusalem's sovereignty was the acceptance of the common Pentateuch, which in Alt's opinion must have taken place long after Nehemiah. Furthermore, the people from the Jewish colony in Elephantine sent their letter to the governors in both Jerusalem and Samaria, but to the high priest only in Jerusalem (cf. Elephantine pap. 31). It is characteristic for Alt's presentation that it was not as directed by the biblical account as might be the immediate impression.61 It is the extra-biblical material, the Assyrian Prism text, that undermines the understanding of 2 Kings 17 as historical, and it is the Elephantine papyri that supports the historicity of Neh. 5.14. With this step, scholarship began its move into the paradigm shift in Old Testament research, which in its historical reconstruction sought to place the development of Samaritanism and Judaism in the postexilic period and to remove entirely connections between 2 Kings 17's dubious 'Samaritans' and Ezra's and Nehemiah's 'Adversaries'. Involved in these attempts at reconstruction have been the severe and still-ongoing debates about the historicity of the Bible's accounts. This debate tended to divide scholars into two groups: one who, comparing the biblical accounts with extrabiblical material, found it difficult to consider the stories of the Bible historical, and another group who, seeking to explain the divergences, tried to establish foundations supporting the historicity of the Bible. In
n. 2). This argumentum ex silentio is the unproven part of Alt's assertion that Nehemiah carried out the separation some time before the end of the fifth century, as documented in the Elephantine papyri, which seemed to be the only secure anchor for a dating. Cf. p. 332: 'So bezeugt denn auch fur die Folgezeit (408) eines der jtidisch-aramaischen Dokumente aus der Militarkolonie von Elephantine die Existens einer besonderen Statthalterei in Juda neben der in Samaria, was zur Voraussetzung hat, dass nunmehr das einstige Gebiet des Staaters der Davididen ganz oder wenigstens zu einem wesentlichen Teil aus einer Eingliederung in die Nachbarprovinzen gelost und administrativ verselbstandigt war.' 60. Cf. A. Alt, 'Zur Geschichte der Grenze zwischen Judaa und Samaria', (1935), KS 2, pp. 346-62. The heritage from Josephus is clear here; and it is not declared from what the Samaritans had cultic independence. 61. So also in his famous Landnahme hypothesis Alt takes his starting point first and foremost from the late bronze Iron age transition and only secondarily from the traditions of Judges (A. Alt, Die Landnahme der Israeliten in Paldstina [Leipzig: Reformationsprogramm der Universitat Leipzig, 1925]).

1. The Two-Episode Paradigm


Samaritan studies, this development reached its climax in H.G. Kippenberg's claim for the historicity of 2 Kings 17, placing this event in a context entirely unrelated to the events after the exile. The 'Samaritans' involved in both cases were unrelated.62 If it were not for the fact that Josephus relates these two groups (called Kot>0aioi, Cuthaeans, in his writings), Kippenberg's suggestion could easily have solved the historical problem. We will return to this below. The issues regarding the origin of the Samaritans in this formative period of scholarship were not reducible to political developments. They were increasingly related to the broader questions of the origin and development of both postexilic and pre-rabbinic Judaism. Central to these debates have been the questions of the development of the Pentateuch and the formation of the Canon. By necessity, this included reconsiderations of an asserted pre-exilic Deuteronomistic Yahwism comprising all of Palestine and dating back to a biblically established common monarchy, which, in the light of new insights gained from texts as various as the Elephantine papyri and the Dead Sea Scrolls, could be maintained only with great difficult. Decisive Elements in the Formation of a Distinct Samaritan Community in the Hasmonaean Period: The Positions ofH.H. Rowley, G. Holscher, W.F. Albright and M. Smith The move towards this paradigm shift is clearly demonstrated in H.H. Rowley's article from 1955,63 rejecting the reconstruction made by C.C. Torrey and G. Holscher. In an attempt to save the reliability of Josephus's Alexander legend, they argued either for a placement of the event in the time of Nehemiah's rule during the reign of Artaxerxes II (405-359 BCE)64 or for the dependency of Josephus on Alexander

62. H.G. Kippenberg, Garizim und Synagoge: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur samaritanischen Religion der aramaischen Periode (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1971), pp. 92-93. 63. 'Sanballat and the Samaritan Temple'. 64. C.C. Torrey, Ezra Studies (1910), repr. W.F. Stinespring, Prolegomena (Library of Biblical Studies; New York: Ktav, 1970), pp. xi-xxviii; idem, 'Sanballat the Horonite', JBL 47 (1928), pp. 380-89; idem, The Chronicler's History of Israel: Chron.-Ezra-Neh. Restored in its Original Form (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1954), p. xxxi, repeated these former views and totally rehabilitated Josephus's story about Alexander's arrangements in Samaria.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Polyhistor, 'who normally is considered to be reliable'.65 Concluding that we have no knowledge of when the Samaritan temple was built, Rowley did not consider it necessary that the building of the temple had anything to do with the schism asserted by Josephus. The texts from Elephantine did not display any knowledge of a break between Jerusalem and Samaria, and the cult centralization from the time of Josiah was most probably deemed only short-term and not extending into a postexilic period.66 That the Jewish colony in Elephantine did not seem to have any knowledge of the Pentateuch, the Law, sabbath, feasts, biblical traditions, and so on, was pointed out by A. Cowley as early as 1923: 'so far as we learn from these texts Moses might never have existed, there might have been no bondage in Egypt, no exodus, no monarchy, no prophets'.67 This led Cowley to assume that the Pentateuch in its later form was chiefly postexilic, and that the rabbinic tradition's assertion of

65. G. Holscher, Die Quellen des Josephus fur die Zeit vom Exil bis zum jiidischen Kriege (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1904). See note 12 for early references to this discussion. Critical viewers of Josephus's reliability at the time were, for example, R. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament (New York, 1941), p. 809: 'Josephus... gives a purely fictious account of the founding of the Samaritan church'; M. Noth, History of Israel (ET; 2nd rev. edn by P.R. Ackroyd; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), p. 354: 'The whole story is full of legendary details and introduces all kinds of figures, such as the governor of Samaria Sanballat, who do not belong to this historical context.' Rowley had nothing but contempt for Josephus's history writing, which he characterized as inaccurate and unrealistic: 'It is curious to find how little accurate history of the Persian period survived in Jewish tradition, and for chronological purposes in this period Jewish sources are of slight value' (Men of God, p. 257). 66. Rowley here refers to the Samaritan tradition's assertion that the temple at Gerizim was restored by Sanballat in the time of Zerubbabel, thus supporting Josephus with 200 years' divergence (Men of God, p. 266 n. 2), and further on p. 268 he says, 'At the end of the fifth century BC the Jewish authorities could be presumed to look with complacency on the existence of a temple at Elephantine, which could serve a community there which was cut off from the Jerusalem temple, and it might have looked with equal complacency on a temple on Mount Gerizim, either then or later, since the political tension which had appeared between Jerusalem and Samaria more than once in the post-exilic days had made the Samaritans but coldly welcomed visitors in Jerusalem.' 67. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, p. xxiii.

1. The Two-Episode Paradigm


the loss of the Law which therefore was restored by Ezra (cf. Sank. 21b; Suk. 20.3) should be judged trustworthy.68 Rowley did not agree with this, but maintained that the Pentateuch must have reached its finished form before the time of Ezra, as it was
highly improbable that the Samaritans had borrowed the Pentateuch from the Jews after the breach had become complete, and almost certain that the whole Pentateuch must have been accepted as the work of Moses before things had reached such a point.69

That the Samaritans should have 'borrowed' and 'accepted' the Hebrew Pentateuch and at the same time have treated Ezra with the 'greatest bitterness' was for Rowley a contradiction that could not bring these traditions together.70 The purpose of Ezra's mission was to bring religious practice into agreement with this Law code, andgiven the reference to the finding of it in Jerusalem's templedeclare this place to be the place for the name of Yahweh. The erection of the Samaritan temple was thus not a result of this reform. This temple, based on the traditions of the Pentateuch, must have existed long before that time.71 It is reasonable to expect that Rowley had asked whether it in fact was the destruction or the claim implicit in the Deuteronomistic reform for a centralization of the cult that caused the schism. This would have brought him closer to the opinions put forward by Holscher and

68. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, p. xvii. 69. Rowley, Men of God, p. 273: 'if Ezra had changed the Pentateuch, so that the original reading of Deut. 27.4 is Gerizim, as claimed by the Samaritans then it was not improbable that the Samaritans had older copies.' Asserted also by G.F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries, I, pp. 25-26: 'In Deut. 27.4, the Jewish text has "Mount Ebal", where the whole tenor of the context demands "Gerizim", as the Samaritan Hebrew reads; the same change has been made in the Jewish text in Jos. 8.30... Shechem-Gerizim was therefore manifestly the place so often spoken of in Deuteronomy where God would put his name; Jerusalem had usurped a precedence never meant for it. So far as the letter of Scripture went, the Shechemites could make out an embarrassingly good case.' Cf. Rowley, Men of God, p. 272 n. 4. 70. Rowley, Men of God, p. 211. 71. Rowley, Men of God, p. 275. The non-acceptance of the historical books was for Rowley easy to understand because of their anti-northern bias. For the Prophets and the Psalter, on the contrary, it is difficult to give reason for their dismissal: 'It seems more likely that the breach had become so deep that a reconciliation was impossible before these books had secured anything like so firm a place as they had by the time of Ben Sira.'


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Albright,72 which had been rejected by Rowley on the grounds that 'it is hard to see why the Samaritans did not accept more than the Pentateuch if that were so'.73 As early as 1922, G. Holscher had argued that the schism was only indirectly related to the development of the canon. Jews and Samaritans had the same Pentateuch. The collection of the prophets should not be dated earlier than the end of the second century BCE, since these and the biblical historical books display an anti-Ephraimitic tendency, which had been unacceptable for the Samaritans. The common opinion that the schism should be dated to the time of Ezra and Nehemiah and that Josephus's Alexander legend should reflect an underlying historical event was rejected by Holscher on the grounds of 2 Mace. 6.1's mention of Gerizim, as well as the dating of the final redaction of the Pentateuch later than the time of Nehemiah.74 It was only increasing envy and unfriendliness over cult practices, with an excessive eagerness for the observance of what the Hasmonaeans considered to be the proper cult, that had led to the destruction of the Samaritan temple and a final schism.75 Without joining the discussion about Samaritan acceptance or nonacceptance of Old Testament prophets and Scriptures, religious and
72. They placed the schism in either the second century BCE (cf. Holscher, Geschichte, p. 170) or the first century BCE (cf. W.F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2nd edn, 1946), p. 336. 73. Rowley, Men of God, p. 269. 74. Holscher, Geschichte, p. 172 n. 14. 75. Holscher, Geschichte, p. 170: 'Erst die Intoleranz der Hasmonaerzeit hat den Bruch herbeigefiihrt. Wahrend die Seleukidenmacht im 2. Jhrh. zerbrockelte, gelang es den Hasmonaeren, die jiidische Herrschaft u'ber den grossten Teil Palastinas auszudehnen: Jonatan gewann die samarischen Grenzdistrikte, Simon eroberte Gazara und Jope, Hyrkan I. Iduma'a, Pera'a und Samaria, Aristobul I. auch Galilaa bis an die Grenzen Libanons; Alexander Jannai war am Ende Herr fast ganz Palastinas. Dabei trieben diese Hasmonaer eine Million mit Feuer und Schwert; wo sie konnten, vor allem in Iduma'a und Nordgalilaa, zwangen sie die Bevolkerung zur Beschneidung. Diesem orthodoxen Religionseifer fiel auch das Heiligtum auf dem Garizim zum Opfer, welches Hyrkan I im Jahre 128 zerstorte. Mit Ausnahme der grossen hellenistischen Stadte war Palastina seitdem judaisiert; das Programm des Deuteronomiums von der Zentralisation des Kultes in Jerusalem war fiir kurze Zeit verwirklicht'. But already in 63 BCE the Samaritans were liberated by the Romans and from that time on was 'die Sekte der Samariter bei Sichem als eine eigene, vom Judentum losgeloste Religionsgemeinschaft entstanden.'

1. The Two-Episode Paradigm


political circumstances, the reform of Ezra, and so on, W.F. Albright dated the Judaean-Samaritan schism to the Hasmonaean period. He based his assertion on the existence of coins from this period bearing clear impressions of the script of Samaritan scripture. Considering this to be a revival of the pre-exilic archaic Hebrew script, Albright concluded that it was 'presumably then or somewhat later that the entire SP was retranscribed into the archaizing "Samaritan" script, which symbolised the refusal of the Samaritans to follow the "modernists" of Jerusalem'.76 The conquest of Shechem and Samaria between 128 and 110 BCE and the Roman takeover in 63 BCE confirmed for Albright his dating of the schism.77 This scriptural 'evidence' was strongly supported by P.M. Cross, who, on the basis of preliminary work on DSS in the mid-fifties, concluded that 'the Samaritan Pentateuch, its textual type, orthographic style, Paleo-Hebrew script, and linguistic usage, all developed in the Maccabean and early Hasmonean periods'.78 Cross,
76. Albright against M. Gaster (and rabbinic tradition), considered the Samaritan 'retranscription' to be a two-step movement, which must have implied that he expected the Samaritans to have followed the practice instituted by Ezra. 77. Albright, Stone Age, pp. 265-66: 'Since there is not a single passage in the whole Pentateuch which can be seriously considered as showing post-exilic influence either in form or content, it is likely that the entire Pentateuch was compiled in substantially its present form before 522 BCE. However, this does not mean that its form was already fixed according to the standards prevailing in the time of the Septuagintal translation (c. 250 BCE) or in that of the Samaritan recension (which Samaritan palaeography practically compels us to place between c. 100 and c. 63 BCE), to say nothing of Masoretic standards more than a millennium later.' The contradictions in this statement certainly have inspired innumerable studies on how a later excerpt can be prior to itself. 78. P.M. Cross, 'Papyri of the Fourth Century B.C. from Daliyeh', in D.N. Freedman and J.C. Greenfield (eds.), New Directions in Biblical Archaeology (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971), pp. 45-69 (65); J.D. Purvis, The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin of the Samaritan Sect (HSM, 2; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968), p. 87, gave Albright and Cross full support: 'its script developed from the paleo-hebrew; its orthography is the standard full orthography of this time; the textual tradition it represents is not only known from this time, but completed the development of its characteristics during the Hasmonean period.' R. Pummer, 'Present State of Samaritan Studies I', JSS 21 (1976), pp. 39-61 (51), gave Purvis's statement this comment: 'Whereas many would agree with Purvis in principle that the final break must have come then, and that specifically sectarian version of the SP dates from that time, not everyone considered Purvis' arguments as conclusive.' References are made to reviews of Purvis's Samaritan Pentateuch:


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

however, operated within the two-episode paradigm. His studies on the papyri from Wadi Daliyeh from 1963 and especially 1975 sought to solve the chronological confusions in Josephus's Alexander story by data from other sources. Before examining this contribution to the Samaritan debate we need to deal with Morton Smith's challenging work, Palestinian Parties and Politics That Shaped the Old Testament, from 1971. Reconsidering the whole question of the image of Judaism prior to the Hasmonaean period and placing Samaritans within that Judaism, Smith removed any reason for sectarian ruptures related to temple building projects. With reference to a widespread religious syncretism in Palestine until the second century BCE, he argued that it was fashion rather than conscious religious policy that had brought an end to offerings and the replacement of cult places with synagogues, resulting in a decimation of cult places to 'the official cults at Jerusalem and Samaria and perhaps a few holy places in the north, most likely Mt Gerizim' ,79
The 'Samaritan schism' is not to be dated from the erection of this temple but from the breakdown of relationships between Jerusalemites

B.J. Roberts in JTS 20 (1969), pp. 569-71; M. Smith in ATR 53 (1971), pp. 127-29; J.H.C. Lebram in BO 25 (1969), pp. 382-83; Z. Ben-Hayyim in Biblica 52 (1971), p. 255, who expresses severe doubts when he asks, 'Can one really come to an important historical and social conclusion such as the time of the formation of the Samaritan sect according to the orthographic form and the script of its Holy Writ?'. The dating was on other premises accepted by M. Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament (New York: Columbia University Press, 1971), p. 191, who did not reckon with the canonization of the prophetic books before the Hasmonaean period, which made the question about acceptance/nonacceptance unimportant; R.J. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews: The Origins ofSamaritanism Reconsidered (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1975), p. 152, who rejected Cross's theory about the local text tradition, since there could have existed several local text traditions which have now been lost. The most that can be said is that palaeography points to a recension in the Hasmonean period. Coggins (Samaritans and Jews, p. 155), warned against too heavily stressing the fact that the Samaritans had rejected the non-Pentateuchal Scriptures: 'In fact, a wide range of attitudes could be found, and it appears that the Samaritans were similar to the Sadduccees and the Jews of the diaspora at Alexandria in the way in which they accorded fully canonical status to the Torah alone, with a more limited place being found for certain other works.' Further research on the DSS brought up new ideas about various text types and the development of the Samaritan script, and in fact loosened the scholarly asserted ties between schism and recension. See Chapter 3 . 79. Smith, Palestinian Parties, pp. 184-85.

1. The Two-Episode Paradigm

and Samaritans, which led to a reversal of each group's legal opinion regarding the permissibility of the cult carried on at the other's sanctuary.80


This conclusion Morton Smith based on an assertion of the existence of two competing parties in postexilic Palestine: a Judaic separatist party, led by the governor Zerubbabel and the priest Yehoshua son of Yosadak,81 and an assimilation party represented chiefly by priests from Jerusalem who allowed mixed marriages, proselytism, a certain degree of religious syncretism and more cult places. Between those parties we find the 'am ha'ares, the remaining pre-exilic syncretist Yahweh worshippers, or perhaps apostates or pagans. They were now forced to decide for one or other party.82 Paraphrasing Ezra and Nehemiah with related prophets and using parts of Josephus's historiography as reliable sources, Smith asserted that the separatist party gained influence in the fifth century83 but fell behind again in the fourth century when the

80. Smith, Palestinian Parties, p. 185. M. Smith pointed out that, according to Ezra 3.Iff., 4.Iff. and Jer. 41.5, sacrificial worship of Yahweh continued after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple and prior to its rebuilding. This in fact separated the temple from the sacrificial cult, which only demanded altars, several of which have been found in and outside of Palestine: Haran, Elephantine, Babylon, Lakish, Gerizim, Tabor, Karmel, Hebron, Mamre, Deir 'Alia, Tell es-Sa-dieyeh, Araq el-Emir, Leontopolis, etc. (cf. pp. 90-98). 81. The separatist party emanated from the pre-exilic Yahweh-alone party (Smith, Palestinian Parties, p. 34) with a new programme of realizing the EzraNehemiah reform (cf. pp. 110-11). 82. M. Smith based his analysis on textual evidence relating to the modification of former customs. See pp. 180-84 (183): 'Since the Judeans and the north Israelites continued to worship Yahweh, and since we are told that the cult in the north was sacrificial, the problem which had to be overcome on the Judean side was that of explaining away the passages in Deuteronomy which prohibited sacrifice outside Jerusalem. This problem the assimilationist priests had already met when they combined the deuteronomic and holiness codes in a single collection, since the holiness code anticipated (and seems framed to necessitate) sacrifices in every village. Perhaps their harmonistic exegesis simply interpreted Deuteronomy's references to sacrifice at "the" place, which Yahweh would choose as meaning "any" such place, that is, any established shrine ("the" often has the meaning "any" in priestly legal texts).' 83. In the work of Nehemiah, it finally gained political as well as religious authority in Judaea. The Judaeans were from that time on a special people, segregated from their neighbours, observing peculiar customs (such as the Sabbath), and devoted to a Yahweh worship centred around the temple in Jerusalem. Whether the


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

assimilist party gained power. This was kept until around 180 BCE, only interrupted once by a crisis around 350-330 BCE during the reign of Artaxerxes III Ochus. His conquest of Jerusalem, probably in the 350s, became a decisive event for the relationship between Judaea and Samaria. The deportation of a mainly pro-Egyptian government and the installment of a pro-Persian one in Jerusalem, whose members came mainly from the separatist party, 'may have produced a temporary crisis in relations with the Samaritans and may have contributed to Josephus's erroneous location of the "Samaritan schism" in the period immediately following'.84 With Alexander the Great's defeat of Darius in 333 BCE, the assimilist party is seen to have gained power again, which they kept until around 180 BCE. The principal achievement of the Jerusalem priesthood
during this century and a half of assimilationist control was to establish their corpus of religious lawthe Pentateuchso firmly as the law of Yahweh and the law of the land that its preservation could become the battle-cry of the Maccabees, and its interpretation the central concern of later sectarian Judaism... From the Samaritan acceptance of the law to the Maccabean revolt there is no reliable sign of any lasting and official breach. Shechemites and Judeans formed a single religious community in Ptolemaic Egypt and were treated as a single religious community by assimilationists liked it or not, they could do nothing but submit to this 'religion of (most) Judeans', called '"Judaism"' (p. 145). This, however, did not lead to any realised cult centralisation or to a destruction of a Samaritan temple (which must have existed from pre-exilic times, Ezra 4.2). This would have required a military occupation, which would have been contrary to the Persian administration's protection of local religious groups (Smith, Palestinian Parties, pp. 197-98). 84. Smith, Palestinian Parties, pp. 185-86: This accounts for many of the prophecies warning against alliances with Egyptour present collection of prophetic books was probably being put together about this time.' This utterance is typical for Morton Smith's work of combining history and literature (cf. p. 151). Historically there is much in support of such an argumentation, but methodologically it is very difficult to avoid circular arguments that are in constant danger of creating both political history and history of literature on unsubstantiated arguments. The prophetic warnings discussed by Smith could in fact have been brought at any time in Israel's ancient history. The lack of historical references to most of the events in the Persian and Hellenistic periods until the time of Antiochus Epiphanes (around 170 BCE) makes it possible to create whatever scenario one thinks fit for the texts and probably also accounts for the scholarly hypothesis that the texts were finally edited in this period, since such an assertion does not bring them in a conflict with later literature, or later events.

1. The Two-Episode Paradigm

the Seleucids until the hellenizing party in Shechem protested. Their protest may have been no more representative of Shechemite opinion than the contemporary acts of the hellenizers in Jerusalem were of Judean opinion, but representative or not it began an official separation which was confirmed by the Shechemites non-participation in the Maccabean revolt (the 'Samaritans' who helped the Seleucids probably came from pagan Samaria). From this time on there were two religious communities. The Shechemites presently revised their text of the Pentateuch to justify their practices, and from that time on there were two official texts of the law.85


This conclusion seems to be one of the great weaknesses in Smith's work. The assertion of a continuation of the assimilist party in Judaea but not in Samaria after the period of Artaxerxes III, creating an initial schism in this period, seems to be a necessary hypothesis for Smith's reconstruction of the establishment of the Pentateuch. For unknown reasons, this is asserted to have originated in the Jerusalemite priesthood, although its perspective is entirely from outside of Jerusalem. The assertion of a Samaritan acceptance of this Law, which could only happen if 'there was no lasting and official breach', is not substantiated, and, whatever reason the Samaritans might have had to revise this 'accepted' Pentateuch, it is not presented in Smith's work. The possibility that it was the separatist party that needed to revise their early edition of the Pentateuch seems not to have occurred to him. Taking up Old Ideas: The Positions of P.M. Cross and H.G. Kippenberg The finding of the so-called Samaria papyri from Wadi Daliyeh in 1962 brought further confusion regarding the formation of postexilic Judaism's relation to Samaritanism. The still unsolved question of the chronological inconsistencies in Josephus's Alexander legend has only seemingly found its solution in the reconstruction offered by P.M.
85. Smith, Palestinian Parties, p. 191, here followed the views of Waltke, 'that the Samaritan Pentateuch was influenced by the proto-Masoretic text, but later went through a period of corruption' (B. Waltke, Prolegomena to the Samaritan Pentateuch [HTR, 58; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965], p. 463). 'This would seem a reflection of the two periods, first 198-173, when the massoretic text was being formed and the upper classes of Jerusalem and Shechem were on good terms, then the Maccabean period, when Shechem at first was in the hand of the Hellenizers, later was at war with the Maccabees, and finally destroyed at 107.'


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Cross.86 The finds from a cave in the Jordan valley, north of Jericho, consisted of several, mostly administrative, documents from Samaria, potsherds of a type found in Shechem also, and about 300 skeletons. Some of the documents carried the name of Sanballat and, together with the Elephantine documents, they bore testimony to Sanballat's ties to Samaria. By way of the so-called papponomy theory,87 Cross sought to demonstrate comparable reliability for the Chronicler, Josephus and the papyri. However, in spite of possible evidence implicit in the papyri, Cross's reconstruction had the sole purpose of saving the biblical 'evidence' and Josephus's elaboration on it. It is somewhat ironic that Cross, in his first article on the subject in 1963, claimed: 'The significance of the discoveries in the Wadi Daliyeh despite the relatively banal content of the papyri, is considerable. Any light on the fourth century BC. is highly welcome; one doubts that there is a less known century in Palestine in the entire first millennium.'88 The reconstruction made by Cross with Sanballat I-II-III and the associated high priests Yohanan I86. P.M. Cross, Jr, 'The Discovery of the Samaria Papyri', BA 26 (1963), pp. 110-21; idem, 'A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration', JBL 94 (1975), pp. 418. 87. Which he based on his own reconstruction of a king list from an Ammonite inscription from Tell Siran in the sixth century BCE. See P.M. Cross Jr: 'Notes on the Ammonite Inscription from tell Siran', BASOR 212 (1973), pp. 12-15, and B. Mazar, 'The Tobiads', IEJ 1 (1957), pp. 137-45, 229-38, who placed all references to Tobiah in one genealogy stretching from 590 BCE (Lachish Ostraca) to 200 BCE (Zenon papyri) with an addition of the Tabeel lineage from the eighth century BCE, referred to in Isa. 7.6. This reconstruction did not achieve general acceptance as it relied mostly on the Old Testament and Josephus, and since it had not been established that similarity of names implies the same genealogy (cf. T.C. Eskenazi, 'Tobiah', ABD, VI, p. 584-85). 88. In his article from 1975, 'Reconstruction', Cross complained about the lack of progress in research since the discovery of the Elephantine papyri in 1911: 'If one compares the review of literature on the date of Ezra's mission by H.H. Rowley in 1948 ["The Chronological Order of Ezra and Nehemiah"] and the review by Ulrich Kellermann in 1968 ["Erwagungen zum Problem der Ezradatierung", ZAW 80 (1968), pp. 55-87] and ["Erwagungen zum Ezragesetz", ZAW 80 (1968), pp. 373-85] one comes away disappointed; a generation of research has added at best a few plausible speculations.' To these Cross reckoned J. Morgenstern, 'The Dates of Ezra and Nehemiah', JSS 7 (1962) pp. 1-11, and Smith, Palestinian Parties (p. 252 n. 109), who, criticizing Rowley, argued, 'Arguments from personal names are generally worthless because of the frequence of papponomy at this period, and the frequency of most of the names concerned'.

1. The Two-Episode Paradigm


II-III and Yaddua I-II-III were not witnessed, as claimed by Cross, by Elephantine papyrus 30 and Samaria papyri 5, 8 and 14.89 With a dating of Elephantine papyri to 408 BCE and Samaria papyri to 375-335 BCE, both of which speak of the 'sons of Sanballat', Cross found it necessary to identify the Sanballat of Elephantine papyrus 30 as number I, while the Sanballat of Samaria papyri 5 and 14 had to be number II. Finally, the Sanballat mentioned in Josephus's Alexander story was seen as number III.90 As a consequence of this reconstruction, Josephus's account of the marriage of the daughter of Sanballat (III) to the Jerusalemite priest Manasseh, brother to Yaddua (III) had to be a different incident than that mentioned in Neh. 13.28. This could only be the marriage of the daughter of Sanballat (I) to the son of the high priest Yoyada (Yaddua I).91 Cross's attempt to save Josephus's mistake by a reference to a late composition for the work of the Chronicler in the Rabbinic period (as a reason for Josephus's use of 1 Esdras and an
89. Samaria papyrus no. 5 mentions 'Yahu son of [San]ballat, Governor of Samaria'; no. 8 mentions '[H]nnyh, governor of Samaria'; no. 14 mentions '[Yes]hu son of Sanballat and Hanan the prefekt' (cf. Cross, 'Papyri of the Fourth Century B.C.', p. 46). 90. R.W. Klein gave full support to this reconstruction in 'Sanballat', IDBSup, I, pp. 781-82, where he furthermore found it probable that there could have been several priests who married Sanballat's daughters since the schism had not occurred immediately. G. Widengreen, 'The Samaritan Schism and the Construction of the Samaritan Temple', in J.H. Hayes and J.M. Miller (eds.), Israelite and Judean History (London: SCM Press, 1977), pp. 489-538 (507-509) rejected Cross's reconstruction for not only having construed the results but also their presuppositions. H.G.M. Williamson, 'Sanballat', ABD, V, pp. 973-75 points to the obvious problem, that formerly Rowley ('Sanballat and the Samaritan Temple') and Mowinckel (Studien zu dem Buck Ezra-Nehemia II: Die Nehemia-Denkschrift [Oslo: SUNVAO, 1964]) had noted that Josephus did not place his account about the son-in-law of Sanballat in the time of Nehemiah but rather in the time of Alexander the Great, and that it has not been proven that 'the Sanballat of Josephus proves to be Sanballat the III'. It should be further noticed that Josephus, disagreeing with the biblical account, leaves out any naming in his Nehemiah account (Ant. 11.159-83), and only refers to those included as Ammonites, Moabites and Samaritans (11.174), which would have been unnecessary if the names could have been repeated. The disagreements in Josephus's historigraphy thus had not been overcome with the new finds, as asserted by Cross in 'Reconstruction', p. 5. 91. ' is clear that he [Josephus] confused Yaddua II and Yaddua III as well as Sanballat I and Sanballat III with diabolic results for the history of the Restoration' ('Reconstruction', p. 6).


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

independent Nehemiah source) might save the historicity of Nehemiah as such, but it certainly brings it in conflict with Josephus's dating of Nehemiah in the fifth century BCE. In fact, it also removed Cross' need for a Sanballat III and Yaddua III. Perhaps it was this implicit contradiction that made Cross suggest in the same article (p. 18) that
The Memoirs of Nehemiah here briefly summarised must have been originally composed and circulated in the late fifth century. Toward 400 BCE a final editor combined the Nehemiah-memoirs with the Chronicler's work (Chron. 2), prefixed a collection of genealogies (1 Chron. 19) and otherwise edited the whole.

This collision between two paradigms of research became crucial for Cross's conclusions. With a dating of Nehemiah to the time of Artaxerxes I, about 445 BCE, he needed an extra generation in order to hold the evidence from Elephantine and Samaria papyri together with the biblical material. The attempt to save the historicity of the biblical material provided this material with a superiority over extra-biblical evidence. In fact it took away any possible historicity of the extra-biblical material. Where one might have expected a revision of the 'evidence' from the Bible and from Josephus on the background of new material, the contradictions introduced by this material were smoothed away in an even more fanciful reconstruction. This certainly was an 'upside down' Martin Noth: 'Es geht aber wissenschaftlich nicht darum, ob wir "external evidence" brauchen, sondern ob wir "external evidence" haben.'92 Here we had 'external evidence' that in a twisted way created two extra Sanballats out of the 'son(s) of Sanballat' mentioned in the papyri. More clearly, this lack of consistency is demonstrated in Cross's 1971 article on the subject, where he stated: There can be little doubt that the erection of the temple of Gerizim as a rival to Zerubbabel's temple in Jerusalem further aggravated the traditional bad relations between Samaritan and Jew.' This assumption was based solely on Josephus and had, as R.J. Coggins demonstrated a few years later93 no contemporary documentation. When the schism in the second century was claimed to be a culmination of these circumstanceswitnessed in archaeology and DSS's documentation of a Samaritan text type as well as by an independent development of the Samaritan
92. M. Noth, 'Der Beitrag der Archaologie zur Geschichte Israels', in G.W. Anderson et al. (eds.), Congress Volume Oxford 1959 (VTSup, 7; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1960), pp. 262-82 (27 I n . 1). 93. R.J. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews.

1. The Two-Episode Paradigm


Pentateuch in this periodwe once again were faced with a construed historiography's apologetic claiming Judaism's sovereignty:
It is difficult to speak of the Samaritans as a fully separated sect, so long as direct Jewish influence shaped their doctrine and practice, so long as the biblical text which they used was held in common with the Jews, so long as Jew and Samaritan used a common national style of script.94

Representing a conservative strain of scholarship's problem with incorporating new evidence in already well-established concepts about Israel's and Judaism's history, based mainly on the biblical evidence, Cross demonstrates pretty well the working paradigms of this scholarly view. The two-paradigm episode established in Samaritan studies, which operated mostly with a 'sudden first separation' related to temple erection and a similar 'sudden second separation' related to temple destruction, based itself on another paradigm related to cult centralization and a biblical Judaism already as early as the fifth century BCE. This second paradigm, however, was one of conjecture rather than evidence,95 and the assumption that a 'sudden first separation' should have anything to do with cult centralization and for that reason have caused inevitable conflicts and clashes was based on this conjecture. When at the same time the historicity of this 'sudden first separation' and the asserted temple building had been shown to be improvable, scholarship was left with the second part of the first paradigm: the temple destruction and the appearance of a Samaritan text-type and script as secure anchors for a reconstruction. Those anchors, however, began to give way in the course of DSS studies, and have left the scholarly world even more confused about the origins of the Samaritan Pentateuch, giving rise to renewed discussions about 'who changed what' and when. The dating of the temple destruction, which seemed well established, did not undergo any severe criticism in the following decades, although questions of reason and range had not been satisfactorily answered. Thus Cross's conclusion that '[tjhis reconstruction of the history of the Samaritans solves many problems' and 'it dissolves the mystery of the specifically Jewish character of Samaritanism' only satisfied those scholars dealing primarily with questions of Jewish history for whom a paraphrase of Josephus at length was considered to be methodologically acceptable.
94. Cross, 'Papyri of the Fourth Century B.C.', p. 64. 95. As pointed out by M. Smith, Palestinian Parties.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Another representative of the two-episode paradigm was the German scholar H.G. Kippenberg, whose quite influential work from 1971, Garizim und Synagoge, sought to remove what might have been left of connections between pre-exilic and postexilic Samaritans. This, however, did not relegate the 'Samaritans' of 2 Kings 17 to the unhistorical. In Kippenberg's reconstruction they belonged to another period and had nothing to do with the later Samaritans.96 Kippenberg's interpretation of the first schism follows closely the views put forward by Montgomery. In rejecting the thesis of Alt he concluded that the schism was religious and not political.97 The reason seemed to have been a prohibition of mixed marriages in Jerusalem, which also included marriage with Samaritan women (cf. Josephus, Ant. 11.312).98 This conclusion seems somewhat anachronistic, if we are to conclude that the Samaritans originated as a result of this prohibition, and that faithfulness to Jerusalem included an abandonment of former practices, whereby those who could not follow these innovations formed their own cult in 'Shechem, lying deep in Samaria, once had been the very birthplace of the whole of Israel'.99 Echoing the conclusions of Montgomery, Kippenberg asserted that this did not lead to a final break. Most of the differences could be handled. Both groups still had the same Pentateuch and it was still the priests from the same lineage who maintained the cult both in Jerusalem and in Shechem. Once again it is stated that 'it was not until the
96. Kippenberg, Garizim und Synagoge, p. 37: 'Fassen wir zusammen. Die offen vertretene und unterschwellig wirkendeMeinung, nach dem Sturtz des Nordreiches seien die Israeliten deportiert und Heiden neu angesiedelt worden, ist einseitig. Nach den Quellen ist nur ein Teil der Israeliten verschlept worden. Die zuriickgebliebenen Israeliten waren der Zahl nach den neu angesiedelten Heiden gewiss iiberlegen. [as argued by Montgomery in 1907]. Dass diese Kolonisten in der autochtonen Israel-Bevolkerung aufgingen, ist warhscheinlich [against Alt]. Diese ganze Vorgang, der vielleicht auch zu einem Synkretismus gefiihrt hat (2 Kon 17), fallt zeitlich bis vier Jahrhunderte vor Griindung des Garizim-Kultes und hat mit diesem nichts zu tun.' 97. Kippenberg, Garizim und Synagoge, pp. 58-59: 'So ist der Garizim-kult nicht als Resultat einer politischen Tat, sondern die Folge einer Verdrangung von Priestern, die sich nordisraelitischen Traditionen verbunden fiihlten. Es bildete sich also am Ende des 4. Jh. v. Chr. in Israel ein neues Zentrum von Glauben und Kult heraus.' 98. Kippenberg, Garizim und Synagoge, pp. 58-59. 99. 'dass tief in Samaria liegende Sichem, dass ja schon einmal die Geburtsstatte ganz Israels gewesen war (Josh. 24)'.

1. The Two-Episode Paradigm


time of the Maccabees that Jews and Samaritans divided into two groups.'100 The reasons were priestly quarrels prior to the Hasmonaean success and the appointment of illegitimate priests in Jerusalem. This called for a Samaritan independence in the continuation of the high priestly Eleazar lineage as an opposition to the illegitimate Hasmonaean priests in Jerusalem.101 Although it was the Hasmonaeans who broke the high priestly succession and thereby forced the Samaritans to claim the legitimate priesthood for themselveswhich in Purvis's work was understood to be the Zadokites, common to Samaritans and Jews, and in Kippenberg's the Samaritan Eleazarites opposing the Zadokites this break somewhat arbitrarily led to the formation of a 'sect' that maintained continuity. Not able to give up the well-established idea of syncretism in northern Israel and echoing 2 Kings 17, Kippenberg concluded that it was an increasing Hellenization of the Samaritan community that had become mixed with Sidonians in Shechem that led the Jews to destroy their temple and their city.102 Kippenberg's rendering of the history thus became as contradictory as Josephus's. What seemed to be an abolishment of the 2 Kings 17 paradigm of syncretism was in fact nothing more than a reuse of a Deuteronomistic theology transferred to

100. 'erst in der Makkabaerzeit Juden und Samaritanen in zwei Gruppen trennten'. 101. Kippenberg, Garizim und Synagoge, p. 92: 'Die samaritanische Sekte scheint sich im wesentlichen im 2. Jh. v. Chr. konstituert zu haben. Getragen wurde sie von israelitischen Priestern, die sich als Eleasar-Sohne verstanden und Zadokiten, Eliden und Leviten die Hohepriesterwiirde absprachen. Wahrend des 3. Jh. v. Chr. scheint die Rivalitat zweier Priesterschaften in Sichem und in Jerusalem noch nicht als endgiiltige Antitese verstanden worden zu sein. Erst im 2. Jh. v. Chr., als die Jerusalemer Hohenpriestersukzession zerbrach, entstand Streit iiber den legitimen Kult. Jetzt, beim Zerbrechen des einst einigen Israels, fiihlen sich die Samar. veranlasst, ihre Hohepriestersukzession darzulegen und ihre Heilige Schrift zu kanonisieren.' This in fact was the position of Purvis, Samaritan Pentateuch, pp. 11316, who furthermore stressed the importance of political solidification of Judaean control over especially the North as a motivation for John Hyrcanus's attack. 102. Kippenberg, Garizim und Synagoge, p. 93: 'Die jiidische Seite ihrerseits nahm Anstoss an der Hellenisierung des Garizim-Kultes, die wohl nicht nur von einer Kolonie Sidonier in Sichem, sondern vielleicht auch von diesem oder jenem Samar. gebilligt wurde.' Pummer, 'Samaritan Studies I', rightly criticized this assertion in his review of Kippenberg (pp. 53-55): 'it should be underlined that there is no conclusive evidence regarding the exact point in time or reasons for the final separation between Samaritans and Jews.'


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

the third-second century BCE. This theology ascribed to Israel/Samaria the role of those who first broke the covenant and rightly bore the punishment for it. Kippenberg's attempt to read Josephus historically and correct his 'mistakes' in fact brought him right back into the arms of Montgomery. Historicizing the biblical material loosened it from its own perspective and deprived it of the inherent myth-making theology that had claimed that both Samaria and Judaea were emptied by the exilic events, and that Samaria, in contrast to Judaea, did not remain empty and 'undefiled'. This central message of 2 Kings 17 played a considerable role in the Jewish self-understanding of 'pure remnant'. In Ant. 10.184, Josephus could state:
Now when Salmanesses removed the Israelites, he settled in their place the nation of Cuthaeans, who had formerly lived in the interior of Persia and Media and who were then, moreover, called Samaritans because they assumed the name of the country in which they were settled. But the king of Babylonia, when he carried off the two tribes, did not settle any nation in their place, and for this reason all of Judaea and Jerusalem and the temple remained deserted [epriuot; 8te|ieivev] for seventy years.

Removing this perspective merely distorts the text, but it does not solve the historical problems, which certainly have nothing to do with any traceable historical event, but asks rather for clarification about why the Samaritans are portrayed in this manner in some Jewish literature: a literature that reached its climax in Josephus's attempts to extirpate these so-called Cuthaeans. Josephus, in fact, is not representative of an overall understanding about the Samaritans. New Testament and early rabbinic literature still fought to find ways of placing Samaritans within Judaism. Syncretism played a very limited role in their respective judgments. We shall turn to these problems again in Chapters 4 and 5, in an evaluation of the thematic elements involved in the various presentations of Judaean-Samaritan controversies. Breaking the Two-Episode Paradigm: The Position ofR.J. Coggins R.J. Coggins's monograph Samaritans and Jews: The Origins ofSamaritanism Reconsidered from 1975 became epoch-making for Samaritan studies. Partly abolishing the two-episode paradigm, Coggins's work led to new considerations of Samaritanism in the Roman period and to the thesis of a very late final break. Reconsidering the various Old Testament readings that were usually ascribed to belong to the

1. The Two-Episode Paradigm


Judaean-Samaritan schism,103 Coggins concluded that these did not expose any considerable anti-Samaritan attitude, as well as that later interpretation of these texts had been based mainly on readings of Josephus. The Old Testament texts thus gave no evidence for a schism as such, but rather for increasing tensions between north and south, such as can be seen from a few apocryphal and pseudepigraphal texts: Sir. 50.25-26, 2 Mace. 6.1-2 and the book of Judith. 104 The Samaritans' close relations to the Sadducees, with whom they shared similar views on Scripture, priesthood and cult, as mentioned also in the Mishnah, placed them in a spectrum of Jewish groups that did not break from rabbinic Judaism until long into the present era.105 Josephus's account of the building of the Samaritan temple in the time of Alexander the Great was still undocumented, and the finding of the Samaria papyri from Wadi Daliyeh only solved the problem regarding Sanballat but not those otherwise implied in the story.106 Archaeological evidence of a rebuilding of Shechem in the fourth century BCE and a destruction in the end of the second century might support Josephus's story. G.E. Wright,107 in his report, also found support for this chronology in Quintus Curtius's History of Alexander (first century CE), which related that some Samaritans had burned to death the governor Andromachus, whom Alexander had placed in Samaria. As a result, the remaining Samaritans were expelled from the city and settled in Shechem.

103. 2 Kgs 17; Isa. 7.8b; 9.8; 11.10-16; 56-66; Jer. 41.5; Hos. 5; Mic. 1.5-9; 6.16; Hag, Zech. 1-8; Ezek. 37.15-28; 40-^8; 2 Chron. 13, Ezra; Neh.; Pss. 78; 87. 104. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, p. 81: 'Indirectly however, the Old Testament evidence is of value in two ways. First it is clear that tension between North and South in Israel goes back to a very early date. Such tension is a recurrent theme even in the period of the United Monarchy, and probably goes back at least to the time of the Judges. It is not our purpose here to explore its origins, but it is clear that there is some link between the tension and that which later developed between Jews and Samaritans. It would be wrong to identify them, and suppose that the Samaritans can simply be identified as a continuation of the old Northern Kingdomas we shall see, there is much in Samaritan tradition that militates against thatbut it would be equally wrong to deny all connection and continuity.' 105. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, p. 161. 106. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, p. 97. 107. G.E. Wright, Shechem: The Biography of a Biblical City (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965), p. 181; idem, The Samaritans at Shechem', HTR 55 (1962), pp. 357-66; Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, pp. 104-108.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Rejecting both Quintus Curtius108 and Josephus, and not at all convinced that we know enough about Alexander's placement of troops in Samaria, Coggins suggested a reconsideration of the whole material. This had previously been done also by B. Reicke,109 who had argued for an establishment of the Samaritan community in 380 BCE, when the repercussions of the 'Zionistic reforms of Nehemiah' forced the officials in Samaria and a few aristocrats in Judah to form their own community in Shechem, 'retaining the Torah but no other scriptures'. This dating would fit the dating of the Samaria papyri and could further be argued on the basis of finds of Persian material on the spot. Although Reicke's reconstruction had 'certain obvious strong points', Coggins rejected it because of its weaknesses according to an asserted, but undocumented antagonism between Jerusalem and Shechem in the rebuilding of the city, inconclusiveness of the finds dating the coins to the Hellenistic period and the artifacts to the Persian period, and finally because the reconstruction as such rests on a schismatic model for which we had no evidence.110 What was left for Coggins was Josephus's statement that the temple, which John Hyrcanus destroyed, had been built 200 years earlier (Ant. 13.256). Dating the destruction to either 128 BCE as Josephus did, or to 108 BCE according to the coins found on the spot, this would bring us as close as possible to any knowledge of the formation of a community. Coggins's reference to a confirmation of John Hyrcanus's destruction in Samaritan Chronicles111 cannot be substantiated. Quite the contrary. According to this literature, it was a King Simon, chronologically placed before Alexander the Great, who had destroyed the temple. John Hyrcanus's attack on Sebastia and Nablus did not lead to any cult place destruction.112 Refuting the two-episode paradigm, Coggins suggested that Samaritanism developed from Judaism's formative period from the third century BCE. The context for this development was for Samaritanism what it was for other factions and currents of Judaism: disagreements over cult, belief and society, which resulted in the formation of Jewish
108. Based on J. Warrington in Everyman's Classical Dictionary (London, 2nd edn, 1969), p. 175, who declared Quintos Curtius worthless and R. Marcus in the Loeb Josephus, VI, app. C, esp. pp. 520ff. 109. The New Testament Era (London: SCM Press, 1969). 110. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, pp. 109-15. 111. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, p. 114. 112. See Chapter 6.

1. The Two-Episode Paradigm


communities outside of Jerusalem: Qumran, Leontopolis, Elephantine, Araq-el-Emir, and so on. The Deuteronomistic cult centralization probably was practised in a less restricted manner than had been assumed earlier, and final breaks did not occur until centuries later. Given this background, the term 'schism' seems to have been misleading, presuming an orthodox norm that was not present in Judaism until the Christian era.113 Scholarship's current use of this theme has played an unreasonable role in Old Testament studies as part of an anti-Samaritan polemic's implicit purpose of demonstrating the apostate character of Samaritanism:
The simple truth is, that there is no reference to the Samaritans in the Hebrew Old Testament. Some of the allusions in the work of the Chronicler may point to a situation which would later develop into JudaeoSamaritan hostility, but that is the most that can be said.114

More than 15 years elapsed before Coggins's work began seriously to influence the scholarly world. The idea of a schism was so well established in the classical views on Samaritanism that in the following decade scholars' acceptance of Coggins's ideas had a close parallel in the considerations of how and when Samaritans broke away from Judaism in either Persian or Hellenistic times.115 The abandonment of the exclusion model regarding whether it had been political or religious circumstances that had led to a formation of a new Jewish community in Shechem that we later came to know as the Samaritans, did not occur before Judaism's sovereignty and normativity in pre-Christian time was seriously challenged. This step forms the next chapter of the history of research.

113. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, p. 163, is here referring to P.R. Ackroyd, Israel under Babylon and Persia (New Clarendon Bible, OT, 4; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970), p. 185. 114. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, p. 163. It must be noted that Coggins did not reckon with a dating later than 250 BCE for the Chronicler and accepted the Old Testament Scriptures' implicit chronology as historical for their dating. 115. See, e.g., J.D. Purvis, 'The Samaritans and Judaism', in R.A. Kraft and G.W.E. Nickelsburg (eds.), Early Judaism and its Modern Interpreters (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), pp. 81-98; E.J. Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek Age (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987), pp. 8-12.

Chapter 2


The establishment of 'Societe d'Etudes Samaritaines' in 1985 marked a turning point in Samaritan studies. In 1984,l the first comprehensive bibliography had been published, and in 1989, a full presentation was given of the standing positions of Samaritan research in the fields of history, literature, language, theology, diaspora studies and archaeology, all with updated bibliographies.2 With contributions from scholars who over years had worked intensively with various issues, the book represented an up-to-date work, aiming not so much to give answers to all the questions involved as to stimulate further research. Profiling the positions of its contributors, it demonstrated the broadness of the scholarly research,3 which certainlyas pointed out by Crown in his foreword'over the last quarter century numbered so many specialised works which have so changed the state of our knowledge in numerous areas of Samaritan studies that the field is very different from what it was in Montgomery's day'.4 These works' concentration on Samaritan literature gave impetus to current publications of Samaritan texts, translations, commentaries, grammars, encyclopaedia, and so on. Having established the origin of the SP 'securely' in the Hasmonaean period, the insecurity about which political circumstances had led to this step
1. Crown, Bibliography of the Samaritans. The former bibliography of L.A. Mayer from 1964 was shown to be incomplete and certainly also needed an updating (L.A. Mayer [ed.], Bibliography of the Samaritans [Abr Nahrain Suppl.; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1964]). 2. Crown, The Samaritans. 3. See S. Noja, 'The Last Decade in Samaritan Studies', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 802-14. 4. Crown, Samaritans, p. xvi; notice Crown's critique of the uncritical use of Montgomery, Chapter 1.

2. Radical Alternatives: The Theories of Crown and Nodet


furthered new evaluations of the Samaritans' own traditions and their relation to the asserted priority of Jewish tradition. The intention of the book was not to synthezise the various insights in a new historiography, but rather to make up for the need of evidence in research. A.D. Crown's Late Dating for a Distinctive Samaritanism The tendencies of deconstruction in biblical research, which in the 1970s had begun in the studies of Israel's prehistory,5 inevitably came to include also the postexilic period and the request for a reconsideration of the biblical evidence for Judaism as such.6 This request loosened
5. Taking its departure in a rejection of the historicity of the patriarchal narratives, cf. Th.L. Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1974); J. Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975), G. Fohrer, Geschichte Israels: Von den Anfangen bis zu Gegenwart (Heidelberg: Quelle Meyer, 1977); A.D.H. Mayes, Israel in the Period of the Judges (SBTh, 2.29; London: SCM Press, 1974); J.M. Miller, The Israelite Occupation of Canaan', in J.H. Hayes and J.M. Miller (eds.), Israelite and Judean History (London: SCM Press, 1977), pp. 213-84; J.A. Soggin, The Davidic and Solomonic Kingdom', in Hayes and Miller (eds.), Israelite and Judean History, pp. 332-80; D.M. Gunn, The Story of King David (JSOTSup, 6; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1976); J.P. Fokkelmann, Narrative Art in Genesis (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1975); idem, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Book of Samuel (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1981). Contemporary with the critique of historicity went a considerable critique of the Documentary Hypothesis and the datings of the biblical material: cf. H.H. Schmid, Der sogenannte Jahwist: Beobachtungen und Fragen zur Pentateuchforschung (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1976); R. Rendtdorff, Das Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuchs (BZAW, 174; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1977); H. Vorlander, Die Entstehung des jehowistischen Geschichtswerkes (Europaische Hochschuleschriften, 23.109; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978); E. Blum, Die Komposition der Vdtergeschichte (WMANT, 57; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984); N.P. Lemche, Early Israel: Anthropological and Historical Studies on the Israelite Society before the Monarchy (VTSup, 37; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1985); N. Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch (JSOTSup, 53; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987); see Th.L. Thompson, Early History of the Israelite People (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992), pp. 77-126, for an annotated introduction to this new paradigm and its implications for historical research; and G.W. Ramsey, The Quest for the Historical Israel (London: SCM Press, 1981), for a summarized overview of the implications for biblical science. 6. This, however, did not place Samaritanism in any central position within the large number of scholarly works on Judaism published in these decades, e.g., L.H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univer-


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

the previous fate-determining 'symbiotic character' of Judaean-Samaritan controversies and paved the way for re-evaluations of the 'sources', leading to quite interesting and challenging new conclusions. A.D. Crown contributed considerably to this new line of ideas in his article from 1991, 'Redating the Schism between the Judeans and the Samaritans'. 7 According to this article, neither temple building nor its destruction had been decisive for the final schism, which could not be dated earlier than after the Bar Kochba revolt. Prior to the occurrence of the rabbinic literature after Judah ha-Nasi, no significant anti-Samaritan polemic could be found in this literature, and
it was only in the generation after Judah ha-Nasi, following the Bar Kochba-revolt, that we see the development of anti-Samaritanism in a series of negative statements by the rabbinical teachers, culminating in the ruling that the Samaritans are unquestionably to be considered as Gentiles.

The development of a heretic Judaism with a specific Samaritan Pentateuch in the third century CE, and a spreading of this teaching to synagogues and midrash schools, together with the establishment of a specific liturgy and halakhah, led to irreversible schism. Crown based his argumentation for this late dating of SP on the negative evidence from DSS,8 that none of these texts bear similarities to what had been found in Origen's citation of the Samareiticon. That made it pretty safe to conclude an origin after 135 CE.9 The few occurrences of clashes or
sity Press, 1992); G. Boccacini, Middle Judaism, Jewish Thought, 300 BCE to 200 CE (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1991): D. Mendels, The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism (New York: Doubleday, 1992); Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian; E. Schiirer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ: 175 BC-AD 135 (trans, and rev. G. Vermes et al.\ Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973-87). 7. A.D. Crown, 'Redating the Schism between the Judeans and the Samaritans', JQR 82 (1991), pp. 17-50. 8. Crown, 'Redating the Schism', p. 49 n. 112: D.N. Freedman and K.A. Matthews, The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1985), where the term 'proto-Samaritan' regularly indicates that the text is not the Samaritan Pentateuch. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll from Qumran: 4Qpaleo Exod and the Samaritan Tradition (HSM, 30; Atlanta, CA: Scholars Press, 1986), finds 4Q Paleo Exod M rather close to the Samaritan version but not identical with it. See Chapter 3 in the present study for a discussion of these problems. 9. Crown, 'Redating the Schism', p. 47: 'None of the Paleo-Hebrew texts from Qumran which have similarities to the Samaritan version are at all close to the Samareiticon cited by Origen in his Hexapla.' See further Crown, 'Redating the

2. Radical Alternatives: The Theories of Crown and Nodet


events involving Samaria in the New Testament (Jn 4.3-4; Lk. 9.52.) and Josephus (War 2.232-33; Ant. 20.118-38) were exceptions that were few enough to become reported.10 By this we are brought to the reforms of Baba Rabba, whom Crown, on the basis of the Samaritan Chronicle Kitab al-Tarikh of Abu'1-Fath, dated to the third century CE rather than to the usually accepted dating in the fourth century.11 An increasing Samaritan activity in this politically rather peaceful period had as its purpose the spreading of Samaritan thought and halakhah to all places within and outside of Palestine where Samaritans lived. Hand in hand with this went the canonizing and the promulgation of the Samaritan version of the Pentateuch.12 This activity, according to Crown, became decisive for the Judaean-Samaritan relationship: 'After Baba, Judaism reached its limit of toleration of Samaritanism because it had produced a Torah version at variance with that which was accepted as canonical in Judaea.'13 This reconstruction of events did not free Crown from reckoning Samaritans as a Jewish sect ('i.e. a religious subgroup of a main religion that remains so close in belief and practice that it cannot be regarded as a different religion') that had originated from Judaism, 'and certainly were Jews before the schism', and this in a more conservative form regarding circumcision, sabbath, passover ritual, and so on, for which Samaritans preserved 'pre-rabbinic' practices (i.e. practices
Schism', n. 109, for a discussion of the characteristics of the 'Samaritan' text in Hexapla; J.D. Purvis, 'The Samaritans and Judaism', pp. 81-98 (86), for a dating in the second century based on 'palaeographical, orthographic and textual evidence'. 10. Crown, 'Redating the Schism', pp. 27-28. 11. Crown, 'Redating the Schism', p. 44 and n. 96, for Crown's dating of the Samaritan Chronicle, supported by P. Stenhouse, The Kitabh al-Tarikh of Abu-'I Fath (Sidney: Mandelbaum Trust, University of Sydney, 1985), and D. Groh, 'Jews and Christians in Late Roman Palestine: Towards a New Chronology', BA 51.2 (1988), pp. 80-98, who argued for a stable and prosperous period in Palestine around 250-363 CE: 'The building activities of Rabbi Babba and his followers would fit well into this period.' 12. Crown, 'Redating the Schism', p. 46. 13. Crown, 'Redating the Schism', p. 50, based paradigmatically on Purvis, 'The Samaritans and Judaism', and F. Dexinger, 'Limits of Tolerance in Judaism: The Samaritan Example', in E.P. Sanders (ed.), Judaism, Jewish and Christian Selfdefinition, II (London: SCM Press, 1981), pp. 88-114, cf. Crown, 'Redating the Schism', n. 108, and transferred from their dating in the third-second century BCE to the third century CE.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

derived directly from the Pentateuch).14 This view on Samaritans characterizes important parts of Crown's article, in which he simultaneously seeks to balance differences between Samaritans and Jews and describes Samaritans as sectarians and schismatics in constant conflict with the Jews about the placement of the temple. Thus 'open hostilities are rare'15 and probably an exaggeration in Josephus's account, while at the same time the temple at Gerizim gives reason for 'an increasing difficulty of the second temple period' and becomes a 'dangerous rival' to the temple in Jerusalem,16 because of its situation and its connection to the Pentateuch traditions,17 which did not support any claim for a primacy of the temple in Jerusalem according to cult, architecture and high priestly genealogy.18 Crown thus argued that not only had the
14. Crown, 'Redating the Schism', p. 21 and n. 11. 15. Crown, 'Redating the Schism', p. 27: The evidence is against the outright bitterness in the first century between Samaritans and Jews, that is spoken of in Josephus and the later rabbinical sources.' 16. Crown, 'Redating the Schism', p. 31: 'the Gerizim temple was almost certainly seen as a dangerous rival to the Jerusalem temple, since it was proximate to an ancient sacred city, Shechem, and its claims to a Jewish temple were not dependent upon Greek patronage. The temple at Gerizim was evidently a source of considerable friction between Jews and Samaritans even in Egypt, and on occasion in Palestine, we cannot be sure that the friction was continuous in view of the alleged friendship between the Sadducees and the Samaritans.' 17. Crown, 'Redating the Schism', p. 32: 'The Samaritans argued that their temple stood on a site made sacred by the sacrificial activities of the Patriarchs and by the fact that the first sacrifice in Canaan (Deut. 27.4) took place thereon, since it was the Mount of Blessing... If indeed one reads the patriarchal accounts with a critical eye, Bethel and Shechem seem to be the same, or at least proximate, places. The association of Bethel with all the events in the patriarchal accounts linked with Bethel, Shechem, Moriah and Gerizim can be made directly from the Torah. The Septuagintal reading of Shiloh instead of Shechem (Jos. 24) and the statement in the Testament of Joseph (2.6) that Joseph was buried in Hebron rather than near Shechem suggests that the Jewish authorities were already troubled by Samaritan interpretations of the sacred writ in favour of Shechem and Mt Gerizim. There is also clear evidence from the polemics between Eliezer ben Simeon and the Samaritans over their reading of Gen. 12.6 that by the mid-second century CE the Samaritan claims about Shechem were proving worksome to the tannaim.' See Chapter 7 of the present study for much earlier 'corrections' of the Pentateuch, which Crown did not include in his argumentation. 18. Crown, 'Redating the Schism', p. 33, referring to Ant. 12.8-10: 'The story though brief, is most informative. It tells us directly that the Samaritans offered sacrifices in their temple, and it implies that there was nothing to choose between

2. Radical Alternatives: The Theories of Crown and Nodet


destruction caused an increasing Samaritan hostility against the Jewish temple in the second century BCE, but that it was the loss of both cult places that led to open rivalry and to increasingly polemical activity from the middle of the second century CE.19 That this argumentation bears a clear imprint of the influence from Josephus, Crown involuntarily testified in his reference to Josephus's account about Demetrius's concession to Jonathan, including that 'it shall be in the power of the High Priest to take care that no one Jew shall have any other temple for worship but only that at Jerusalem' (Ant. 13.54), which for Crown was a reference to the existence of other temples and Jerusalem's concern about this, especially in regard to the Gerizim temple.20 What Crown, however, was not aware of is the difficulty of the parallel reference in 1 Mace. 10.25-45, which must be the source for Josephus's text, and which in this place has a different wording testifying that this specific question did not have that kind of actuality in the second-first century BCE.21 Apion 2.193 might point to a similar lack of clarification. The Samaritan woman's question to Jesus in John 4 could indicate that two centres of worship were regarded possible as legal Jewish shrines and that a central authority of these centres could be questioned. It is therefore still open to debate whether the various stories about hostility and rivalry form part of a 'historiography', which sought to legitimize an act that had quite different premises, and might not be at all related to disagreements over cult and practice until a much later period. The Johanine 'evidence', dating to the beginning of the first century CE and
these and the sacrifices at Jerusalem that would clearly distinguish them from each other... Josephus's account clearly indicates that the objection to the Gerizim temple was based not on arguments against its ritual or style but that it was simply acknowledged by all to be secondary (and by implication, inferior) to that in Jerusalem'; p. 35 n. 63: 'From this perspective it does not matter whence Josephus drew his account and whether it was fanciful. Josephus accepted the view that the Gerizim temple was in the authentic tradition of the Old Testament, which is what we should expect of the Samaritans.' 19. Crown, 'Redating the Schism', p. 40: 'we begin to note an increase in the polemical writings relating to the rivalry, that is from the middle of the second century CE onwards. It is evident that the rivalry was kept within reasonable bounds until this period'. 20. Crown, 'Redating the Schism', p. 31 n. 52. 21. Which in fact supports Crown's assertion that the discussion gained actuality in the second century CE. See Chapters 5 and 7 below for a debate on the issues implied.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Josephus's fight for claiming Jewish priority in his Antiquities from the end of the first century CE, does not document that the so-called sectarian writings of the Samaritan Pentateuch have to be dated that late. The renewal of these discussions after the loss of both temples might not have anything to do with an establishment of new positions, but may be a matter of convincing argumentation in the context of a pagan audience.22 The negative evidence from the DSS at best only tells us that Samaritan writings were not included among the texts; and recent discussions have demanded that the various text designations need to be reconsidered.23 In spite of Crown's quite innovative suggestions, we must conclude that in many respects they are tied to the seemingly inescapable anachronism that understands rabbinic Judaism as normative already in pre-Christian times. This understanding does not take seriously the sectarian aspects of the origin of this Judaism in Ezra-Nehemiah Torah theology of postexilic times, which in fact forms the backbone of the Mishnaic understanding of the oral Torah, and which have led to a considerable Ezra veneration in rabbinic thought. I find it necessary to argue that the denial of this development constantly leads to absurdities, which on one hand ascribe Samaritan independence and authenticity, and a religion common with Judaeans, but on the other hand maintain a Jewish sovereignty and primacy from which Samaritans originated and developed. Changing the term to 'a pre-rabbinic Jewish sect' does not solve this problem. On this premise it would be more correct to argue that it is rabbinic Judaism, which left its foundation in the teaching of the fathers,24 if we are to consider this to be the Pentateuch or the Mosaic code and if the goal had been a preservation of this kind of orthodoxy.25 That history has confirmed the viability of this Jewish 'sect' implies a risk to historians of bestowing upon it pre-existential authority. Using the language of inclusion or exclusion seems to be misleading in both cases, and presupposes an established hierarchy, which in fact is not even present in Josephus's slanderous writings about the
22. See further Chapter 5. 23. See Chapter 3. 24. Cf. the discussion of the various Jewish sects in Josephus, Ant. 12.10, 292, 296-97; 18.14-15; Life 191. 25. As pointed out also by Dexinger, 'Limits of Tolerance', p. 89, referring to Samaritan self-understanding. This view forms the central core of Nodet's work, Origins of Judaism.

2. Radical Alternatives: The Theories of Crown and Nodet


Samaritans. Giving credit to this insecurity, which in fact seems to have been the purpose of Crown's article, it would have been more appropriate to speak of variant traditions instead of sects.26 The terms Samaritan and Jew might then designate nothing more than the temple a person belonged to and not include specific religious obser-vations. Cult centralization as a political issue in the formation of a partly independent Jewish state during the Hasmonaeans required a centralization of the power, which, with king and high priest in one person, seems to have left no room for another powerful centre in Sam-aria. Claiming their legality of the high priestly lineage, the Samaritans had the means seriously to challenge the status of the Hasmonaean priests.27 Could in fact the tradition about the division of the kingdom in the Iron age, which implied a decentralization of the cult and an establishment of centres in Samaria and Jerusalem, have led to an inclusion of Samaria in the time of John Hyrcanus, which by necessity had to imply a destruction of a Samaritan temple that was no less Jewish than that in Jerusalem,28 but which, according to tradition, was representative of a fatal schism in a remote past, and certainly stood in opposition to extra-Pentateuchal
26. Suggested also by Purvis, The Samaritans and Judaism', pp. 91-95, about criteria for speaking of variant instead of sect, and the need for a more nuanced view on Judaism and Samaritanism. Purvis warned against an anachronistic understanding of both. 27. D. Mendels, Jewish Nationalism, argued that with the Hasmonaean uprising and its development into a war for national independence a need arose for an establishment of national symbols: capital and temple. After the final conquest of Jerusalem in 141 BCE during Simeon 'the capital and the temple were at the heart of the Jewish nation, and the high priesthood was its highest political office' (p. 135). '[From 142-76 BCE] the Temple became the most important symbol of national political independence. The high priests were the secular rulers of the nation, without any dependence on foreign rulers' (p. 138). 'The wish for only one religiopolitical centre is a dominant motif in much of the literature of the period. [References are given to Jewish, Samaritan and Greek literature on the previous pages.] At that juncture of their history the Jews well knew that in the past, competitive religio-political centers had brought about their own national destruction; and indeed, ten tribes were lost (Ezekiel 23)... For this reason they felt uncomfortable with other Jewish religious centres such as Leontopolis, Shechem and Araq elEmir. The Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim was, of course, the main problem' (p. 150). 28. Crown, 'Redating the Schism', p. 35 n. 63: 'Josephus accepted the view that the Gerizim temple was in the authentic tradition of the Old Testament, which is what we would expect of the Samaritans.'


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

biblical traditions? 29 If this scenario be structurally correct, then it accounts pretty well for the problems of finding any distinct Samaritanism before much later. It also accounts, however, for the problems of finding any distinct authoritative Judaism before the fall of the Jewish temple in 70 CE. The question of relations between Sadducees and Samaritans thus have to be seen in a new light and cannot be explained by priestly contacts alone.30 We need to ask why these contacts were upheld? Were they based on family relations, such as has been asserted by some scholars, or is it more likely to regard them as being quite natural, given the agreements in cult practice and belief?31 We also need to ask what it means when Abu'l-Fath's version of John Hyrcanus's quarrel with the Pharisees, in the Samaritan Chronicle not only led to his turning of allegiance to the Sadducees (Josephus, Ant. 11.293-97), but also included a reversal of his former behaviour towards the Samaritans, and that he even asked permission to go on pilgrimage to Gerizim (AF p. 113).32 That the Church Fathers also do not distinguish clearly between Sadducees and Samaritans, and Mishnah in some instances simply juxtaposes the two groups, must raise considerations beyond what can be
29. Mendels, Jewish Nationalism, p. 96: 'The concept of the twelve tribes recurs again and again in the documents of the Hasmonaean period, and can also be found in the Jewish literature of the Roman period. The number twelve, signifying the completeness of the Jewish nation, is also associated with the settlement of the nation on the most extensive territory the Jews were believed to have possessed in the past.' 30. Montgomery, Samaritans, pp. 72, 73, 86-87; Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, pp. 157-58; Crown, 'Redating~the Schism', pp. 23-24: 'It is not impossible that the Samaritans had a cordial relationship with the Sadducees and that there was some degree of co-operation between the Jerusalem and Gerizim priests.' 31. Crown here refers to Josephus's description of the Samaritan temple as 'the temple of the God Most High' and that Josephus's account clearly indicates that the objection to the Gerizim temple was based not on arguments against its ritual or style but that it was simply acknowledged by all to be secondary (and by implication inferior) to that in Jerusalem; see also, 'Redating the Schism', pp. 34-35; E.J. Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek Age (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988), p. 10. 32. Crown, 'Redating the Schism', p. 36 n. 69, referring to J. Bowman, Samaritan Documents Relating to their History, Religion and Life (Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1977), p. 135. Crown's comment that the Samaritans might still have been using the ruins of the temple confuses two traditions. It was only according to Jewish tradition (Josephus, Ant. 13.256) that John Hyrcanus destroyed the temple, not to Samaritan tradition as mentioned earlier in Chapter 1.

2. Radical Alternatives: The Theories of Crown and Nodet


seen as plainly sectarian groupings. These considerations might find their answers in the various groups' self-understanding and their interpretation of the common tradition. According to the Samaritan Chronicle Abu'l-Fath, no Jewish sects are claimed to be Samaritan, even if they share the same view on Scriptures as the Sadducees do, or they 'rally around the Samaritan temple' and participate in the cult there, such as the Hasidim.33 Regarding the Sadducees, the unsurmountable problem was their relation to the temple in Jerusalem, and regarding the Hasidim it seems to have been their belief. The Pharisees, because of their exegesis and lenient attitude towards truth, was the most hated Jewish group in Samaritan tradition (AF p. 111). Samaritans as Original Israelites? The Position ofE. Nodet With his quite comprehensive work Essai sur les origines du judaisme: de Josue aux Pharisiens,u E. Nodet revived the discussion about the possibility that Samaritans should be considered to be original Israelites.35 Some of these views had previously been argued by M. Gaster in his 1924 book and by J. Macdonald in his 1964 book.36 The view
33. Macdonald, Theology, p. 25, identified the Hasidim with the Samaritans based on an unpublished text of 2 Chronicles, disagreeing with AF, who considered them to be connected geographically to the Samaritans. 34. (Paris: Cerf, 1992); rev. Eng. version (used throughout): In Search of the Origins of Judaism: From Joshua to the Mishnah (JSOTSup, 248; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997). 35. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 12: 'I hope to show that the simplest way to take into account various anomalies and many scattered bits of information is to presuppose, schematically the following: that the Samaritans of Gerizim were the most direct heirs of the ancient Israelites and their cult; that the material in the Hexateuch should generally be attributed to them, with the conscious exception of the weekly sabbath; that Judaism, dispersed throughout the whole Seleucid Transeuphrates, was an import from Babylon and was made up of ancestral traditions and memories of the Kingdom of Judah; that the union between these two, that is to say between two quite restricted groups, took place a little before 200 BCE, and was followed by an intense literary activity; that Judaism was given legal status at Jerusalem by Antiochus III.' 36. Macdonald, Theology, p. 8: '"Judaist" a term restricted to the period beginning with Ezra, has reference to the religion of the post-exilic Judaeans. Judaism thus applies to the religion whose origin is that of Samaritanism, but whose path of development from the Babylonian exile was quite different from that of the Samaritans.'


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

gained only few supporters, but, as shown in the review of Crown's article, it certainly did (and still does) need serious consideration. The first driving force for Nodet's work was the surprising observation that our history writing methodologically rested on very weak foundations, and that the insufficiency of the available sources led to a veiling rather than an unveiling of the historical facts. When classical history writing construes a history on 'facts' with a plausibility far less than one hundred percent that rests on similar uncertain 'facts', the historian is left with a reconstruction that at best is only probable. In other words: The progress of this positivistic method of establishing facts becomes very quickly disastrous.'37 This methodological insufficiency was especially crucial in the reconstruction of Jewish history from the destruction of the temple in 587 BCE to the Hasmonaean takeover in about 150 BCE. The main source for this period was Josephus, and, as it turned out in Nodet's research, he was 'no better informed than we are and we often have the feeling that he is deliberately drawing out a meagre documentation in order to fill up centuries that are especially empty'. 38 That Eusebius of Caesarea was no more conclusive in his results in his work Preparation for the Gospel convinced Nodet of the inadequacy of the method.39 The second driving force in Nodet's work was the question of the status of the Bible in Judaism, leading to the chronological and typological delimitation of the work given in his subtitle From Joshua to the Mishnah.40 In the postexilic period, the status of the Bible underwent a change, which, as reflected in rabbinic literature, challenged the teaching of the Bible and in several instances made the biblical text inferior to the oral tradition.41 It probably was this insecurity about the Bible's authority that had in the beginning led rabbi Akiba's school to attempt a synthesis of the written and oral Torah. This condition stood in strange contrast to the attitude toward the Bible represented by Samaritans,
37. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 60. 38. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, pp. 9, 331. 39. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 10. 40. 'Joshua was the one who locally established in writing a statute and a law at the Shechem assembly, while the Mishnah was the ultimate metamorphosis of the traditions brought from Babylon and mixed in with Judaean influences'; Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 12. 41. y. Sank. 11.6: 'The Words of the scribes are more important than those of the [written] Torah.'

2. Radical Alternatives: The Theories of Crown and Nodet


Sadducees, Philo, Josephus and even the New Testament letter to the Hebrews, all of which ascribe to the Pentateuch a central position as a source of law, history and philosophy.42 Josephus's claim of adherence to Pharisaism and his neglect of those in rabbinic tradition so wellknown rabbis Hillel and Shammai, his ignorance of the academy in Jamnia, as well as rabbinic tradition's similar ignorance of Josephus, reflected for Nodet a curious relationship, which was best explained by the rabbinic movement's placement outside of Jerusalem in the rural regions of Galilee and connected with Babylon.43 The discussions about the keeping of the sabbath clearly illustrated the implications of this problem. Nodet's main reference to this discussion is 1 Mace. 2.41's account that Mattathias in 167 BCE, during Antiochus Epiphanes' persecutions, decided that Jews were allowed to bear arms in defence on the sabbath. Almost at the same time, according to Josephus, the Samaritans declared that they had recently adopted the sabbath from the Jews and that they were ready to give it up to avoid reprisals.44 Nodet here follows Josephus's description of the Samaritans as those 'Sidonians' living around Shechem and maintaining the cult at Gerizimin fact a very limited group:
who could have been the dissidents, degraded by foreign marriages and lax observances. In fact they constituted a limited group and had undergone some Jewish influence (Sabbath, Sabbatical year). Yet before these influences, they had been the heirs of the Israelites (Jacob, Joseph).45

Nodet therefore considered this sabbath rule to be rather late. The status of the temple in Jerusalem was another problematic case that was difficult to fit into classical historiography: 'artificially magnified in the story of Alexander, it is astonishingly marginal for
42. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 10: 'the rabbinic tradition, in its oldest layers, shows no sign of a biblical foundation, but only of secondary offshoots from the Bible, it can in no way pass for a "religion of the Old Testament".' 43. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 59: This marginal situation implies that the rabbinic tradition, although wanting to be heir to the memories of Jerusalem and the Temple, had its origin in fact from the ruling circles of Jerusalem. This would explain perfectly why Josephus ignores them altogether, or even would not want to know of them. In a similar way, Josephus only discovered Christianity in Rome, when he could not deny it a certain social importance.' Cf. E. Nodet, 'Jesus et Jean Baptiste selon Josephe', RB 92 (1985), pp. 321-48. 44. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, pp. 63-64. 45. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 381.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Nehemiah as well as for the Pharisees, which does not, however prevent strong claims being made about it'. The inauguration of the altar on 25th Kislev in 164 BCE by Judas Maccabaeus had no immediate institutional consequences, and it was evident that it was not the temple but the temple institution as such that played the most central role during the Maccabaean crisis.46 With these examples the issues of research in Nodet's work is presented: The Maccabaean crisis, the authority of the holy books, the development of the oral Torah, sabbath, and finally the Samaritans who seem to appear 'at each moment in the development of ancient Judaism, and that Josephus in particular systematizes their opposition, from Cyrus to the Maccabees'.47 Since the historiography for the period is incoherent, contradictory and limited to singular events that cannot be brought into any harmonious course (the edict of Cyrus, the building of the temple, the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah, the arrival of Alexander and the decrees of Antiochus III), it is not possible to create a coherent picture of events and developments of early Judaism and its placement in the Persian period prior to Alexander the Great by means of classical source analysis.48 After Judas Maccabee, information becomes more numerous, and it is evident that conditions regarding the sabbath, temple and Samaritans have changed. This gave Nodet reason to use Judas Maccabee as a chronological reference. He separated him from the other members of the Hasmonaean family, since it was clear that he had other interests and also obtained a different position in the books of Maccabees.49 As a typological reference Nodet used what he calls the Nehemiah model/the Nehemiah city, which, removed from its 'historical' context, 'designates a community structure defined by a limited and protected space, where the Torahand especially the Sabbathcould be ob-

46. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 62. 47. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 62. 48. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 38: 'the origins of Judaism, distinct from the reconstruction of the sanctuary under the patronage of Cyrus and Darius, fit in very poorly in the Persian period, but are a priori earlier than the arrival of Alexander, since he was impressed with the temple and with the worship there, and since he bestowed upon the Jews privileges, which he refused to the Samaritans. If this episode fades away as fictional, however, there is no longer anything which would appear to guarantee so ancient a date for these origins.' 49. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 263.

2. Radical Alternatives: The Theories of Crown and Nodet


served without any hindrance'. 50 The question of the sabbath is here used as the touchstone in Nodet's research, since the discussions and the accounts about defence or lack of defence, combined with Josephus's obvious uneasiness about stating that the sabbath rule, which prohibits defence on the sabbath, should belong to the Mosaic tradition, could point to a late fixing, and seems rather to belong to the split in Judaism into various fractions in the third-first century BCE. The 'results' of Nodet's methodical research led to the establishment of three distinct Jewish groups, which in different ways determined development during the Hasmonaean crisis.51 The reform policy of Antiochus III52 gave the impetus to this development. This reform policy was similar to the well-known reforms presented in Ezra and Nehemiah. Transformed to this period, where they would fit better, they instituted a new law as a synthesis of the Law of Moses with Babylonian customs.53 An active policy of restoration was instituted after Antiochus Ill's takeover in 223 BCE and Jerusalem played a central role in this restoration. The condition for the city was similar to that described in Ezra 6.1-12: without high priest, with an unfinished temple and with no authority to receive the decree, which therefore was sent to the Syrian governor, who had the highest authority economically and religiously.54 The purpose of the decree was to move observant Jews to central places in Palestine where they could serve Seleucid interests as
50. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, pp. 62, 87, 379. 51. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 263. 52. Understood on the basis of Antiochus's decree presented in Josephus, Ant. 12.138-44, which Nodet (pp. 217ff.) considered to be authentic. Cf. E.J. Bickerman, 'La charte seleucide de Jerusalem', REJ 100 (1935) pp. 4-35, reprinted in E.J. Bickerman, Studies in Jewish and Christian History, II (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1980), pp. 44-85, and Y.H. Landau, 'A Greek Inscription Found Near Hefzibah', IEJ 16 (1966), pp. 54-70. This stele inscription mentioning Antiochus Ill's fiscal reorganization of Palestine can in no way be connected to Josephus's decrees ascribed to Antiochus III. 53. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 225; see also p. 386: 'In brief, the book of Ezra-Nehemiah, which contains ancient information, not only offers no serious obstacle to the proposed conclusions, but even makes it possible to clarify the functions of these two personages: to Ezra was precisely connected the written Law (all or part of the Pentateuch), with views about all Israel and a dominant high priesthood governing the Law and the cult, whereas under the name of Nehemiah and his library were gathered together the traditions of the Elders, various writings and a Jewish nostalgia for a monarchy having control over the cult.' 54. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 218.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

'buffer' zones against upheavals without themselves being a threat to the rulers, since they were not allowed to carry weapons on the sabbath. This model was known from a similar practice, related in Ant. 12.14950. After the order of Antiochus III, 2000 Jewish families were moved from Mesopotamia to Phrygia and Lydia because of an upheaval there. Xeukis, who was in charge of the move, was instructed to make sure that these loyal Jews became properly settled, were free of taxes for ten years and were allowed to live by the law of their fathers.55 According to Nodet this policy changed the balance of power in Palestine. The 'deportation' of these observant Jews to Jerusalem led to confrontations and splits that definitively formed the agenda for the Maccabaean crisis and also became foundational for the formation of rabbinical Judaism. Prior to the decree of Antiochus, the returned Jews had formed two main groups. One group concentrated around the temple in Jerusalem, whose situation is reflected in Ezra 1-6. The other group, called Nehemiah Jews or Ezra Jews, were Hasidic Jews, 'Men of the Great Assembly', who, after their return from Babylonia, instituted the weekly sabbath, which previously had been connected to the feasts of the new moon. These Jews began to collect the Pentateuch traditions, probably together with the Samaritans, with a late addition of Deuteronomy.56 At the core of the sabbath problem lay in fact calendar disagreements. The lunar calendar governing feasts and sabbaths formed the foundation of Israelite religion, such as it is traceable in the Pentateuch prior to the
55. The letter is undated, but is considered to be authentic and belonging to the same period (cf. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 223). 56. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, pp. 281-86, 289, 335, see also p. 92: The Hexateuch as a whole can with great difficulty be considered the work of NehemiahJudas [2 Mace. 2.13f.], since on the one hand the narrative part superbly ignores Jerusalem and very largely gravitates around Shechem and Mount Gerizim and therefore applies more to the Samaritans than to Judaea, and on the other hand the Babylonian model of the sabbath, close to that of Nehemiah, does not agree with the basic biblical ideas. Some of the accounts referred to above indicate besides that these same Samaritans, although attached to the Pentateuch, denied that they observed the sabbath like the Jews, at least in the time of Antiochus IV, as if the Sabbath precept had no further force. In dispensing with the biblical narratives then, it is advisable to examine the legislative sections, especially those dealing with the Sabbath: is it possible to picture a Pentateuch without the weekly Sabbath of the Creation?' The result is positive in Nodet's study, giving a Pentateuch without the priestly redaction, which must have taken place after Nehemiah and before 1 Mace, (cf. pp. 93-121).

2. Radical Alternatives: The Theories of Crown and Nodet


priestly redaction, and which is unknown to Ezekiel and Isaiah.57 With the introduction of the weekly sabbathseparated from the phases of the moona cult reform was introduced whose central aim was to remove the fertility cult connected with the moon. As a result, the Jews were forced to form two distinctive groups: observant Nehemiah Jews fitting the description of Agarthacides, for whom the sabbath observance was central, and non-observant Jews,58 who had no problems in joining Alexander's army (cf. Ant. 11.339). The conflicts between these two groups were to some degree solved by the high priest Simon the Just,59 who seemingly had some success in combining the Babylonian oral Torah with the Pentaeuch in some form and the requirements of the priesthood realizing the decrees of Antiochus III. After Simon this unity fell apart again and quarrels about the high priestly office led to the formation of three different groups:

57. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, pp. 118-21, 99-102 and 380: 'The Sabbath in its old form, attested in the prophets and in some narratives, referred to the full moon and the associated ceremonies. The Passover, the 14th of a lunar month, was therefore a Sabbath in this sense. The Mesopotamian sources were likewise acquainted with a shabattum, corresponding to the full moon. They were acquainted too with "dangerous days" the 7th, 14th, 21st, and 28th. Practically, the rhythm of the quarters of the moon was close to the weekly sabbath, but with the computation beginning over again each month, therefore in dependence of the moon. The weekly sabbath had at the outset the same rhythm but was freed from that lunar servitude, which implied a change in cult of major significance, since the moon, governing human fertility was easy to divinize.' 58. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 90. 59. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, pp. 277, 335. Of Egyptian origin, based on the name and indirectly testified in 1 Mace. 5.23 and Josephus, Ant. 12.226-27. See p. 260: 'The simplest hypothesis is therefore to admit that Jason and Onias were really Lacedaemonian in origin, or more exactly, since their Lagide connections are certain, that they were Egyptian descendants of Spartan colonists. Moreover, this does not conflict in any way with their having been named or recognized as high priests by the Seleucids: the governor-high priest of Coele-Syria to whom Antiochus III had addressed the Charter of Jerusalem was a former Egyptian general named Ptolemy. Likewise, according to 2 Mace. 6.1, Antiochus IV named an Athenian to rededicate to Zeus the sanctuaries of Jerusalem and Gerizim, and that function greatly resembled an appointment as high priest in the official Seleucid royal cult.' This, of course, is a highly tendentious reading of the implied texts leaning heavily on Josephus's interest in exploiting the similarity of names. With R. Smend, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach (Berlin: Georg Reimer Verlag, 1906), we are told that Onias was the Greek rendering of the Hebrew Yochanan.

68 1.

The Samaritans and Early Judaism High priests of different origins, accepted and supported by the Seleucid rulers and their friends, of whom Onias, son of Simon the Just appointed by Antiochus III, is a prototype. These priests tolerated an increasing Hellenizatlon and the taxation of temple treasures. Furthermore, in their application for Jerusalem's status as a polis, they created an antagonism that brought them into open conflict with observant Jews (group 2) who wanted obedience of the Law, and non-observant Jews (group 3) who did not accept that temple treasures be given to the Seleucid rulers.60 More or less observant Jews returned from exile and spread all over the Seleucid empire, but with a minor group settled in Jerusalem. Their leader was Judas Maccabaeus together with the Hasidim. From them we have the connection to the later Pharisees, developing in the period between Jonathan and John Hyrcanus, who, independently of the high priest and the king, had gained a considerable influence over the people, especially those living in the diaspora.61 Nodet separated Judas from the Maccabees, to whom he was artificially connected in 1 Maccabees, in order to render him priestly status, but whose political and religious observances he did not share, especially regarding the sabbath62 and the temple.63 That he 'is forgotten' in 1 Mace. 14.28-45, the inscription in memory of the formation of the state, and in 16.3, Simon's testament, which only mentions 'my brother' (sing, and probably Jonathan is meant), together with the 'fact' that he is not appointed high priest, were Nodet's reasons for suggesting this separation.64 Israelite priests having no decisive break from their Samaritan origin. They grasped the power religiously and politically in



60. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, pp. 381-82. 61. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 334: They were more biblical (and less given to activism) than Judas Maccabaeus himself, but were very similar to the book of 2 Maccabees, with a vision of the Temple as a divine dwelling and with an efficacious desire to influence the Diaspora, as the festal letters show.' 62. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 63. Judas did not carry weapon on the sabbath, but fled to the mountains (cf. 2 Mace. 8.25-26; 15.1-2). 63. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, pp. 215-16, 237-48. 64. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, pp. 209, 215-16, 246-48, 381.

2. Radical Alternatives: The Theories of Crown and Nodet


Judaea. Their prototypes are Jonathan65 and Simon, sons of Mattathias. Mattathias himself, a priest with Samaritan connections, had left Jerusalem because of its decadence, but dreamed about seeing the temple again. From them we have the connection to the Sadducees,66 who originally connected to the Samaritans, established themselves in Jerusalem and became dominant in the time of Alexander Jannai.67 Claiming to be heirs to the Zadokite priesthood, they are connected with the books of Chronicles, which established the genealogical connection to the Zadokites (cf. 1 Chron. 24.3-31) and whose theological profile match that of the Sadducees according to Josephus's description in Ant. 18.16.68

65. In whose days the holy books came to Jerusalem (cf. 1 Mace. 12.9). The disagreement of this text with Josephus, Ant. 13.167, 'although we have no need of such evidence, since our own writings inform us of this', made Nodet assert, 'Onias as high priest did not possess the "holy books", that is to say he did not have the Pentateuch, in which in particular the genealogies were found; or at the very least, he sought other proofs of antiquity than these books, which were perhaps not really "holy" for him.' Cf. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 259. 66. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, pp. 335, 381. 67. Which implies a transfer of John Hyrcanus's discussion with the Pharisees (Ant. 13.289-90) to Alexander Jannai (cf. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 249). 68. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 266: 'The difference between Judas and Mattathias has become clearer, under the veil of a common armed resistance. The latter has been recognised as an Aaronite, perhaps a Zadokite, with Samaritan connections. But what results from this is a problem relative to the Book of Chronicles, which described a cult installed in Jerusalem, in which the Davidic monarchy and the tribe of Levi (priests and Levites) held sway. Moreover, the interpretation of the line of Joarib and Mattathias as Zadokites is based solely on the interpretation of the list in 1 Chron. 24.3-31. If it is omitted it is still possible to compare the Sadducees with Mattathias and the Samaritans, but their name becomes again inexplicable. The difficulty may seem artificial, since Chronicles is commonly dated to the Persian period or the beginning of the Hellenistic period, without any definite relationship with the decree of Cyrus, or with the activities of Ezra and Nehemiah. But Chronicles is to be dated after the "Law of Moses", which they constantly mention. Jonathan's letter to the Spartans, in which he declared that he had the sacred scriptures at his disposal, which Onias did not have, or did not utilise, shows that the existence or at least the authority of the Law of Moses (or of the "holy books") among the circles directing the Temple could not have gone back a good while before the Maccabean crisis.'


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

The roles of these groups in the Maccabaean crisis and the development of the rabbinic tradition in the aftermath of that crisis will not be dealt with here. According to Nodet, the origin of the Samaritans is hidden in the complex pre-history of Israel, which does not form part of his study. They probably are not those from 2 Kings 17's and Josephus's imported Cuthaeans, but relate to a local Yahweh cult centred around Shechem,69 with strong local traditions connected to Jacob-Israel. They furthermore are connected to the Aaron traditions via Bethel, which must be identified with Shechem or a nearby sanctuary whose origin is lost.70 At a certain time, not later than Alexander the Great, the Gerizim cult originated with the traditions connected to them.71 From this came the Hexateuch traditions, the connection to Joshua, the Jacob traditions, which had been written down around 250-200 BCE and were accredited with the authorization as the 'Law of Moses' without the weekly sabbath, interpolated in a later redaction.72 The meeting with the returned Nehemiah Jews led to an acceptance of some of their customs, inter alia the weekly sabbath (cf. Ant. 12.259). This resulted in a considerable literary activity and probably also in a common Pentateuch, which
69. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 147: 'The people did not intermix with the subjects of the province as a whole. On the occasion of the visit of Alexander (Ant. 11.340), two entirely distinct groups are clearly apparent: the Samaritans in general, and the "dissident" Jews connected with the Gerizim temple. Even if Josephus's presentation is tendentious, since he always tried to denigrate the Samaritans there is a certain duality, represented by the two cities of Samaria and Shechem. In other words, the petition just studied did not concern all the Samaritans, but only a group revolving around Shechem and the unnamed temple.' Nodet here argues against the scholarly tradition that assumes the Sidonians to be a colony, living among the Samaritans, but not connected with those (see below, Chapter 5). Nodet's argumentation is bound to his establishment of a history for the development of the weekly sabbath, which would fall apart if the Sidonians in Josephus's writing were not the Samaritans. 70. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, pp. 167-82. 71. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 381. 72. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, pp. 191, 152, 381: 'In addition the Samaritan Pentateuch has interesting contacts with the Qumran fragments and with the least revised forms of the LXX (Philo, New Testament). The Letter of Aristeas which presents a Jerusalem high priest ruling over the twelve tribes, conferred authority on a revision, in a more Judean or more balanced sense, of a translation of the Pentateuch that had been judged to be too "Samaritan". Since Antiochus III, the importance of Judaea had only kept on growing, but the Samaritan text, despite later corruption, should be regarded as the first heir of the primitive edition.'

2. Radical Alternatives: The Theories of Crown and Nodet


became dispersed to the diaspora.73 Because of the Nehemiah Jews' self-assertion as heirs to all Israel, they collided in Jerusalem with another tradition that was 'cultic, prophetic and perhaps also royal. This forms the prehistory of the Maccabaean crisis' in which the Samaritans, in Nodet's presentation, did not participate.74 The role of the Samaritans in Jewish history had ended. Concentrated around the high priestly governed life75 on their wind-swept mountain, they could do nothing but wait for extermination in 107 BCE. The present reader certainly is left wondering how this peripheral group could leave such an imprint on the cult in Jerusalem, that it accepted its history as part of their own, and seemingly had so great veneration for this history that changing it had to go via secondary interpretations, such as in the book of Jubilees, Testament of Joseph, and so on.76 Nodet's view on the Samaritans as a minor group that seemed to have contact with other groups in Judaism only for the basis of the establishment of a history of the Pentateuch in our scholarly world certainly is an intrinsic weakness of his work. By this he introduced a distortion that supports the Jerusalem tradition's own assertion of the existence of a widespread and normative Judaism as early as the third century BCE.77 The connection to the Hasidic Jews and later the Sadducees is so weak that it cannot be seen as more than a working hypothesis, having no sociological resonance. The question of their relation to the cult in Jerusalem before and after Simon the Just is left unanswered in Nodet's work. The Samaritan account, which curses King Simon for having destroyed the temple at Gerizim and which
73. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, pp. 191-95, 38. 74. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 191. 75. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 269: 'An essential element for the Samaritans was the absolute primacy of the priesthood, in conformity with the Pentateuch, in complete contrast with pharisaic and then rabbinical Judaism, which was a lay democracy in which the dominant element was the teaching of tradition by the doctors of the Law; among the Samaritans, all religious acts went through the priests, and in particular the seven feasts and the calendar.' 76. See Chapter 7 below. 77. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 381: 'If the Samaritans constituted a very local reality, it was not the same for the Jews, scattered as far as the Tigris. In the prehistory of the Maccabean crisis, the Jerusalem charter granted by Antiochus III (about 200) is of prime importance, since it attempted, in order to ensure their fidelity, to federate a Jewish population of Babylonian culture scattered throughout his whole kingdom, by reorienting it on the city and its temple.'


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

curses Ezra for having forged the Law is not taken into consideration either. Instead, Ezra's role as promoter and promulgator of the Law of Moses and his institution of scribal and teaching activities in the whole of the Seleucid kingdom during Antiochus III are given special attention. If this be the source of the common Pentateuch, such as suggested by Nodet, it fits badly with the Samaritan view on Ezra.78 Whatever historical role this figure might have had, the tradition ascribes to him a far greater role than the promoting of the Pentateuch. Nodet's separation of Ezra and Nehemiah, making Nehemiah the innovator and preserver of 'the traditions of the Elders, various writings and a Jewish nostalgia for a monarchy having control over the cult', and making Ezra the promoter of 'the written Law (all or part of the Pentateuch), with views about all Israel and a dominant high priesthood governing the Law and the cult' hardly reflect biblical, Samaritan or rabbinic tradition. The collection of the Masoretic texts is the work of the rabbis. Ezra's mission is first and foremost the promotion of an oral Torah. For that reason is he placed outside the temple (Neh. 8.4). It is not the priests, but the Levites (metaphorical rabbis) who teach the people (cf. Neh. 8.7-9): 'So they read from the Book, from the law of God, with interpretation [crib!?]. They gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading.' This is well testified in 'Abod. Zar., which makes Simeon the Just the first high priest in a series of seven generations of teachers. Before the promulgation of the Law, the city and the temple have been rebuilt, and the Jews from the rural districts have moved into the city. In other words circumstances were in place for a realization of the commandments of the Law, so that after the reading of the Law, the confession of sins (Neh. 9) is followed by the cutting of a new covenant: in this version the signing of a contract (ch. 10)by which religio-social reforms instituted by the Law could be declared valid (Neh. 13). The placement of Nehemiah after Ezra in biblical tradition has as its purpose bringing Ezra into the old tradition and leaving Nehemiah as a guaranty that what the new Ezra brings is not completely different from the old tradition, but that it (as part of the tradition) is enclosed by it. That the keeping of the Sabbath and the marriage regulations are made part of the old tradition is documented by the references to the Pentateuch (Ezra 9.12; Neh. 8.13-15; 10.31-40; 13.1-2, 10, 25), which guarantee that they should be kept. The inclusion of Ezra in the tradition at the

78. As pointed out by Rowley, Men of God, p. 271.

2. Radical Alternatives: The Theories of Crown and Nodet


time when he introduces something new is a common literary technique of biblical composition. The circularity designates the wholeness, annuls the chronology and, by making the first the latter and the latter the first, connects past and present. Rabbinic veneration for Ezra as the figure who together with 120 Elders form 'the Great Synagogue' that returned from exile 'made many new rules and restrictions for the better observance of the Law' also fits Nodet's model badly. Ezra's function as innovator and competitor to Moses (cf. t. Sank. 4.7): 'If Moses had not anticipated him, Ezra would have received the Torah'; (b. Suk. 20a): 'He restored and re-established the Torah that had been almost forgotten' not only brings him into conflict with the Samaritans, but also with the Sadducees, who according to Nodet originated from them.79 As a contrast to this veneration, the work of Nehemiah is given insignificant reference in rabbinic tradition, restricted to a few sabbath rules (cf. b. Sab. 123b). That the decree of Antiochus III in Josephus reflects the Nehemiah model, which he has not presented previously, neither in his mention of Ezra (Ant. 11.121-58) or Nehemiah (Ant. 11.159-83), should be the 'caveat', which either accepts Nodet's placement of the reform here or rejects to write history on the premises of Josephus. The placement of Simon the Just as the high priest who combined the various 'traditions' and thus realized the decree of Antiochus III implies an impossibility regarding the book of Ben Sira. Ben Sira's ignorance of Ezra and the reforms of Nehemiah, of whom he seems to have knowledge of his building of the city wall only (cf. Sir. 49.13)'The memory
79. Meg. 31b; y. Meg. 4.1.75a: 'He ordained that public readings from the Torah take place not only on Sabbaths, but also on Mondays and Thursdays'; b. Sank. 21b: He also had the Bible rewritten in 'Assyrian characters, leaving the old Hebrew characters to the Samaritans'; B. Bat. 21b-22a: 'He established schools everywhere to fill the existing needs and in the hope that the rivalry between the institutions would redound to the benefit of the pupils'; B. Qam 82a-b, y. Meg. 4.1.75a: 'He also enacted the ordinances known as "the ten regulations of Ezra" and together with five of his companions, compiled the Misnah' (tractate Kelim, in A. Jellinek, Beit ha Midrash: Sammlungen kleiner Midrashim und vermischter Abhandlungen aus der altern judischen Literatur [6 vols.; Jerusalem: Bamberger & Wahrmann, 3rd rev. edn, 1967 (1853)], p. 88). Aside from the book which bears his name, Ezra wrote the genealogies of the book of Chronicles up to his own time (B. Bat 15a) and had a hand in writing the book of Psalms (Song R. 4.19). The rabbis identify him with the prophet Malachi (Meg. 15a). He is one of the wise men whose piety is especially extolled by the rabbis (Midr. Jeh. to 105.2), cf. E. Davis, EncJud, VI, p. 1106.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

of Nehemiah also is lasting; he raised our fallen walls and set up gates and bars, and rebuilt ruined houses'is significant. It can be argued, of course, that the language here must be read metaphorically. The placement between v. 12, the temple building activity of Yehoshua ben Yozadak, and v. 14's praise of Enoch certainly can also give clues to such an interpretation. The praise of Simon (son of Onias in Sir. 50) mentions his high priestly performance during the service and does not mention anything about reform activities, unless one reads his building activities metaphorically. It has to be noted that the book of Ben Sira does not display any special interest in sabbath or marriage laws, and that the main demand concerning worship is social adjustment and the keeping of the offering commands (cf. chs. 7 and 35). Of course, there could be several reasons for that, and it cannot be denied that the case is political: also regarding the praise of the high priest, whoever this person is. Considering the book of Ben Sira to belong to another context that does not have knowledge of these reforms would imply that its Jerusalemite orientation is a late insertion.80 The dating of the book is another important matter. Its implicit dating to 182-132 BCE and a possible late dating to 117 BCE removes it so far from the alleged reforms of Antiochus III that other contexts become possible. The origin of the Pentateuch in Samaritan tradition and its 'adoption' in Jerusalem is meaningful only if this tradition had first later become Samaritan or if both groups had identified themselves with the same prehistory. If they did not, we must ask why the cult in Jerusalem accepted the Samaritan version as their own. Interestingly, the biblical tradition confirms Nodet's hypothesis that the Samaritans were the original heirs to the Pentateuch traditions. It also confirms that the cult moved from north to south and not the opposite. In the Ezra-Nehemiah tradition it asserts furthermore that this move was necessary, and that the break between the pre-exilic old Israel and the postexilic new Israel was foundational for the survival of the New Israel with its new interpretation of the Law. What confuses this scenario, however, is the later
80. Sir. 50.27. The standard translation based on the LXX: 'Ir|oot>c; mo<; ipa% EA,eaap 6 Iepoat>A.euiTr|c;, 'Jesus, son of Eleazar, son of Sirach of Jerusalem', conflicts with the Hebrew text: KTO p "ITI^K p "pIOD. R.H. Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), and P.W. Skehan and A. A. Di Leila, The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation, with Notes (AB, 39; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987) both omit Simeon, asserting this to be an erroneous insertion.

2. Radical Alternatives: The Theories of Crown and Nodet


traditions' wish for a correction of the direction of this move. Denying the innovative aspects of that move, they claimed heritage to the whole tradition. This is particularly evident in Josephus's claim for Jerusalem's sovereignty. The contradictions to this claim is not given satisfactory attention in Nodet's work. Nodet's selective reading of his 'sources', which a priori asserts the authenticity of some texts and rejects others as inauthentic, implies the assertion that our texts are historical documents directly reflecting reality. Establishing hypothesis on the background of the veracity of some texts indirectly provides these texts' reality-creating activity with an authority that ignores these very texts' myth-making functions. Such a reading is in constant danger of leading to circular argumentation and tendentious confirmation of the hypothesis at test. Nodet hereby seems to have fallen victim to his own criticism of methods. That might be inevitable if we are to engage ourselves in historical reconstruction at all. That such a reading also can give wonderful new insights and establish new hypotheses is well demonstrated. It certainly is one of Nodet's greatest achievements that he brings up the question of the Pentateuch afresh. Its origin and transmission raise urgent questions of the primacy and authority of what we are wont to call Judaism.


This chapter offers a brief introduction to most of the literature we call 'Samaritan', including DSS texts, from the SP to the latest of the Samaritan Chronicles of the nineteenth century CE.1 Detailed text examination should not be expected here, and readers are advised to seek further information in the literature referred to. The historiography of the Samaritan Chronicles will be examined in Chapter 6. The Pentateuch With the exception of some few references to surviving Samaritans in Palestine in the fourteenth century CE, it was not until the end of the sixteenth century CE that real information about Samaritan communities was given by J. Scaliger, who wrote diaries from his travels in Palestine and brought them to the attention of Western scholarship. Scaliger also collected some few manuscripts and was in close correspondence with the Samaritan community in Nablus for years.2 The publication of these Samaritan manuscripts raised text-critical questions about the originality of the biblical manuscripts, and led to the first European publication of the SP in 1616 by Pietro della Valle. Later, J. Morinus, who already in 16313 had argued that the SP was earlier than the MT, inserted the SP into his Polyglot, published in Paris in 1645. Morinus's text appeared in
1. See J.P. Rothschild, 'Samaritan Manuscripts', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 771-94, for preservation of manuscripts and fragments, a total of about 1800 placed in about 70 libraries and private collections. 2. J.J. Scaliger, Opus De Emendatione Temporum (Leyden, 1583; 1598; Geneva, 1629). 3. J. Morinus, Exercitationes Ecclesiasticae in utrumque Samaritanorum Pentateucheum (Paris, 1631).

3. Samaritan Literature


revised form in the London Polyglot, published by B. Walton in 1657,4 which also contained a list, made by Casellus, of the text variants to the MT: 6000 were found, 1900 of which corresponded with the LXX. This interest in the SP was not entirely scientific. The ideologies, expressed in sola scriptura and ad fontes of the Reformation had challenged the authority of the Catholic Church. For centuries both parts of this debate had a major interest in 'excavating' the most original text, a so-called Urtext. The demonstration of a greater correspondence between the SP and the LXX, which also could be proved to harmonize better with the Vulgate text than those Hebrew manuscripts the reformers claimed to have been Urtexts had the purpose of defending the tradition and warding off the critique of church tradition by Lutherans. The classical work of Gesenius from 18155 sought a revision of these views. He assumed that the Samaritan sect came into existence with Alexander the Great's permission for the Samaritans to build a temple on Mt Gerizim. At this time the Samaritan priests, he argued, revised the Jewish text to fit this new reality. The correspondence with the LXX could be explained by assuming a common origin in an AlexandrianSamaritan recension, which Gesenius considered to oppose a Jewish recension, and to have had authority among the Jews. The AlexandrianSamaritan recension was a more popular edition, made for public use, while the Jewish recension, for the sake of its claim to greater respect, had not undergone the same revisions, but had kept its textual problems.6
4. B. Walton (ed.), Biblia Polyglotta (6 vols.; London, 1657). Prolegomenon XI: De Samaritanis et eorum Pentateucho eiusque versionibus. (The prolegomena have been frequently republished by: Heidegger [Zurich, 1673]; Dathe [Leipzig, 1777]; Wrangham [Cambridge, 1828].) 5. W. Gesenius, De Samaritanorum origine, indole et auctoritate (Halle: Springer Verlag, 1815). 6. Gesenius, De Samaritanorum origine, p. 14: the variants comprised: (1) grammatical changes, (2) explanations in the text, (3) assumed changes in order to remove textual difficulties, (4) changes based on parallel passages, (5) expansions based on parallel passages, (6) harmonizing of chronologies, (7) Samaritan words (including the special use of laryngeals), (8) sectarian readings based on Samaritan theology and cult practice. For these reasons Gesenius did not consider the SP to be useful for text-critical studies. Gesenius's views are discussed in Purvis, Samaritan Pentateuch, p. 75, and B. Waltke, 'The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Text of the Old Testament', in J.B. Payne (ed.), New Perspectives on the Old Testament (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1970), pp. 212-39 (228-32).


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

These opinions of Gesenius were followed by Z. Frankel, S. Kohn and J. Nutt.7 A. Geiger shared Gesenius's views in principle but was more critical in regard to the MT. By introducing much new material, he sought to demonstrate that most of the variants were older than the Samaritan community, and that the Samaritan text should rather be considered to be an independent text than a development of any Jewish text.8 In 1915 these views were further argued by P. Kahle,9 who considered the SP to be very old and to have a greater degree of originality10 than the MT, which had only later been compiled and edited from various sources. The LXX was similarly based on various translations, which first developed a standard version in the Christian era. Kahle based his arguments on SP's accords with Jubilees, 1 Enoch, the Assumption of Moses, Philo, LXX and the New Testament. Scholars like R. Pfeiffer, B. Roberts, F.G. Kenyon, O. Eisfeldt, A. Weiser and E. Wiirtwein all shared Kahle's opinions.11 P.M. Cross, working out more fully a theory put forward by W.F.
7. Z. Frankel, Vorstudien zur den Septuaginta (Leipzig: n. pub., 1841); idem, Uber den Einfluss der paldstinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik (Leipzig: n. pub., 1851); S. Kohn, De Pentateucho Samaritano eiusque cum versionibus antiquis nexu (Leipzig: n. pub., 1865); J.W. Nutt, Fragments of a Samaritan Tar gum: Edited from a Bodleian Ms. with an Introduction, Containing a Sketch of Samaritan History, Dogma and Literature (London: n. pub., 1874; repr. Giitersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1980). 8. A. Geiger, Urschrift und Vbersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhdngigkeit von der innern Entwicklung des Judenthums (Breslau: Heinauer, 1857). 9. P. Kahle, 'Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Pentateuktextes', TSK 88 (1915), pp. 399-439. 10. Against Gesenius, who could not find more than four authentic readings. 11. B.K. Waltke, 'Samaritan Pentateuch', ABD, V, pp. 932-40; R. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament; BJ. Roberts, The Old Testament Texts and Versions (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1951); idem, review of Purvis, Samaritan Pentateuch, JTS 20 (1969), pp. 569-71; F.G. Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts (revised by A.W. Adams, New York: n. pub., 1958); idem, The Text of the Greek Bible (London: Gerald Duckworth, 3rd rev. edn, 1975 [1936]); F.F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments: Some Chapters on the Transmission of the Bible (London: Pickering & Inglish, 1953); O. Eissfeldt, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 3rd edn, 1964 [1934]); A. Weiser, The Old Testament, its Formation and Development (New York: n. pub., 1961); E. Wiirtwein, Der Text des Allen Testament (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1952) (ET: E.F. Rhodes [trans], The Text of the Old Testament [Leiden: SCM Press, 1980]).

3. Samaritan Literature


Albright,12 revised Kahle's opinions. On the basis of DSS biblical manuscripts he concluded that the Pentateuch (and former prophets) had developed from three local text traditions: an Alexandrian LXX, a Palestinian proto-Pentateuch and a Babylonian proto-MT, all originating in
copies of the Law and Former Prophets, whose literary complexes had come into final form in Babylon in the sixth century, and which were then brought back to Palestine. The tradition concerning the text of Ezra may reflect these circumstances. In any case we must project the 'archetype' of all surviving local texts of these books roughly to the time of the Restoration.

From these traditions, he argued, the SP emerged from the Palestinian family as a rewritten sectarian text 'not earlier than the Hasmonean era', and the MT could be understood as a text revised by the rabbis around 100 CE.13 The Palestinian and Alexandrian texts' close relations in form and orthography were caused by the latter being 'a branch of the Old Palestinian family', which broke off in the early fourth century. 14 In contrast to Albright, Cross would not call these textual families 'recensions', since they were 'the product of natural growth or development in the process of scribal transmission, not of conscious or controlled scribal recension'.15 Thus, Cross (as in the Sanballat question) seems to be operating within two paradigms: maintaining the paradigm of the antiquity of the Hebrew Bible and merging this paradigm with the evidence from DSS, which in fact does not support the first paradigm and gives little evidence for the second, since Cross's proto-MT of Babylonia does not exist among DSS. This was clearly understood by S. Talmon,16 who could not agree to the theory of a single Urtext or any development of three distinct local families. Rather, he considered it most likely that various 'primal traditions' had been in
12. W.F. Albright, 'New Light on Early Recensions of the Hebrew Bible', BASOR 140 (1955), pp. 27-33. 13. P.M. Cross, 'The Contribution of the Qumran Discoveries to the Study of the Biblical Text', in P.M. Cross and S. Talmon (eds.), Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974), pp. 278-92. 14. Cross, 'Contribution', pp. 290-91. 15. Cross, 'Contribution', p. 282 n. 21. 16. S. Talmon, Textual Study of the Bible', in P.M. Cross and S. Talmon (eds.), Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974), pp. 321-400; Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, p. 152.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

use at the same time, which 'progressively lost their lease on life and ultimately crystalized in a restricted number of Gruppentexte'.ll Also E. Tov warned against an establishment of an Urtext and a too rigid grouping of texts, which were more likely related to each other 'in an intricate web of agreements, differences and exclusive readings'.18 Tov argued further that the designation 'proto-Samaritan' should be avoided and replaced by 'pre-Samaritan', since
SP was largely based on a textual tradition that was extant in ancient Israel the descriptive name 'Samaritan' is almost irrelevant. The content and typological characteristics of this text were already found in preSamaritan texts found in Qumran, that is, in the ancient non-sectarian texts upon one of which SP was based.19

The discussion was related to the debate of Second Temple Judaism brought forward by the studies of DSS. Many scholars still considered it possible to place DSS manuscripts within an already established history of Judaism from the third century BCE. With the conviction that Samaritans had departed from Judaism not later than the first century
17. Talmon, Textual Study of the Bible', p. 327. 18. E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (Jerusalem Biblical Studies, 3: Jerusalem: Simor, 1981), p. 274; idem, 'A Modern Textual Outlook Based on the Qumran Scroll', HUCA 53 (1982), pp. 11-27 addressed the problem of 'integrating the new knowledge into an old framework, although a new one is actually needed' (p. 13) and since 'there is no evidence for a Masoretic text-type, nor a Septuagint text-type, while there is some legitimacy for the employment of the term "text-type" for the Sam. Pent.' (p. 24) The terminology thus should not go unchanged but be replaced by the simple term 'texts', indicating that 'the MT, LXX and Sam. Pent., which traditionally have been presented as the only three textual recensions of the biblical text, represent, in fact, but three of many texts' (p. 26). See also Tov, 'Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts from the Judaean Desert', JJS 39 (1988), pp. 3-37, for a survey of the various biblical texts found in the caves and an analysis of the textual differences, thus strengthening the argument that 'we should no longer try to fit the Qumran texts into this imaginary framework, created because of the coincidence that the MT, Samaritan Pentateuch and LXX were the only preserved textual sources' (p. 35). This statement was somewhat softened in Tov's 1992 book (Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible [Philadelphia: Fortress Press; Assen: Van Gorcum]), which for its outline speaks of five groups of biblical texts without avoiding the already established text-types of the MT, SP and LXX (pp. 114-17), in spite of the fact that one of the objectives of the book is 'to drive home the realization that MT and the biblical text are not identical concepts'. MT is only one representative of the complex of sources that reflect the biblical text. 19. Tov, Textual Criticism, p. 81.

3. Samaritan Literature


BCE, it seemed to be quite simple to mark expansionist texts from Qumran written in palaeo-Hebrew as Samaritan, although their content did not agree with the SP. The early opinions about 4QpaleoExodm, written in palaeo-Hebrew and with full orthography and text expansions, but without any sectarian readings which could be related to the SP, offer clear examples of this tendency.20 Of importance for the relationship between pre-Samaritan and Samaritan texts is the absence of any so-called sectarian readings in pre-Samaritan texts. The designation 'pre-Samaritan' is therefore based on script, expansionism, harmonization and linguistic features. Expansionism and harmonizing tendencies, which in pre-Samaritan texts do not bear the same characters, however, are found in several other DSS texts and should perhaps more precisely be labelled expansionist texts. I think it proper to argue against Tov21 that the Samaritans cannot be said to have chosen such a text, but rather continued to use the text-type they were accustomed to. This statement of course implies a different view of the Samaritan origins as well as of whether texts have been expanded or shortened. It should not go unnoticed that we do not find any Masoretic texts at Qumran and that some of the texts called proto-Masoretic bear close similarities to so-called expansionist texts in a manner hardly to be distinguished from the MT Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel.22 This in fact was confirmed also by E.Y. Kutscher, who, in his study of IQIsa23 detected a great degree of similarity between the IQIsa, LXX and SP. All three text-types intended to remove linguistic and theological ambiguities and seemed more suited to popular use. Similarly the palaeo-Hebrew still in use for Samaritan writings can20. Thus P. Skehan, 'Exodus in the Samaritan Recension from Qumran', JBL 74 (1955), pp. 182-87; Skehan changed his opinion a few years later and declared that the text was not Samaritan because of its lack of space for sectarian readings and its compatibility to 4QTest. Cf. P. Skehan, 'Qumran and the Present State of Old Testament Text Studies: The Masoretic Text', JBL 78 (1959), pp. 21-25; M.D. McLean, The Use and the Development of Paleo-Hebrew in the Hellenistic and Roman Period (PhD dissertation, Harvard University, 1982), and J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll from Qumran, p. 306, who, for text-critical reasons, maintained that the text was proto-Sam., although the text had no room for the SP reading of the Decalogue. 21. Tov, Textual Criticism, p. 100. 22. Cross, 'Contribution', p. 289. 23. E.Y. Kutscher, The Language and the Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1977), p. 77.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

not convincingly be argued to give evidence for any Samaritan origin and/or related text revision during the Hasmonaean period, as J.D. Purvis has argued,24 since this script never ceased to have been in use.25 The findings of coins from the Hasmonaean period, minted with palaeoHebrew, might indicate that for national purposes the square script had not reached a status beyond the palaeo-Hebrew. Except for a single coin dating to the time of Alexander Jannaeus, all coins with Hebrew text, before and after up to the Bar Kochba revolt, are written in palaeoHebrew.26 In addition we do not have any sure knowledge of a development of specific Samaritan script features before the third century CE, and it cannot be safely said that Samaritans did not also use square script for profane purposes.27 Given this wide range of about four hundred years of scriptural identification for an origin of a Samaritan community, we end agreeing with Tov's suggestion that 'this dating does not necessarily have implications for their Torah. The non-Samaritan (pre-Samaritan) substratum could have been created prior to the establishment of the community or, alternatively, the Samaritan text could have been created much later.'28 Lacking in this discussion about whether pre-Samaritan texts are to be found among DSS is the entire question about what tradition the DSS actually represents. This question has become more pivotal in the past ten years of scholarship, because of the ongoing breakdown of the Essene hypothesis. Are the DSS sectarian texts of the Essenes, Sadducees or Pharisees? Were they brought into the caves in the second or first century BCE, or even as late as the first century CE? Do they come from one place, as has been suggested: from libraries or a geniza in Jerusalem, and either brought to the caves at one or more times,29 or
24. Purvis, Samaritan Pentateuch, p. 86: '[I]ts script developed from the paleoHebrew; its orthography is the standard full orthography of this time; the textual tradition it represents is not only known from this time, but completed the development of its characteristics during the Hasmonean period.' 25. R.S. Hanson, Taleo-Hebrew Scripts in the Hasmonean Age', BASOR 175 (1964), pp. 26-42. 26. A. Kindler, 'Coins and Currency', EncJud, V, pp. 696-72. 27. R. Pummer, 'Samaritan Material Remains and Archaeology', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 135-77 (136-38). 28. Tov, Textual Criticism, p. 83. 29. A theory vigorously defended by N. Golb. See reference to his works discussed in F.H. Cryer and Th.L. Thompson (eds.), Qumran between the Old and

3. Samaritan Literature


have they been produced at Khirbet Qumran? Are texts written in the 'Qumran system' written in Qumran in contrast to 'non-Qumran system' texts, which had been imported?30 With these questions unanswered, it is necessary to keep in mind that the SP, with its specific features, could have existed contemporaneously with these text bodies, but not have formed part of them, and should not be expected to be found among DSS. This negative evidence can therefore only be used with great caution in the context of Samaritan history. Manuscripts Not unlike Masoretic texts, 'original' Samaritan texts of the Pentateuch are not available from before late mediaeval times. Pietro della Valle's manuscript dates from 1345-46, Von Gall's Exodus E from 1219, and the famous Abisha scroll from 1149.31 The datings are based on a deciphering of cryptograms in the texts, giving information about the name and family as well as the dating of the scribal work. With a single
New Testaments (CIS, 6; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 101; 19495, 202-204, 252-55, 292. 30. As suggested by Tov, 'Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts', pp. 33-36; E. Ulrich, 'The Paleo-Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts', in D. Dimant and L.H. Schiffman (eds.), Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995), pp. 103-29, argued for a recognition of the use of 'Qumran-orthography' outside of Qumran as evidence for a 'traditional' versus 'contemporary', or 'conservative' versus 'modernizing'depending upon whether the scribes continued to copy the Persian period texts in the old orthography or modernized them in accord with contemporary practices of the Hasmonean-Roman period (p. 127). 31. Possibly the oldest scroll of the Pentateuch. It is greatly honoured by the Samaritans and kept in custody in the synagogue of Nablus. Gaster, Samaritans, pp. 110-12, advocated a much earlier dating of the scroll. Implicit to the Abisha scroll, is that it has been written by Abisha ben Phinehas in the thirteenth year after the entrance to Canaan. This made Gaster assume a very early original, eventually from the time of Ezra, since the cryptogram could not have been changed by later copyists. The problem of dating the origin of cryptograms in the text (peculiar to Samarian literature) makes Gaster's argument rather hypothetical. P. Kahle, 'The Abisha Scroll of the Samaritans', in F. Hvidberg (ed.), Studia Orientalia loanni Pedersen (Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard, 1953), pp. 188-93, gives an account of the confusions about the various Abisha copies; he argues that the fragment, published by Fr. Perez Castro ('El Sefer Abisha', Sefarad 13 [1953], pp. 119-29; repr. 'Das Kryptogramm de Sefer Abischa', VTS1 [1960], pp. 52-60), could have been written centuries before the oldest known Pentateuch manuscript. Perez Castro dated the scroll to the twelfth-thirteenth century CE.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

exception of a text from the ninth century, most texts date to the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries and represent about 150 more or less fragmentary texts. Most of the manuscripts come from Damascus, Egypt, Shechem and Sarepta,32 and are now in custody of the Synagogue of Nablus, the John Ryland's Library at Manchester,33 the British Museum, the Bibliotheque Nationale at Michigan State University34 and a few private collections like the Sassoon Collection.35 It has been argued that the Samaritan text had not been copied quite as carefully as the MT. B.K. Waltke, in his study of texts from the thirteenth to the sixteenth century, has detected an increasing deviation from the MT based on scribal errors.36 This study of course is very important for the evaluation of the published editions of the SP. A.F. von Gall's classical edition, Der hebraische Pentateuch der Samaritaner31 suffered from not having respected such developments. Although von Gall presented the available manuscripts and also made use of them in his text critical apparatus, he, for unknown reason, chose a manuscript, which had several errors, had been reconstructed on the basis of the MT and did not contain the Abisha scroll.38 Later editions made by A. and R. Sadaqa, Jewish and Samaritan Version of the Pentateuch39 and L.F. Giron Blanc, Pentateuco HebreoSamaritano-Genesis,40 sought to meet these problems. The former used
32. R.T. Anderson, 'Samaritan Pentateuch: General Account', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 390-96. 33. E. Robertson, Catalogue of the Samaritan Manuscripts in the John Rylands Library, Manchester (2 vols.; Manchester: n. pub., 1938-62). 34. R.T. Anderson, Studies in Samaritan Manuscripts and ArtifactsThe Chamberlain-Warren Collection (ASOR Monographs; Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1978). 35. D.S. Sassoon, Ohel David: A Descriptive Catalogue of the Hebrew and Samaritan Manuscripts in the Sassoon Library (2 vols.; London: n. pub., 1932). 36. B.K. Waltke, Prolegomena, pp. 42-64. 37. A.F. von Gall, Der hebraische Pentateuch der Samaritaner (repr.; Berlin: Alfred Topelmann, 1966 [1914-18]). 38. J. Hempel, 'Innermassoretische Bestatigungen des Samaritanus', ZAW 12 (1934), pp. 254-74. 39. A. and R. Sadaqa, Jewish and Samaritan Versions of the PentateuchWith Particular Stress on the Differences between Both Texts (Tel Aviv: n. pub., 196165). 40. L.F. Giron Blanc, Pentateuco Hebreo-Samaritano-Genesis (Testos y estudios Cardenal Cisneros, 15; Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1976).

3. Samaritan Literature


a manuscript from the eleventh century for the Tetrateuch and the Abisha scroll for Deuteronomy and had the MT in parallel columns. Blanc's edition was based on MS Add. 1846, written early in the twelfth century CE and now kept in the University Library Cambridge. This edition records variants from fourteen additional sources.41 Translations The SP was early translated into Greek, Aramaic and Arabic. As support for the understanding of the Hebrew versions as well as a documentation for an early standard text, these translations have considerable value for research. The earliest reference to a Greek translation is given with Origen's Samareiticon. Only very few fragments have been found and no clear consensus of whether they actually are Samaritan has yet been reached.42 The Giessen fragment, which was acquired in 1910,43 consists of Deuteronomy 24-29, including the so-called Samaritan readings of Deut. 27.4: Hargerizim instead of Ebal. Other text variants could support a Samaritan origin, but the manuscript's close agreement with the Samaritan Targum makes it difficult to see it as stemming from Origen's hand. Later text findings44 have not offered more secure evidence for an early Greek version of a work by the Samaritans for the Samaritans. Both Tov and Pummer have argued against any assumption of a text being Samaritan because it has Gerizim in the right place. So has Vetus Latina, at least in Codex Lyon. This variant reading is not necessarily Samaritan,45 but could be an original reading, which was later changed.46
41. Tov, Textual Criticism, p. 84. 42. See the discussion in S. Noja, 'The Samareitikon', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 408-12. 43. Published in 1911, in P. Glaue and A. Rahlfs, 'Fragmente einer griechischen Ubersetzung des Samaritanischen Pentateuchs', NKGW Phil.-Hist. Klasse 2 (1911), pp. 167-200. 44. A. Rahlfs, 'Bin weiteres Fragment der griechieschen Ubersetzung des Samaritanischen Pentateuchs', NKGW Phil.-Hist. Klasse 2 (1911), pp. 263-66; B. Lifshitz and J. Schiby, 'Une synagogue samaritaine a Tessalonique', RB 82 (1975), pp. 368-78; Kippenberg, Garizim und Synagoge, p. 148, dates the inscription to the fourth century CE. 45. E. Tov, 'Pap. Giessen 13, 19, 22, 26: A Revision of the LXX?', RB 78 (1971), pp. 355-83. 46. R. Pummer, 'Agarizin: A Criterion for Samaritan Provenance', JSJ 18.1 (1987), pp. 18-25.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

The Samaritan Targums (Sam. Tg.) have become the standard designation for the translation of the SP into Western Aramaic,47 which possibly did take place some time between the end of the first century BCE and the eleventh century CE.48 Because of poor translations of the Hebrew texts, the Sam. Tg. have not been considered to offer much of interest for research on the SP,49 and they have only recently been investigated thoroughly by A. Tal. In a huge study, published from 1980 to 1983, Tal was able to show that most of the mistakes were linguistic related to geography and chronologyand were not to any serious extent theological.50 The Arabic translations date to the tenth century CE. They underwent revisions in the thirteenth century CE. Harmonizing various manuscripts, these revisions created text editions, which both linguistically and theologically differed from their original texts. Although Arabic became an everyday language for many Samaritans in the tenth century CE, Hebrew was kept for liturgical purposes and probably prevented of these Arabic texts from becoming authorized as a standard version.51
47. See, A. Tal, 'Samaritan Literature', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 413-67, pp. 446-47, for the linguistic considerations. 48. Macdonald, Samaritan Chronicle No. II, p. 41, dates the Targum to the time of Baba Rabba. A. Loewenstamm, 'Samaritans', EncJud, XIV, pp. 754-57 (754), argues for a dating between the first and fourth century CE based on lingustic concords with Defter and Memar Marqah, together with several grascicisms in the text. 49. The first edition published in Paris and London polyglots was, according to P. Kahle, Textkritische und lexikalische Bemerkungen zum samaritanischen Pentateuchtargum (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1898), 'the worst known manuscript of the Samaritan Targum'. 50. Tal, 'Samaritan Literature', p. 448. In a comparative study of MS, Or. 7562 from the British Museum and MSS 3 and 6 from the the Shechem synagogue, Tal demonstrated that MS Or. 7562 reflects Samaritan Aramaic from the pre-Talmudic period (the time for the occurrence of the Palestinian Targum), revealing earlier stratas, which are seen also in Tg. Onkelos and Aramaic documents from DSS. MS 6 from the Shechem synagogue represents the period for the occurrence of Talmudic Arabic, from around fourth century CE and used as a proof text for MS Or. 7562. MS 3 is a result of scribal inability in a period where Aramaic no longer was in use. See, furthermore, the introduction in A. Tal, The Samaritan Targum of the Pentateuch: A Critical Edition (3 vols.; Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 198083). 51. H. Shehadeh, 'The Arabic Translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989),

3. Samaritan Literature


The Special Features of the Samaritan Pentateuch The examination of the deviations between the MT of the Pentateuch and its Samaritan counterpart, numbering about 6000, have been dealt with by other scholars and will not be repeated here in detail, since this examination is based on readings of mediaeval texts and not on their ancient Vorlage.52 E. Tov,53 in his examination of such assumed Vorlagen (named pre-Samaritan texts found among DSS), sought to distinguish between this 'pre-Samaritan substratum and a second, Samaritan layer added in the Samaritan Pentateuch'. From his examination, it seemed 'that the Samaritans added but few ideological and phonological changes to their presumed base text. All other characteristics were already found in the early texts'. However, attention needs to be given to the inconsistency with which these characteristics occur in the preSamaritan texts. Given their rarity it is difficult to make precise statements about their implications. The following sections briefly discuss Tov's results. Harmonizing Alterations These involve alterations to remove contradictions in the text. They are far from being thorough, but represent a tendency that is more dominant in the SP than in pre-Samaritan texts of DSS. The formalism with which these harmonizations are made includes a consistent use of names, which makes the SP reading of, for example, Num. 13.16 impossible: 'Moses named Joshua son of Nun Joshua', a name that he is given already in the calling in SP Num. 13.8. This reading goes against all other witnesses, including the pre-Samaritan texts, all of which resemble the Masoretic reading: 'Moses named Hosea son of Nun Joshua.' However, this lectio difficilior of the Samaritan text, I think, should not be too quickly understood as a harmonization, since it might be argued that Num. 13.8 in other texts has been harmonized to fit Num. 13.16. Text
pp. 481-516. The article is a summation of the author's dissertation from 1977, The Arabic Translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch, Prolegomena to a Critical Edition' (Hebrew). 52. Casellus (1657); Gesenius (1815); Luzatto (1851; repr. 1970 by R. Kirchheim); Purvis (1968). 53. E. Tov, 'Protosamaritan Texts and the Samaritan Pentateuch', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 397-407; idem, Textual Criticism, pp. 80-100.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

variants to the SP either suggests a deletion of Nun Joshua or of Joshua, which means that *? K")p should be translated as 'called at' or 'read to'.54 Changes on the Basis of Parallel Texts, Remote or Close Remote alterations most often relate to harmonizations between the Tetrateuch and Deuteronomy, which, because of its status as 'repetitive Torah', apparently had to correspond, especially in the narrative parts of the book.55 This led to an insertion of Deut. 1.9-18 in the middle of SP Exod. 18.25, thus repeating the command to Moses about appointing judges on Deuteronomy's terms. According to MT and SP Exod. 18.21 these judges should be 'capable men, who fear God, trustworthy men who hate a bribe', but according to Deut. 1.13 be 'men who are wise, understanding and experienced'. The same feature is found in 4QpaleoExodm. In fact this 'harmonization' of the Exodus text with that of Deuteronomy undermines what was said about harmonization in the former paragraph, since we now have two variant stories about the appointment of judges in the same text, and we thus should expect the qualifications to have been adjusted according to the rules of harmonization. According to Tov other adjustments are found in, for example: Num. 10.10 with an addition of Deut. 1.6-8; Num. 12.16 with an addition of Deut. 1.20-23; Num. 13.33 with an addition of Deut. 1.27-33. Similar features are found in DSS manuscripts without being entirely consistent with the SP. The number of harmonizations differs in a remarkable way, so that, for example, 4QpaleoExodm has less harmonizations, while 4QNumbhas more than the SP.56 Evidence for this last remark is not given by Tov since the examples mentioned are also found in the SP. Tov's five examples of close harmonizations (i.e. alterations based on context or related verses) cannot be sufficiently compared to pre-Sama54. Cf. the apparatus in von Gall, Der hebrdische Pentateuch (Num. 13.16). Attention must be given to the fact that von Gall in several instances adapted the text of the Samaritan Pentateuch to the MT. 55. Tov, Textual Criticism, p. 86. 56. Tov, Textual Criticism, p. 98: Exod. 32.10 add. based upon Deut. 9.20; Num 20.13 add. based upon Deut. 3.24-28 and 2.2-6; Num. 21.12 add. based upon Deut 2.9, 17-19); Num. 21.20 add. based upon 2.24-25; Num. 27.23 add. based upon Deut. 3.21-22.

3. Samaritan Literature


ritan manuscripts because of lack of material, and it is only Exod. 8.20's addition of ~INQ to the heavy swarms of insects that has a known parallel in 4QpaleoExodm:
E.g. SP Exod. 8.20 reads IRQ "DD miJ for MT 133 ITII>, an alteration based on 9.3, 18, 24 and agreeing with Tg. O.J.; 4QpaleoExodm and Vulgate but against Tg.N.

As can be seen from the two examples below, the agreement with other text witnesses differs, and nothing can be safely concluded from these few examples.
E.g. SP Gen. 7.2. reads TOp31 H3T for MT inp] 2TK, an alteration based on Gen. 1.27; 6.19; 7.3, 9 and agreeing with LXX, TG.O.N.J., Syr. Pesh. and Vulgate. E.g. SP Num. 27.8 reads DHH]! (assign) for MT Dll-niJm (transfer), an alteration based on vv. 9, 10, 11 and agreeing with Syr. Pesh. but in contrast to LXX, Tg. O.J. and Vulgate, all reading the verse as in MT.

Alongside tendencies of harmonization, the Samaritans are believed to have added 'sources for a quotation' in their Scripture. Here again this is done because of the assumption that
Deuteronomy is expected to 'repeat' the content of the preceeding four books, the technique of inserting verses from Deuteronomy into the earlier books can also be described as providing 'source' for a quotation. This technique was also applied to relatively small details in sections that are not parallel.57 E.g. SP Exod. 20.2 l b containing Deut. 18.18-22, which has been added in retrospect to give cause for Deut. 18.16. This addition is also found in 4Q158andin4QTest. E.g. SP Exod. 6.9, anticipating the people's murmuring in Exod. 14.12. E.g. SP Gen. 30.36, which has an addition describing the content of Jacob's dream and thus anticipating Gen. 31.11-13, whereas the MT is lacking any reference to the mentioned dream. This reading is attested in 4Q364 ( = 4QPP). A similar addition is found in the SP after Gen. 42.16, anticipating Gen. 44.22.

To Tov's list, we should add that the addition to SP Exod. 20.17b, containing the Samaritan tenth commandment and the erection of the altar on Mt Gerizim, anticipates the erection of the stone altar in Deut.

57. Tov, Textual Criticism, p. 88.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

27.2-8, which in both instances is supplied with the explanatory remark that this 'is facing Gilgal at Elon Moreh facing Shechem'. Of the four examples offered by Tov, two do not fall within the expectation of Deuteronomy's superiority as a reason for the addition. Furthermore, there seems to be a problem in that the additions do not really clarify, and in some instances conflict with, the text of the Deuteronomy. The arbitrariness of the retrospective language in Deut. 18.16 and 27.1, 8 does not match the 'additions' in SP Exodus. Neither does the anticipation of Jacob's dream fit any need for clarification in the MT. It is thus a moot point whether one is correct in assuming that the texts of the Tetrateuch have been altered on the background of Deuteronomy. The expansionist character of the Samaritan and pre-Samaritan text seems rather to have given reason for the clarification and removal of conflicting (Deut. 18.16 [27.2, 8]) or superfluous (e.g. the 'addition' to SP Gen. 30.36) material in the Tetrateuch. Repetition of Commands According to Tov, 'it is characteristic of the style of the biblical narrative to relate commands in great detail, while their fulfilment is mentioned only briefly, with the words "...and he (etc.) did as...'".58 In the SP on the contrary, commands are not only given but also executed in verbatim repetitions of the commands. So when the MT says that the Lord demanded so and so and ends with the remark that it had been done, the SP variant adds the command and might say, 'Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and said...', with a repetition of what the Lord had told them to say. These additions are most clearly brought out in Exod. 7.18, 29, 8.19 and 9.5, 19, agreeing with 4QpaleoExodm. Linguistic Corrections It appears that most of the linguistic corrections of the SP were already found in its pre-Samaritan substratum, since they resemble the harmonizing changes described above. Some of them are indeed found in the pre-Samaritan text 4QpaleoExodm.59 Orthographic peculiarities in MT have often been changed in the SP. Pronominal suffixes of third person masculine singular, which in a few places in the MT is written with n (e.g. Gen. 9.21; 12.8; 13.3; 49.11; Exod. 22.4; 22.26) were almost always corrected to 1. Similarly the qere form of MT Gen. 3.12, 20 and
58. Tov, Textual Criticism, p. 89. 59. Tov, Textual Criticism, p. 89.

3. Samaritan Literature


7.2 is in the SP written in the ketib form similar to the writings of 4QpaleoExodm (22.26; 31.13), 4QDeutn(5.5) and the proto-Masoretic manuscript 4QLevc (5.12). The use of matres lectionis has traditionally been considered to be more dominant in the SP than in the MT. R. Macuch and M. Cohen, however, have independently demonstrated that this assumption is wrong. They have shown that matres lectionis in fact are more related to categories of words than to specific texts.60 Some DSS manuscripts, including 'non-Samaritan' manuscripts as well as such pre-Samaritan manuscripts as 4QpaleoExodm and 4QDeutn have a high use of matres lectionis, while other pre-Samaritan manuscripts are written with a more defective orthography than the SP. Phonological interchanges of gutturals are common in DSS manuscripts. In pre-Samaritan texts, this phenomenon relates especially to V/ n and is as frequent as in Galilaean Aramaic.61 Unusual (often archaic) forms are replaced by common forms and grammatical incongruencies are often corrected. Most of these 'corrections' are noted in the critical apparatus of BHS.62 Some disagreements are simple scribal errors, such as the frequent reading of ~l in the MT for 1, in the SP. Given this support of the SP spelling in pre-Samaritan texts, one must conclude that the SP reading in these instances is original, contrasting with the often meaningless text of the MT, for example, Gen. 14.14; 47.21 and Num. 24.17. Alterations Related to Content and Ideology The question of where to worship form the central part of these alterations. Hargarizim, usually in one word, is employed in all instances where Jerusalem is alluded to in the Pentateuch.63
60. R. Macuch, Grammatik des samaritanischen Hebrdisch (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1969); M. Cohen, The Orthography of the Samaritan Pentateuch. Its Place in the History of Orthography and its Relation with the MT Orthography', Beth Miqra 64 (1976), pp. 50-70; 66 (1976), pp. 361-91 (Hebrew). 61. Tov, Textual Criticism, pp. 95-96, offers a few examples with references to Macuch, Grammatik des samaritanischen Hebrdisch, and Z. Ben-Hayyim, The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic amongst the Samaritans (5 vols.; Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1957-77) (Hebrew). 62. Which misleadingly has punctuated the Samaritan variant according to the Masoretic tradition! 63. Tov, Textual Criticism, p. 95: 'The reading hargarizim in SP is usually taken by scholars as tendentious, but since it is also found in Vetus Latina it should probably be taken as an ancient non-sectarian reading.' See also Pummer, 'ARGA-


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

That Yahweh is to be worshipped on Hargarizim is also stated in the Decalogue of SP Exod. 20.lib and Deut. 5.18b, which has the MT first commandment as a headline to the Decalogue. The Samaritan tenth commandment records Deut. 11.29a; 27.2b-3a, 4a, 5-7 and 11.30 (in this order). Deut. 27.4, which forms part of the commandments, reads 'Gerizim' for MT 'Ebal', in agreement with Vetus Latina, reading 'Garzin'. The qualifying note to the placement of Gerizim and Ebal in SP Exod. 20.17b and Deut. 5.18b, stressing that this 'is facing Gilgal at Elon Moreh facing Shechem', also in SP Deut. 11.30, solves the confusion in the MT by the addition DD2) 'TIQ. Interestingly it finds support in rabbinic literature.64 None of these readings are found in pre-Samaritan texts, since the sections are either missing or the text is corrupt. The often-mentioned SP formulaic rule of writing "IPD, 'chose', in a past form when pertaining to 'the place, Yahweh will choose' (future form) in MT Deut. 12.5, 11, 14, is not given any further consideration in Tov's study.65 It seems to me that the matter is not quite as clear as scholarship has traditionally argued. Since SP Deut. 12.21, 26 and 15.20 employs a future form, agreeing with MT, and the Samaritan Chronicle Kitab al-Ta'rikh, written by AbuT-Fath (AF pp. 71-76). employs both tenses in its theological discourse about the placement of the temple, one has to reconsider the question. The consistent use of the past form ^"ira (1st person sing.) in MT 2 Chron. 7.12, 16, when Yahwehin an answer to Solomon's prayerdecides to 'dwell' in the house Solomon has already built, could be witness to a conscious redaction of the MT of Deuteronomy. The underlying ideology in Chronicles, however, might not be related to place so much as to cult
RIZIN: Samaritan Provenance?'. The 'Samaritan' reading, without space between the words, occurs also in a Masada fragment written in the 'early' Hebrew script, see S. Talmon, 'Fragments of Scrolls from Masada', Erlsr 20 (1989), pp. 286-87 (Hebrew with English summary). However, the Samaritan nature of that fragment is contested by E. Eshel, 'The Prayer of Joseph, a Papyrus from Masada and the Samaritan Temple on ARGARIZIN', Zion 56 (1991), pp. 125-36 (Hebrew with English summary). 64. Cf. m. Sot. 1.5, dealing with the blessing on Gerizim and the cursing on Ebal, and stating that these are in Samaria, 'near by Shechem, beside the oaks of Moreh, as it is written, Are not they beyond Jordan (there is written, and Abram passed through the land unto the place of Shechem unto the oak of Moreh); as there the oak of Moreh that is spoken of is at Shechem, so here the oak of Moreh that is spoken of is at Shechem'. 65. Tov, Textual Criticism, p. 95.

3. Samaritan Literature


centralization and to the rejection of other 'houses' in Israel.66 Another special feature in the SP compared to the Masoretic Pentateuch belongs to chronology relating to the first generations in Genesis.67 Of interest is the reading of 'the sixth day' in Gen 2.2. agreeing with LXX, Syr. Pesh and Jubilees but against MT, Tg. O.N.J and Vulgate, which all read the 'seventh day'. The stay in Egypt in MT Exod. 12.40, reckoning 340 years in both the SP and LXX, includes the stay in Canaan in this reckoning, which of course conflicts with the following verse that relates that after this 430 years' stay in Egypt, the armies of Yahweh went out of Egypt. The SP is also seen to have slight variations related to the synchronic use of words and phenomena that are not seen in the MT. Summing up, we must conclude that the SP reflects a text type found in Qumran, which, because of its 'various additions and expansions', is labelled as an expansionist text. This text type is not restricted to Samaritan texts, and the above-mentioned features common to so-called pre-Samaritan texts and the SP does not convincingly prove that any texts among the DSS should be labelled 'Samaritan'. The so-called second stratum of the SP, belonging to ideological variants, is still unproven, since none of the DSS texts contains the material needed for that examination. The common assertion that Samaritans expanded their texts with harmonizations of various sorts is unfounded, because it has not been proven that these 'additions' meet any need of clarification. In some instances they conflict with the text of Deuteronomy that they are thought to anticipate. On the premise of lectio difficilior, the Samaritan text should be considered prior to its Masoretic counterpart, while on the premise of lectio brevior it should be considered to be later! Such conflicting premises require a reconsideration of our understanding of techniques of expansion, and raise further questions about whether we are after all correct in speaking of 'extensive editorial rewriting' of the type of texts to which the SP also belongs.68
66. Cf. Chapter 5 below. 67. R. Weiss, Studies in Text and Language of the Bible (Jerusalem, 1981) (Hebrew), pp. 63-189, cit. Tov, 'Protosamaritan Texts', p. 403 n. 10. 68. Tov, 'Protosamaritan Texts', p. 407: 'It is similarly reflected in the protoSamaritan texts allowing for extensive editorial rewriting.' Just having received Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), I am pleased to be able to quote his conclusion on the matter: 'In sum, except for their script, the palaeo-Hebrew biblical manuscripts from Qumran


The Samaritans and Early Judaism Samaritan Theological Literature

Although the Samaritans recognize only the Pentateuch as their sacred text, this does not imply that no other literature could be given a certain authoritative status. How early this happened is difficult to state. It might belong to the development of a certain distinctiveness in Samaritan theology in the third century CE, as suggested by Crown.69 In the Samaritan Chronicle Kitab al-Tarikh by Abu'1-Fath (see p. 000 below) such a reason is given for the rejection of other Jewish Scriptures: they disrespect the commandment given in Deut. 4.2 and 13.1 (12.32) that 'you shall not add to it or take from it'.70 Thus the criticism is intrinsic and independent of the rejected literature's potential pro-Judaean or proSamaritan preferences. In the same manner, the Prophets are rejected because 'no prophet like Moses arose in Israel' (Deut. 34.10), judging this literature as untruthful and not stemming from God.71 These statements form part of a discussion about who is the true Israel in a context of who made the correct translation of the Pentateuch into Greek required by Ptolemy I (Soter) or, according to Josephus, Ant. 1.10 and 12.13, Ptolemy Philadelphia. Both Samaritans and Judaeans participated and each made their own version, differing both in content and size.72 The of ten-stated 'critique' of the Samaritans' rejection of the Hebrew Bible and of their recognition of only the Pentateuch needs a clarifying remark. The Samaritan rejection of the Hebrew Bible does not imply that they did not develop their own traditions of chronicles and halakhah. As Jews did not consider the Pentateuch to give answers to all matters of life, so the Samaritans gave a certain credit to tradition and to the interpretation of the Pentateuch. This is explicit in the Arabic
Cave 4 do not appear to form a group distinguishable from the other biblical scrolls in either physical features, date, orthography, or textual character. Moreover, though certainty is even more elusive for this contrast, there seems to be no great distinction in any of those four categories between manuscripts copied outside Qumran (or predating Qumran) and manuscripts copied at Qumran.' 69. Crown,'Redating the Schism'. 70. Stenhouse, Kitab al Tarikh, p. 136: p. 109 'our copy of the Law, and theirs as well, would forbid accepting it, as in the verse, "You shall add nothing to it, nor take away from it" which is to say that the law is complete (in itself)'. 71. Stenhouse, Kitab al Tarikh, p. 135. 72. Stenhouse, Kitab al Tarikh, p. 129.

3. Samaritan Literature


tractate Kitab al-Tabbakh from late mediaeval times, as well as in several hymns dated to the third to fourth century CE. The passages of interest for the discussion are presented and discussed by Ruahiridh Boid,73 cleared of earlier misunderstandings by Gaster74 and Halkin.75 What differs between the Samaritan and Jewish understanding is the view of the later traditions as given by God. The oral Torah of rabbinical Judaism, considered to have been given to Moses (cf. m. Ab. 1.1) and thus having authority besides and at times beyond the written Torah, could never achieve such a status in Samaritan belief. The Pentateuch alone, written by Moses,76 was the only legitimate Torah. What developed from this Torah remained rooted in the Pentateuch. It could never replace the Torah as such because it was already inherent in it. Nevertheless, since only Moses understood all the implications of the Law, it is necessary to have some written halakhic rules deduced from the Torah and related to tradition. Since the Pentateuch embraces life, tradition and theology, all literature, including commentaries, historical books, philosophical books, grammars, midrashim and halakhot, were written purposely to give insight into the commandments of the Pentateuch and to offer advice on how to live in accordance with them. This is clearly seen in Memar Marqah, probably written in the third to fourth century CE. Based entirely on the Pentateuch it totally lacks contemporary references. Language Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic and Arabic were the languages of the Samaritans. Several texts are thus written in polyglots with Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic in parallel columns. To offer some help with the reading of these texts, a glossary (Ha-Meliz) was made in the tenth to eleventh
73. Ruahiridh Boid (M.N. Saraf), 'Use, Authority and Exegesis of Mikra in the Samaritan Tradition', in M.J. Mulder (ed.), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (CRINT, 2.1; Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), pp. 595-99. 74. Gaster, Samaritan Escatology (London: Search, 1932), pp. 55-59. 75. A.S. Halkin, 'The Relation of the Samaritans to Saadia Gaon', in Saadia Anniversary Volume (American Academy for Jewish Research, Text and Studies, 2; New York: n. pub., 1943). 76. Samaritan tradition agrees with Jewish tradition in stating that not only Moses but also 6000 Israelites heard God speak from the mountain, when giving the Decalogue (b. Mak. 23b-24a; Sam. Hymn 16, lines 81-85); Kitab al-Tabbakh has 600,000 Israelites.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

century. It included Hebrew and Aramaic, and in the eleventh to fourteenth centuries it was supplemented in Arabic, as Hebrew was used only for ritual purposes at this time. A full manuscript from 1476 is presented by Z. Ben Hayyim. Under the influence of the expansion of Arabic in late mediaeval time superseding the Aramaic, Hebrew came once again into use in everyday language.77 Memar Marqah (Tibat Marqah) This is a collection of six books that exhibit great differences in language and content. In the first five books Memar Marqah offers a midrashic rewriting of the Pentateuch in an epic setting of bene Yisrael's wandering in the desert up to the death of Moses. The sixth book is a midrash of the 22 letters of the alphabet, understood to have originated at the time of creation. The language of Memar Marqah is fourth century CE Aramaic, with some development into later 'Samaritan' influenced by Arabic.78 The work is considered to have been written by the great Samaritan theologian Marqah from the third to fourth century CE and thought to be the most important early text dealing with Samaritan theology. J. Macdonald made an English translation of the work in 1963.79 Unfortunately, this did not use our best manuscript as its foundation and did not recognize many of the text variants, thereby losing many characteristics of the text.80 Liturgical Works The oldest work, called Defter, contains hymns attributed to Marqah's father Amram Darah and to his son Nanah. In the ninth century CE new additions were made, including prayers, confession, advice on liturgical

77. Loewenstamm, 'Samaritans', EncJud, XIV, pp. 752-53. 78. Tal, 'Samaritan Literature', pp. 462-45. 79. J. Macdonald, Memar Marqah, the Teaching of Marqah (BZAW, 84; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1963). For earlier editions, see the introduction, pp. xxiixxiv. 80. Tal, 'Samaritan Literature', p. 463, basing himself on Ben-Hayyim's review of Macdonald, Memar Marqah, in BO 23 (1966), pp. 185-91. His opinions were supported by Boid (Saraf), 'Use, Authority and Exegesis', p. 598 n. 11, who does not even mention Macdonald's work.

3. Samaritan Literature


practices and psalms. The edition of Cowley from 1909 is still the standard English version.81 Chronicles^2 Asatir (The Secret of Moses) A work in Aramaic, probably from the eleventh to twelfth century, containing haggadic material from the Old Testament and the Pseudepigrapha. The Samaritans credited the writing of this work to Moses and held it in great honour. M. Gaster, who was the first to publish it, dated it to around 250-200 BCE.83 According to language and content, Macdonald argued for a dating in Byzantine times. If any relationship to Memar Marqah could be established, this seems to be the oldest one.84 The latest translation with commentaries was made by Z. Ben Hayyim in 1943^4.85

81. A.E. Cowley, Samaritan Liturgy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1909); See Tal, 'Samaritan Literature', pp. 450-62, for a detailed examination of the material and Cowley's work. 82. I here follow the numbering system of J. Macdonald (Theology, pp. 44-49; Samaritan Chronicle No. H, p. 225) without engaging in the discussion and the critique raised against his system in A.D. Crown, 'The Date and Authenticity of the Samaritan Book of Joshua as Seen in its Territorial Allotments', PEQ 96 (1964), pp. 79-100; idem, 'A Critical Re-evaluation of the Samaritan Sepher Yehoshua' (unpublished PhD dissertation; 3 vols.; University of Sydney, 1966); idem, 'New Light on the Inter-Relationships of Samaritan Chronicles from Some Manuscripts in the John Rylands Library', BJRL 54 (1971-72), pp. 1-32; 55 (1972-73), pp. 281313 (283), which did not agree with Macdonald in this classification, but regards the Samaritan Joshua tradition as the basis of all chronicles. He understands Macdonald's classification as being 'a description of the finished product and does not indicate the process by which these chronicles were enlarged or composed. Nor does it show their true relationship'. See also P. Stenhouse, 'Samaritan Chronicles', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 218-65. 83. M. Gaster, The Asatir, the Samaritan Book of the 'Secrets of Moses' together with the Pitron or Samaritan Commentary and the Samaritan Story of the Death of Moses (London: Oriental Translation Fund, 1927). 84. Macdonald, Theology of the Samaritans, p. 44. 85. Z. Ben Hayyim, 'The Book of Asatir, with Translations and Commentary', Tarbitz 14 (1943), pp. 104-25, 128, 174-90; 15 (1944), pp. 71-87 (Hebrew).


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Sepher ha Yamin or the Samaritan Chronicle No. II This work is possibly later than Abu'l Path's Kitab al-Tarikh (see below), which it seems to be dependent on. No standard text, like the historical books of the Hebrew Bible, was ever attempted. The collections of chronicles belonged to the great families, who to some extent wrote their own versions of history. A comparison of Sepher ha-Yamin manuscripts with Sepher Yehoshua and Kitab al-Tarikh clearly demonstrates this. Macdonald characterized the work thus:
Sepher ha-Yamin as a title refers to a work which exists in more than one version, e.g. 2 Chronicles or the Jos. part of 2 Chronicles. 2 Chronicles may have existed originally as a book of Joshua, which is in no way connected with Sepher Yehoshua (4 Chron.), but may have contained large tracts of the Masoretic text. 2 Chronicles, as represented by MS HI is basically a very old chronicle of unknown date, possibly derived from a pre-MT version of the biblical text possessed by one or more North Palestinian (Samaritan) families. There are several clear indications that it is fundamentally a substantial excerpt from the biblical text which could have been held by northern as well as southern Israelites... To the original text underlying 2 Chronicles as we now know it, was later added, perhaps after the fourth century CE reorganisation of life and worship, some of the material in non-biblical classical Hebrew.86

Macdonald used a manuscript from 1616 for his translation, belonging to the Danufi family and copied by Tobiah ben Phinehas from Shechem. The language is classical Hebrew with few Aramaisms or Arabisms, and the composition, exposing lacunae in the text, reflects a later reworking of older material with insertions of secular sources containing heroic material and priestly sources dealing with cult, genealogies, facts, figures and names, and being severely anti-David and anti86. Macdonald, Samaritan Chronicle No. H, pp. 7-8. Not everyone agreed to Macdonald's conclusions about the originality of the manuscript. Pummer, 'Samaritan Studies, I', refers among others to 'Kippenberg (Garizim und Synagoge, p. 61 n. 4), who calls for "Eine eingehende Priifung von Macdonalds Aufstellungen"; Gese (review of Macdonald's edition in O.L.Z. Ixix, 1974, p. 156) accepts it as "die altesten von den uns heute zuganglichen erzahlenden Chroniken", whereas BenHayyim (Leshonenu, xxxv, 1970, pp. 292-302) considers it as the most recent one, dating from 1908.' This late dating has also been argued by J.D. Purvis, The Samaritans and Judaism', p. 83: 'I have been informed by several members of the Samaritan community that the document was put together in the late 19th century. It is essentially a modern forgery of an alleged ancient document.' See also M. Baillet, 'Review of Macdonald, Samaritan Chronicle no. //', RB 1 (1970), pp. 592-602.

3. Samaritan Literature


Solomon.87 The tone is polemical against the MT, and it is generally accepted that the chronicle has changed the MT. However, since the MT is no less polemical, one should not too quickly judge the material on this criterion. The hypothesis of lectio brevior would, in this case, judge the Samaritan material to be older than the Masoretic material in questions of both content and composition, but younger in questions of specific additions about cult places or geography. This reductive principle, therefore, only partly supports a conservative scholarly view on Samaritans as breaking off from Judaism and rewriting their history to fit the new circumstances. A comparison with the LXX does not reveal any direct dependency, although a great many of the variants in ST Joshua are in accord with the LXX, supporting a Shechem/Gerizim tradition clearly disagreeing with the MT.88 The discussion will be raised again in Chapter 6 in the presentation of Samaritan historiography. Here it is enough to quote Macdonald: 'But even if the ST is a later work in extenso, it may contain genuinely ancient traditions which antedate some polemical MT passages.'89 Ha-Tolidah (Genealogy) This text is predominantly written in Hebrew in 1149 by Eleazar ben Amram with additions in 1346 by Jacob ben Ismael and a follow-up on the genealogies in the following centuries. A section of the book is in Aramaic, dealing with the question about the height of Mt Gerizim. With an introduction to the calendar system based on Jubilees, the book enumerates the genealogies from Adam until the entrance into Canaan, together with genealogies of important Samaritan families. A. Neubauer's translation is based on a manuscript from 1859 written by Jacob ben Harun.90 J. Bowman later published a manuscript that he considered original.91

87. Macdonald, Samaritan Chronicle No. II, p. 8, who bases his divisions on content and language. 88. Macdonald, Samaritan Chronicle No. II, pp. 36-37, 208-209. 89. Macdonald, Samaritan Chronicle No. II, p. 15. 90. A. Neubauer, Tolidah, Based on MS Or. 651' (Bodleian Library, Oxford) = A. Neubauer, 'Chronique samaritaine', JA 14 (1869), pp. 385-470. 91. J. Bowman, Transcript of the Original Text of the Samaritan Chronicle Tolidah (Leeds: University of Leeds, 1954).


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Sepher Yehoshua This is usually considered not to be the Old Testament book of Joshua92 but an Arabic work from the thirteenth century CE acquired by Scaliger and translated into Latin with comments by T.G.J. Juynboll in 1848.93 O.T. Crane made an English translation in 1897.94 The book consists of legendary materials dating from the time of the biblical Joshua until the fourth century CE. The earlier versions cover only the period until the coming of Alexander the Great. Only after 1513 were additions concerning later periods made. M. Gaster published a text in 1908 that he considered to be a Hebrew version dating from the exilic/early postexilic period.95 Gaster made this suggestion on the basis of linguistic agreements with the last parts of Ezekiel, parallels with Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles, and Josephus's agreement with them. The critique of his suggestion,96 which argued that the work was part of another chronicle and written around 1900 by Jacob ben Harun, made Gaster strengthen his arguments. On the basis of J. Kennedy's work on the Paseq,91 Gaster gave a more detailed argumentation in his 1924 book98 for a Samaritan proto-Joshua that was earlier than or contemporary with the MT. The markings of text variants in the MT with a Paseq, agreeing with the Samaritan text, and the support of the LXX for the Samaritan reading in the same instances, proved the primacy of the Samaritan text
92. The discussion has engaged such scholars as D. Yellin, 'Das Buch Josua der Samaritaner' (Jerusalem: A.M. Lunen, 1902), pp. 138-55 (Hebrew); M. Gaster, 'Das Buch Josua in hebraisch-samaritanischer Version', ZDMG 62 (1908), pp. 20979; idem, 'On the Newly Discovered Samaritan Book of Joshua', JRAS (1908), pp. 795-809; idem, The Samaritan Hebrew Sources of the Arabic Book of Joshua (1930), pp. 567-99; Crown, 'Date and Authenticity', pp. 79-100, who advocates for a dating before the end of the second century CE; Crown, 'New Light', p. 32. 93. T.G.J. Juynboll, Chronicon samaritanum, arabice conscriptum, cui titulus est Liber Josue. Ex unico codice Scaligeri nunc primum edidit, latine vertit, annotatione instruxit (Leiden: Luchtmans, 1848). 94. O.T. Crane, The Samaritan Chronicle (New York: Alden, 1897). 95. Gaster, 'Das Buch Josua', pp. 209-79. 96. P. Kahle, 'Zum hebraischen Buch Joshua', ZDMG 62 (1908), pp. 494-594 (550-51); D. Yellin, 'A Book of Joshua or a Sepher Hayamim', Jerusalem Yearbook 7.7 (1908), pp. 203-204; S. Yahuda, 'Uber die Unechtheit des Samaritanischen Josuabuches', Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie des Wissenschafts 39 (1908), pp. 887-914; Stenhouse, 'Samaritan Chronicles', p. 220. 97. J. Kennedy, The Note Line in the Hebrew Scriptures, Commonly Called Paseq or Pesiq (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1903). 98. Gaster, Samaritans, pp. 134-40.

3. Samaritan Literature


to Caster's satisfaction. J. Macdonald agreed with Gaster on the variants with the MT, but could not confirm the LXX variants." No further conclusions have yet been reached on the matter and may not be possible in further study of the MT. It is necessary that studies of textual variants of biblical texts among DSS and their presentations in early Jewish 'historiographies' around the beginning of the common era be compared with Samaritan historiographies. For such purposes it can be useful to know that Caster's manuscript could be earlier than the Arabic Yoshua manuscript that Scaliger had acquired in 1629, as has been suggested by A.D. Crown.100 Shalshalah or Shalshalat ha-Kohanim (Chain) This is a current genealogy numbering the high priests from the time of Adam until the present, beginning with Eleazar ben Phinehas and for the time being ending with Jacob ben Harun in the twentieth century. Kitab al-Tarikh (Annales) This work is the great chronicle written by Abu'1-Fath in the fourteenth century. An annotated translation was made by P. Stenhouse in 1986.101 According to Stenhouse's foreword this chronicle is believed to be the oldest Samaritan historiography. However, the first safe mention of a manuscript of the work, now known as Ms Bodleian-Hunting don,102 is the one mentioned in Bernhard's Chronologiae from 1691, almost 50 years later than Joannes Hottinger's103 mention of a Samaritan book of Joshua in his dispute with Morinus. Abu'l-Fath's introduction lists the sources underlying the work: Sepher Yehoshua,104 ha-Tolidah plus three incomplete chronicles written in Hebrew. These chronicles had been either lost or damaged providing Abu'1-Fath his reason for compiling a new chronicle at the request of the high priest Phinehas, who left him his collection of old chronicles written in Hebrew and Arabic.105 Abu'l99. Macdonald, Samaritan Chronicle No. II, p. 7. 100. Crown, 'New Light', pp. 1-32. 101. Stenhouse, Kitab al Tarikh; Stenhouse, 'Samaritan Chronicles', pp. 218-65. 102. MS Huntingdon 350 in the Bodleian Library, Oxford. 103. J.H. Hottinger, Exercitationes Antimorianae: de Pentateucho Samaritano, ejusque authentia (Tiguri: n. pub., 1644). 104. Stenhouse thinks it possible that this is the manuscript Scaliger mentions, and used for Juynboll's Chronicon from 1848, cf. Kitab al Tarikh, p. iii n. 28. 105. AF pp. 1-2. This is the internal indication of page numbers in the chronicle and does not refer to the page numbers of Stenhouse's book.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Path's introduction, however, seems to be speaking with different voices and offers yet another reason for compiling the work. On p. 4:
As to why the slave undertook this taskthe reason is that he found himself in a particular country, and its ruler asked him about their Chronicles, and sought them from him; so he compiled the above mentioned Chronicle for him, and presented it to him.

By and large, the foreword seems to have some parallels to the forewords of Ben Sira, 2 Mace. 2.19-32 and the Letter ofAristeas, claiming adherence to the tradition and implying some authorial freedom. P. Stenhouse's introduction offers a brief discussion of the historicity and the authenticity of Abu'l-Fath's 'old chronicles'. Scholarly tradition has placed itself in two distinctive groups. One group considered the chronicle to build on a very old and genuine tradition (M. Gaster; S. Lowy). Another group considered the chronicle to be worthless for understanding the tradition's prehistory (J.W. Nutt; E. Vilmar; J.A. Montgomery).106 Stenhouse's own judgment relates to Abu'l-Fath's 'old chronicles', which, if they had really existed, should have led to a new copy and not to a new 'compilation'. Stenhouse regards the origin of the chronicle as related to a growth of hope in the Samaritan community at that time. He agrees with Vilmar that 'the Samaritan community at the time of Abu'1-Fath regarded the return of the Radwan (also named Rahuta)107 as imminent, and that the Abisha Scroll played an important part in bolstering these expectations. Vilmar considered that it was more than coincidence that the codex of the Pentateuch (allegedly written by Abisha son of Phinehas, son of Eliezer, son of Aaron in the thirteenth year after the entrance of the Israelites into Canaan) should have come to light precisely when it did. Stenhouse, however, does not see it necessary to call the chronicle a forgery as Vilmar had. He rather sees the chronicle as a text produced by necessity of circumstances, having as its purpose to salvage 'what was left of Samaritan traditions'.108

106. Stenhouse, 'Samaritan Chronicles', p. 240. 107. The time when God again blesses his people after the time of wrath (danuta), which began when Eli left Gerizim. 108. Stenhouse, 'Samarian Chronicles', p. 263.

3. Samaritan Literature
Chronicle Adler109


Written in Samaritan Hebrew by Abu-Sakhva ben Asad Hadanfi in 1900. It is mainly based on ha-Tolidah and Abu'l-Fath's Ta'rikh and can hardly be regarded as older. Halakhic Literature This consists of several works from late mediaeval time. It is written in Arabic with the purpose of arguing against the halakhic literature of the Karaites, the Rabanites and Islamic legal material.110 The aforementioned Kitab al-Tabbakh belongs to this group. It never achieved and developed a systematic form comparable to what is found in Rabbinic literature. Kitab al-Fara 'id from the thirteenth and fourteenth century is the most important of these; it includes 613 commandments, of which 365 (the days of a year) are prohibitions and 248 (the number of the parts of the body) are prescriptions.111 Commentaries on the Pentateuch These are all from mediaeval times and written in Middle Arabic. With the exception of lexicographic and grammatical material, they exhibit traits of mediaeval thought in philosophy, astronomy, astrology and medicine.

109. After E.N. Adler and M. Seligsohn, 'Une nouvelle chronique samaritaine', REJ 44 (1902), pp. 118-222; REJ 45 (1902), pp. 70-98, 160, 223-54; REJ 46 (1903), pp. 123-46. 110. G. Wedel, 'Halachic Literature', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 468-80 (471). 111. EncJud, XIV, pp. 754-55, offers a list of the various works.

Chapter 4

Rabbinic Judaism in the Light of the Samaritan Question1 An increasing anti-Samaritan attitude developed in the course of rabbinic discussions in the early centuries of this era. From some of the more nuanced discussions and views put forward in texts from the Mishnah to the fourth century CE's Babylonian Talmud, Samaritans underwent the fate of being not only formally excluded from this selfdefined post-biblical Judaism, but eventually were likened to heathens. In the Mishnaic literature, they are termed Cuthaeans, but they are not to be confused with either 'am ha'ares (a different group) or with heathens, who are mentioned separately from both Cuthaeans and 'am ha'ares.2 Because of an increasing association of Samaritans as hea1. On the basis of the following sources: Mishnajot, Die seeks Ordnungen der Misnah, Hebrdischer Text mit Punktation (translated with a commentary by von E. Baneth et al.\ Leipzig: J.C.B. Mohr, 1927); H. Danby, The Misnah, Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Explanatory Notes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991 [1993]); the Talmudic tractate Masseket Kutim, translated by J. Montgomery from J.W. Nutt, Fragments of a Samaritan Targum, Edited from a Bodleian Ms., with an Introduction, Containing a Sketch of Samaritan History, Dogma and Literature (London, 1874; repr.; Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1980). 2. Toh. 5.8; Ter. 3.9; Dem. 6.1, 3.4: 'If a man brought his wheat to a miller that was a Samaritan or to a miller that was an Am-haaretz, its condition (after grinding) remains as before in what concerns Tithes and Seventh Year produce; but if he brought it to a miller that was a gentile (after it has been ground) it is accounted demai-produce. If he gave his produce into the keeping of a Samaritan or an Amhaaretz, its condition remains as before in what concerns Tithes and Seventh Year Produce; but if into the keeping of a gentile, it is accounted like to the gentile's own produce (which is not subject to tithes). R. Simeon says: It is accounted demai-produce.' The discussion in fact is about how one can avoid to pay the tithes by grinding or depositing one's wheat by one of the groups mentioned. As it can be seen the Gentiles ranked lowest.

4. Samaritans in Jewish, Christian and Hellenistic Literature 105 thens, all of these groups come to be commonly called Cuthaeans in Talmudic literature. Prior to this stage, the Misnah as well as the Talmud bear the characteristics of necessity. Religious as well as social coexistence demanded a clear definition of conditions and a demarcation of Samaritans from heathens, who generally had been understood to be different from Samaritans. The literature, without doubt, has clearly defined opinions of the basic distinctions between rabbinical Judaism and Samaritanism. The debatable questions do not deal with identity or theology as such, but concentrate on how these groups, with their different opinions, relate to each other in a practical way on an everyday basis according to food,3 marriage,4 cult practice, religious feasts, trade, circumcision, collection of tithes, and so on. These are the questions that were of greater importance before the fourth century, when Samaritans were still considered to belong to 'the children of Israel'. They are comparable in many instances to those regarding Sadducees and eagerly discussed by the rabbis Akiba, Meir, Simon ben Gamaliel and Eliezer. After a final exclusion of the Samaritans by the rabbis Ame and Assis5 in the beginning of the fourth century such concerns held less importance, and the Samaritan question became related to those regarding Jewish relations with heathens.6 In no period, however, does the discussion reach a consistent agreement concerning the Samaritans. While Rabbi Akiba (second century CE) expressed a liberal attitude in his consideration of the Samaritans as 'genuine converts', whose priests are understood to be as legitimate as the Jewish priests, his contemporary Rabbi Ismael considered the Samaritans to be 'lionconverts', designating that they only adhered to Judaism by necessity, and therefore were considered to rank lower than the Jews.7 The
3. Ber. 7.1, which permits a Samaritan to participate in a Jewish cultic meal and Ber. 8.7, which permits a Samaritan participant in a cultic meal to recite the blessing when it is said in toto. 4. b. Qid. 75a, b; m. Nid. 4.1, 2, 7.4; Mass. Kut. 6, 27. 5. m. Hul. 6.a. 6. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 167. 7. b. Qid. 75a-76a; b. Kam. 38b; b. Sank. 85b; b. Hul. 3b; b. Nid. 56b. Mass. Kut. 27. m. Seb. 8.10, which refers to R. Akiba what R. Eliezer has said: 'Moreover they declared before him that R. Eliezer used to say: He that eats the bread of the Samaritans is like one that eats the flesh of swine. He replied: Hold your peace; I will not say to you what R. Eliezer has taught concerning this.' R. Akiba was a former pupil of R. Eliezer (first-second century CE) and he did not want to speak with disrespect about his teacher, as the continuation in m. Seb. 8.11 clearly shows.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

accusation of having been forced to convert is in itself ambiguous, since, during the Hasmonaean period, conquered people had been circumcised by force and forced to 'live by Jewish customs' (cf. Ant. 13.257-58; 13.318-19). The problems of acceptance created by this is given expression in the various parallels to Genesis 34 (see below), as well as in Josephus's calling Herod the Great a half- Jew because of his Edomite origins (Ant. 14.403). The rabbinic accusation against the Samaritans for being 'lion-converts' takes its point of departure from 2 Kings 17, which, similar to later rabbinic literature in its search for aetiologies, considers Samaritans to be schismatics from Judaism. Since no legitimite accusation for heretical behaviour as such was formulated, the explicit judgment based itself on questions of loyalty rather than theology, as can be seen from rabbinic, Christian, Jewish (esp. Josephus) and Samaritan sources. It is interesting to notice that rabbinic literature, no less than Josephus, has its main interest in clarifying the principles for rabbinic Judaism, using the various comparable groups as counterparts in the discussion. It must therefore be kept in mind that specific discussions might not have any reality behind them, but rather belong to interpretative activities of the rabbis, which include the intention of making rules for every imaginable situation. This makes it highly debatable whether questions of heresy and loyalty can be separated or whether 'to confess Jerusalem' implies more than a move of cult place and relationship. The rabbinical tractate Masseket Kutim (About the Samaritans), which is a tosefta to the Babylonian Talmud, illuminates these problems of ambiguity.8 The tractate contains independent material mixed with Talmudic material and baraita of which some were originally applied on heathens, but have here likely become addressed to Samaritans. Masseket Kutim Issues related to disagreements over Gerizim, cult and calendar form the backbone of the tractate. In this respect the question of whether a Samaritan may or may not circumcise a Jew is not explicitly related to questions of clean/unclean, legitimate/non-legitimate, but to confession as the formulation 'in... the name of Mount Gerizim' expresses more than a relationship:

8. Montgomery, Samaritans, pp. 196-203, presents the full translated text with an indication of its Mishnaic and Talmudic parallels in italics.

4. Samaritans in Jewish, Christian and Hellenistic Literature 107

Mass. Kut. 12: An Israelite may circumcise a Samaritan, and a Samaritan an Israelite. R. Juda says: A Samaritan is not to circumcise an Israelite because he circumcises him in nothing else than the name of Mount Gerizim (also in b. 'Abod. Zar. 26b-27a).

The parallel Mishnaic discussion on this theme is not quite as distinctive as this of the tractate. The discussion about 'genuine converts', maintained by R. Meir against R. Juda's opinion that 'they are lion converts' leads R. Juda to prefer a heathen to a Samaritan, since the former would not cryptically include the Jew in his own congregation, as could be a risk if a Samaritan performed the circumcision. The underlying theological implications might not be so simplistically rejected as Montgomery has done in his treatment of the material: 'It was not therefore as heretics, or false Israelites, except in minor points that the Samaritans were condemned, but rather as schismatics, who held themselves aloof from the Institute of God's Kingdom.'9 As said before, the rabbinic discussion did not restrict itself to a discussion with those who became understood as schismatics. It in fact included a rejection of all Jewish, Christian and heathen groups that did not submit themselves to the theology put forward in 'pre-canonical' Scriptures outside of the Pentateuch. With an interpretation of the 'old lost Israel', it created a future for the new Israel governed, at least from the second century BCE onwards, by the Pharisees and later by their heirs the rabbis. Thus Judaism's self-assertion of being the 'righteous Judaism', implicitly provided with the authority of control, expresses itself clearly when it is stated:
Mass. Kut. 28: When shall we take them back? When they renounce Mount Gerizim, and confess Jerusalem and the resurrection of the dead. From this time forth he that robs a Samaritan shall be as he who robs an Israelite.10

With a reversal of the biblical narrative's chronology, the latter branch of biblical theology, as expressed by David's move of the ark to Jerusalem, has taken on the position of being those who are left by those they left or have excluded. This biblically paradigmatic theme of

9. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 177. 10. It must be noted that Mishnah mentions Gerizim only once (ra. Sot. 7.5), mentioning the blessing and the curse on Gerizim and Ebal, referring to Josh. 8.33 and correcting MT Deut. 11.30, which is brought into accord with the SP (see above Chapter 3).


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

the success of the youngest is given further reference in b. Sank. 21b's statement that 'the Samaritans/'am ha'ares kept the old law written in Hebrew character, while the true Israel with Ezra got the new Law written in "Assyrian" characters'. A mediaeval reference to Ezra's participation in the exclusion of the Samaritans falls within the line of this same theme, which with the killing or 'offering of the firstborn' leaves room for the second or younger in line to take the leading role. The mediaeval text, however, does not leave room for a Samaritan return to Jewish beliefs or resurrection, and Judaism's self-assertive role of being the final judge reached its highest level. We shall come back to this discussion in the concluding remarks of Chapter 7. Now we will discuss the tractate keeping the theological implications of the above-mentioned paragraphs 12 and 28 in mind. Calendar issues as such are especially related to the celebration of the pesach as the following passage shows:
Mass. Kut. 24: 'We do not buy "bread" from a Samaritan baker at the end of the passover until after three bakings, nor from householders until after three sabbaths, nor from villagers until after three makings. When does this apply? When they have not celebrated the Feast of Unleaven at the same time with Israel, or have anticipated it by a day: but if they celebrate the Feast with Israel, or are a day later, their leaven is permitted. R. Simon forbids it (in general), because they do not know how to observe the feast like Israel' (the text in italic is found also in t. Pes. 2; y. Or. sub. ii, 6).

This calendar disagreement might have an indirect reference in Hezekiah's double celebration of the pesach (2 Chron. 30.18-23). With the invitation of 'a multitude of people from Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar and Zebulon...who had not cleansed themselves and did not know the sanctuary's rules of cleanness' both special permission and a doubling of the feast were required for this symbolic ritual of reconciliation. The disagreement over the calendar as such is neither in 2 Chronicles, nor is it given special interest in Masseket Kutim, but seems to be an accepted fact. The use of the lunar calender by both Jews and Samaritans seems to be of high antiquity, and it is only the calculation of days that brings up problems. The counting of the omer is not related to this, but is a matter of interpretation of the underlying text of Lev. 23.15 that 'you shall count from the morrow after the sabbath', which is understood by Samaritans and Sadducees to be from the Sunday after the sabbath during the week of Unleavened Bread, but which the Jews understand

4. Samaritans in Jewish, Christian and Hellenistic Literature 109 to be the first day of Passover, interpreting 'sabbath' as 'feast day'. The main concern in the text of the tractate is therefore, as in 2 Chronicles, a matter of purity. Indirectly, it is said here as in other paragraphs of Masseket Kutim that Jews and Samaritans can share food and meals if Samaritans show no laxity in observing common purity laws:
Mass. Kut. 15: 'These are the things we may not sell them: carcasses not ritually slaughtered, or animals with organic disease; unclean animals and reptiles; the abortion of an animal; oil into which a mouse has fallen; an animal that is mortally ill, "or a fetus" although Israelites eat them both, lest the sale lead them into error. And as we do not sell these things to them, so we do not buy from them, as it is written (Deut. 14.21): For thou shalt be a holy people to the Lord thy God. As thou art holy, thou shalt not make another people holier than thyself.' J '

and if food is not prepared in vessels normally used for wine and vinegar.12 The rabbinic point that the Israelites eat what is forbidden for the Samaritans to eat, according to Lev. 7.24, has, along with the added concern about holiness, revealed itself to be a concern of rightousness. If the Samaritans keep their law strictly, the Jews must surpass the Samaritan lawkeeping by not transgressing the Samaritan law in regard to the Samaritans, who, with reference to Deut. 14.21, must be understood to have observed the law against the eating of 'anything that dies of itself. The rabbinic commentary on the metaphorical expression 'You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk' illustrates this implicit self-understanding: that Samaria is Judaea's mother.13 If we are to take these discussions seriously we must conclude that rabbinical literature's dealing with these matters of food, meal, trade
11. The parallels in b. Qid. 76a; b. Ber. 47b; b. Git. lOa all refer to R. Simon ben Gamaliel, 'Every command the Samaritans keep, they are more scrupulous in observing than Israel'. See further y. Ket. 21 a; y. Dem. 9, 'a Samaritan is like a full Jew'. Against this, however, we observe m. Nid. 7.4; Mass. Kut. 16: 'This is the principle: they are not to be believed in any matter in which they are open to suspicion'. 12. This law was originally applied to Gentiles (cf. Mass. Kut. 20, 21, 25). 13. This interpretation in fact is in line with Maimonides' interpretation that 'the command is levelled against idolatry and superstition'. See J.H. Hertz (ed.), The Pentateuch and Haftorahs: Hebrew Text, English Translation with Commentary, II (5 vols.; London: Humphrey Milford; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1931), ad loc. which also presents some of the more traditional views that the prohibition concerns dietary matters as such.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

and work14 points to a widespread coexistence, and we must be careful about considering all Jews and rabbis to be 'Nehemiah-Jews', who lived in ghettos to avoid any contamination. The judgment regarding the Samaritans ranged from their being heathens to being like Israel as illustrated in Mass. Kut. 1: 'The usage of the Samaritans are in part like those of the Gentiles, in part like those of Israel, but mostly like Israel.' However the sole exception from the sharing of meals given in Mass. Kut. 23, 'If a Samaritan priest, when he is unclean, eats and gives of his food to an Israelite, it is permitted; if he is clean, the Israelite is forbidden to eat of his food', is set in the context of a cultic meal, and with Mass. Kut. 22 it forms a severe criticism of the legacy of the Samaritan priesthood:
The priests of Israel may share the priestly dues with the Samaritan priests in the territory of the latter, because they are thus, as it were, rescuing the Samaritans from their priests; but not on Israelite territory, lest they should have a presumption on our priesthood.

What is meant is that an Israelite/Judaean priest can collect tithes in both territories, and that Samaritan residents probably are to pay the Judaean priest if they live 'on Israelite territory'. If, however, the Samaritan priest were allowed to do the same this would give him a recognition that would in fact put him on the same footing as the Israelite priest. Again, the laws here are dealing with questions of religion, and any possible problem of staying or travelling in Samaritan areas, is not within the focus of the text. In fact this seemed not to have been a problem at all. Several rabbinic stories related to discussions between Jews and Samaritans 'while the Jew was on his way and had just passed Shechem' deny that any such problem ever arose. The obvious metaphorical use of the expression holds implicit that 'passed Shechem' is a passing of the Shechem tradition and thus undermines any geographical interest, similar to Mt. 10.5-6's prohibition against going to Samaria (see the following paragraph). Explicit criticism of confession, as in the Mishnaic prohibition of

14. Mass. Kut. 13: 'We may lodge a beast in a Samaritan inn, or hire a Samaritan to go behind our cattle, or hand over our cattle to a Samaritan herdsman. We commit a boy to a Samaritan to teach him a trade. We associate and converse with them anywhere, which is not the case with the Gentiles' (cf. b. 'Abod. Zar. 15b).

4. Samaritans in Jewish, Christian and Hellenistic Literature 111 Samaritan and heathen participation in the New Year Offering, by not accepting the payment for it (m, Seq. 1.5), is not mentioned in Masseket Kutim 2, which only indirectly brings this prohibition:
We do not accept from them the bird-offerings of men or women having issues, nor the bird-offerings of women after child-birth, nor sin-offerings or guilt-offerings. But we accept from them 'vows and freewill offerings'.

The vows and free will offerings could be given by everyone; they were not part of the prescribed offering rules. As in Mass. Kut. 22 and 23, an acceptance of any of the prescribed offerings would have implied a recognition and an acceptance, which, as is clearly expressed in m. Seq. 1.5, was out of the question:
This is the general rule: All that is vowed and freely offered is to be accepted from the givers; all that does not come through vow or freewill offering is not to be accepted from them. And so it is laid down according to Ezra, as it is said (Ezra 4.3): There is nothing in common between you and us in building of a house to our God [ITS nl]^!1? ^} U^7 $b

This authoritative voice given to Ezra is given full expression in Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, c.38:15
Ezra, Zerubbabel and Joshua gathered together the whole congregation into the temple of the Lord, with 300 priests, 300 trumpets, 300 scrolls of the Law, and 300 children, and they blew the trumpets and the Levites were singing. And they anathematized, outlawed and excommunicated the Samaritans in the name of the Lord, by a writing upon tablets, and with an anathema of the Upper and Lower Court (i.e. of heaven and earth) as follows: Let no Israelite eat of one morsel of anything that is a Samaritan's; let no Samaritan become a proselyte, and allow them not to have part in the resurrection of the dead. And they sent this curse to all Israel that were in Babylon, who also themselves added their anathema.

Although this anathema is late, it well illustrates that, also for rabbinical literature, well-known techniques of interpretation that antedate an actual problem and authorize the earlier literature for a specific purpose. While most of the paragraphs in Masseket Kutim do not include any such situation of animosity, a few statements deal with question of reliability, as in 17 and 16:
15. A haggadic work from the eigth century CE, also called Baraita de-Rabbi Eliezer or Haggadah de-Rabbi Eliezer. Translation from Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 194.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

A Samaritan may be relied upon to say whether or not there is a tomb (in afield), or whether an animal has had its firstborn or not. The Samaritan is to be relied upon concerning a tree whether it is four years old or is still unclean, and concerning gravestones, but not with the cleanliness of overhanging boughs or protruding boughs; nor concerning the land of Gentiles, nor concerning the bet-peras, because, they are open to suspicion in all these things. This is the principle: they are not to be believed in any matter in which they are open to suspicion. (For the uncircumcised tree, cf. Lev. 19.23; 'overhanging boughs' etc., make precincts that can harbor uncleanliness. Bet-peras is an area of land rendered unclean by the presence of bones.) (The text in italics is found also in m. Nid. 7.4 and Gem. b. Nid. 57a.)

Gemara considers this principle to apply to rules of sabbath and offering of wine. b. RoS. Has. 2.2 relates that it is no longer possible to use chains of torches to signal the appearance of the new moon, but that the messengers 'after the wicked deeds of the Samaritans [DTllDil l^p^p&Q], have to go all the way up to bring the message'. Some Samaritans probably had given wrong messages and the feast began at a wrong time. The purpose of the chain was to signal from Jerusalem via the mountain hills to Babylonia, so that the feast could be inaugurated at the same time. This accusation in fact was not only related to Kutim. In the same text, b. RoS. HaS. 2.1, the same accusation is directed against the Minim QTQn) and Boethusians (D^OirT'O). Any mistrust concerning weapons, which in m. 'Abod. Zar. 1.5 is applied to Gentiles only, in b. Gem. 15b comes to include Samaritans: 'lest they may sell them to the gentiles'. In Mass. Kut. 5 the statement that 'we do not sell them weapons, nor anything that can do damage to the people' is seen in contrast to Mass. Kut. II, 1 6 'which allows a Samaritaness to deliver a Jewess and suckle her son in her quarters'. The prohibition of the Jewess for delivering and nursing a Samaritan son clearly takes this question in a different direction, and is much better seen as a dealing with problems of support and recognition than with questions of trust. Montgomery's wonder that 'it is strange that with all the hostility between the two sects, the Samaritans were not reckoned as enemies of Israel by formal legislation, this passage (b. Gem. 15b) showing that they came to be legally included among the classes hostile to society only by a process of indirection' 17 needs a remark. Such a formal legis-

16. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 174. 17. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 174.

4. Samaritans in Jewish, Christian and Hellenistic Literature 113 lation would have demanded the existence of a state, but that was never a reality during the development of rabbinic thought. Furthermore, it seems improbable that any part of this literature could obtain legality beyond the acceptance of its recipients in Jewish societies. We therefore still have to ask questions about this literature's function as 'worldcreating literature',18 which does imply that the inherent ideas and statements might never have been actually carried out. E.P. Sanders's very useful study on the pharisaic laws' impact on societal life and the authority of the rabbis severely challenges a literal and restricted reading of rabbinic literature presented in studies by scholars like E. Schiirer and J. Jeremias. With their great influence, they have given us a far too narrow understanding of life and customs in Jewish societies.19 Finally the statement about intermarriage shall be dealt with:
Mass. Kut. 6: We do not give them wives, nor do we take wives from them (b. Qid. 75a). 27: Why are the Samaritans forbidden to marry into Israel? Because they are mingled with the priests of the high places. R. Ismael said: They were genuine converts at first. Wherefore were they forbidden? Because of their bastards, and because they do not marry the brother's widow. (The text in italic is found also in b. Qid. 75b.)

The prohibition in Masseket Kutim 6 does not contain any accusation of impurity as does m. Nid. 4.1, which states, 'The Samaritan women are menstruous from the cradle. And the Samaritans defile a bed both below and above, because they have connection with menstruous women, and the latter sit upon every kind of blood', and m. Nid. 7.4: 'The dwelling of the unclean women of the Samaritans defile after the manner of an Ohel, because they bury there their abortions' (Ohel is an unclean place that makes everyone staying there unclean). R. Juda, however, in the same Mishnah article states 'they do not bury'. These statements are in contrast to what we otherwise know about Samaritans' observance of purity laws. It thus seems reasonable to consider the
18. The expression brought by R. Goldenberg, Jewish-Gentile Relations in Antiquity: The Rabbinic Evidence, SBL Annual Meeting, New Orleans, 1996, 'the texts cannot lead to sociological conclusions' and the judgment of the material must seek a distinction between the world of the rabbis and the real world. 19. E.P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief: 63 BCE-66 CE (London: SCM Press; Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1992), p. 471: '...the genre of early rabbinical legal material becomes clear. It does not consist of set rules that governed societies. It consists of debates.'


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

metaphorical character of the language and the implication that the rules about purity/impurity applied on Jewish women are not to be taken into consideration here. Samaritan women are impure par excellence and sexual intercourse with any man would render him unclean anytime. The argument in the Mishnaic discussion in fact falls within the lines of Masseket Kutim, which the conclusion of m. Nid. 7.4 clearly shows, when it reckons Samaritans together with Moabites, Egyptians, Edomites and Nethinim, all of whom are peoples a Jew can not marry. Even more clearly is the expression given in m. Qid. 4.3's placement of Samaritans in a highly improbable context: These are of doubtful stock (i.e. with whom one may not marry): those of unknown parentage (shetuki), foundlings (asufi), and Samaritans (kuti).' The Mishnaic reference to the daughters of the Sadducees as being
like the Samaritans when they undertake to walk in the ways of their fathers; if they separate themselves to walk in the way of Israel, then they are like the Israelites. R. Jose said: They are always like women of Israel, until they separate themselves to walk in the way of their fathers' (m. Nid. 4.2)

is expressive of the whole discussion and argumentation against nonpharisaic groups. Montgomery, in his treatment of the question, argued that marriages between various Jewish 'castes'20 would break down the barriers set between them. In fact it would be easier for a Jew to accept a marriage with a proselyte than with a Samaritan, since 'he would become wholly a Jew, whereas the Samaritan in his pride would feel he had no spiritual benefit to receive from the alliance'. Further, as a 'sinful schismatic' he could infect the 'Jewish church' with his sin.21 These conditions become explicit in Mass. Kut. 27, with its reference to cult syncretism, which is denied, so as to allow an accusation of the children being bastards (mamzer). The addition 'that they do not marry the brother's widow' must have been added to save the whole argument, since the law of Levirate marriage of Deut. 25.5-10 is one of the few instances where Samaritans maintain an opinion that deviates from the literal reading of the biblical text. The importance of this 'saving' argument is noted in b. Qid. 75a's excommunication of the Samaritans:
20. Hor. 3.7: The priest is before the Levite, the Levite before the layman, the layman before the Mamzer (i.e. a bastard, or one of uncertain parentage), the Mamzer before the Nethin (The descendant of the ancient temple-slaves or hierodules), the Nethin before the proselyte, the proselyte before the freedman.' 21. Montgomery, Samaritans, pp. 180-81.

4. Samaritans in Jewish, Christian and Hellenistic Literature 115 'If the Samaritans be genuine converts, nevertheless they have been excluded because they practice Yibbam only with the betrothed.' The final question in Mass. Kut. 28, 'When shall we take them back?' has showed itself to be a much more complicated matter than the given answer gives reason to believe. The implied disagreements concerning cult place, confession, calendar and genealogy show that 'confess Jerusalem' implies more than a geographical movement. Similarly the rejection of Jerusalem is a rejection of rabbinic Judaism and for Sadducees and Samaritans implicitly an adherence to the 'ways of the fathers'. This is not so much a Kulturkampf between Israel and the nations. This is a Kulturkampf between the 'written' and the 'oral' Torah. The lack of explicit cult criticism in rabbinic, Jewish and New Testament literature reveals the embarrassment of the discussion: that the Samaritans are not accepted because they do not accept rabbinic Judaism, which they have accused of having moved the cult, changed the Pentateuch (by its biblical and non-biblical additions) and instituted the oral Torah. Rabbinic literature's attempts to avoid this discussion creates a problem that needs explanation. A concession to the actuality of this discussion, bringing up the disagreements of the authority of the Pentateuch, would have turned rabbinic Judaism's weapons against itself. We do not know whether Samaritans and Sadducees in fact agreed at some early time to Pharisaic interpretations, but that a calf is younger than its mother we do know. Christianity in the Light of the Jewish-Samaritan Question This concentrates on the New Testament sources for two reasons. First, because the early Church Fathers of the first to second centuries do not add much to the discussion. Their concentration on clarifying principles for Christianity does not include any participation in Jewish controversies over cult and scripture as such. Jesus' conversation with the Samaritan woman in John 4 seems to be reflective of a theology that replaces both Judaism and Samaritanism with Christianity. Christianity's use of the LXX as its foundational source for theological reflection suggests that Christianity forms a variation on the rabbinic disputes over the proper interpretation of biblical Judaism. It is a dispute that takes place within the context of rabbinic-Christian disagreements presupposing a common literary heritage, including the Scriptures that later became canonized by both these groups. Only when gnosticism


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

began to influence Christian communities did the Church Fathers make an effort to identify the various Jewish and Samaritan sects. This, however, was often done in so confusing a way that we gain nothing but implicit information of the difficulties of separating religious groups, when theyfrom an audience's viewpointseem fundamentally to belong to the same religious sphere.22 Justin Martyr (from Neapolis, second century CE) illustrates this well when he stated:
All the other human races are called Gentiles by the spirit of prophecy; but the Jewish and Samaritan races are called the tribe of Israel and the House of Jacob. And the prophecy in which it was predicted that there should be more believers, from the Gentiles than from the Jews and the Samaritans, we will produce.

In the following I give a brief comment on some of the New Testament texts that relate explicitly to Samaria and Samaritans and partake in the discussions of 'Christian' relationship to Jews and heathens. The New Testament's only reference to Ephraim, Jn 11.54, seems unimportant for this study. No reference is made to Gerizim; Sychar is mentioned in Jn 4.5; and Shechem in Acts 7.16. Matthew 10.5-6
These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, 'Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.'

The interpretation of this charge usually states that Jesus accedes to a well-known Jewish anti-Samaritanism.23 The Gospel of Matthew, however, has no allusion to such an animosity, and the only statement that can be made on the basis of the text is that it separates various groups and that the 'lost sheep of the house of Israel' are opposed to both heathens and Samaritans. The neutrality of the text does not give reason to believe that the disciples should avoid going to the Gentiles or the Samaritans because they were considered to be enemies or schismatics.
22. Since this discussion falls outside of the chronological frame of this study I shall restrict myself to refer to J. Possum's quite extensive article 'Sects and Movements', in A.D. Crown (ed.) The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 293-389. 23. So also Montgomery, who thought that Jesus here expresses his devotion 'to the community which he regarded as the one true church' (Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 162).

4. Samaritans in Jewish, Christian and Hellenistic Literature 117 The focus of the text lies within the expression 'the lost sheep of the house of Israel', and here Samaritans belonged no more than the Canaanite woman in Mt. 15.22-28.24 Literarily we are dealing with the same groups we found in rabbinic literature, and theologically Matthew's argumentation is addressed to those who, standing within the same tradition, rejected Jesus' message and ended up killing him. They are the 'lost sheep', who need education. Only after the final rejection not in crucifixion, but in lying about the resurrection (Mt. 28.11-15) does the gospel bring out the commandment of going to the Gentiles (Mt. 28.16-20). The parallel accounts in Mark and Luke do not give the prohibition of Mt. 10.5-6. Luke's possible pro-Samaritan perspective has given reason to discuss whether the gospel has a Samaritan provenance or whether it addressed itself to Samaritan communities. Such a provenance would be at variance with Samaritan theology, which does not accept any other prophet than Moses, and we are probably far better off when we understand that Matthew and Luke are engaged in a dialogue about the Samaritan question, and that Lk. 10.30-37 (the parable of the Good Samaritan) and Lk. 17.11-19 (the cleansing of the ten lepers), together with Lk. 9.51-56, show that the hostile Samaritans form part of this dialogue (belonging to Luke's material). Luke's portrait of the Samaritans is not of those rejecting Jesus because he brings the gospel, but because he is on his way to Jerusalem:
When, the days drew near for him to be received up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem. And he sent messengers ahead of him, who went and entered a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him; but the people would not receive him, because his face was set toward Jerusalem (Lk. 9.51-53).

Jesus' rebuke of the disciples, when they want to destroy the village, must be seen in contrast to his curse of those cities that did not receive the disciples when they brought the kingdom of God (Lk. 10.13-15). The good Samaritan's act, set in contrast to the priest and the Levite, who might have loved God but had forgotten to be a neighbour, is no more reflective of pro-Samaritanism than the Samaritan leper's return 'to praise God' (Lk.17.15-16). The primary function of these stories is to illustrate the stubbornness of the Jews, and, using the most fitting
24. eiq id npoftam id dKoXco^oia oi%oi) 'Iopar|X is found only in these two New Testament texts.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

comparable group, they form the strongest accusation. Calling to mind the story about the Jewish captives whom the Samaritans released because they were 'brothers' (DTIN) from 2 Chron. 28.11-15, Jesus' parable about the 'good Samaritan' gives a radical answer to the lawyer's question, 'Who is my neighbour?' He is the one who did good to you; the one who 'clothed the naked, gave them sandals, provided them with food and drink, anointed them and carried all the feeble on asses' to bring them to their brothers at Jericho (2 Chron. 28.15). What Jesus is asking for is recognition and reconciliation and an ending of the hatred, which, according to Old Testament Scripture, seems to have arisen from the Syro-Ephraimite war. It is not the place here to deal with the literary and/or historical settings for this episode, but we will return to it in several instances throughout the study. Luke's aim, however, is not to return to any past Judaism as such, but a replacement, which in a 'Christian Judaism' disestablishes the borders between 'the way of the Gentiles', 'the town of the Samaritans' and 'the lost sheep of the house of Israel' as we see it illustrated in the dispersion of Christianity in Acts 1.8; 8.1; 8.5-29; 9.31; 15.3. Acts 7.2-53 Also Stephen's speech in Acts 7.2-53, based primarily on the Pentateuch, led to scholarly discussions about a possible Samaritan provenance25 furthered by the assertion that the quotations reflected a Samaritan text tradition.26 Luke's interest in contrasting the old and the new Israel, symbolized by the father's 'tent of witness' and Solomon's 'house of God', can be seen as a contrast of Jerusalem and Gerizim, although neither of them is mentioned. The Samaritan claim for Gerizim as the true place of worship, however, seems not to fit the perspective of Stephen's speech, which, taking up the problem from 2 Samuel 7 and 1 Kings 8 that man cannot build a house for God, forms a harsh accusation not only against the temple but also against the binding of the Holy Spirit, and here implicitly against any self-established cult.
25. M. Simon, St. Stephen and the Hellenists in the Primitive Church (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1958). 26. W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann, 'Stephen's Samaritan Background', in J. Munck, The Acts of the Apostles (AB, 31; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1958), pp. 18-32. In Chapter 3 of this study it is demonstrated that the distinction between SP and proto-MT cannot be upheld because of the existence of text variants that are not unequivocally Samaritan or Masoretic.

4. Samaritans in Jewish, Christian and Hellenistic Literature 119 Long before the establishment of David's cult in Jerusalem, the fathers offered sacrifice to the idols and 'rejoice in the works of their hands'. Stephen, however, does not speak with any other voice than the voice of the Old Testament prophets, Amos, Isaiah and Jeremiah. Replacing Damascus in Amos 5.27 with Babylon in Acts 7.43, Stephen addressed his accusation against Jerusalem's priesthood, not for having built a temple as such, but for not having kept the Law 'delivered by angels' (v. 53). If this looks Samaritan to us, it is because Samaritans formed the same accusations, so did writers of Dead Sea Scrolls, and we must now state that Christianity used the same languagea language inherent in the tradition itself.27 It would be hard to argue for a Samaritan context in the use of Old Testament prophets or the defence of those prophets who had 'announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous one'. The quotations from Amos and Isaiah, the most hated prophets in Samaritan tradition, seems unthinkable in this context.28 The character of the speech as a literary discourse based on wellknown texts, which are composed in a way as to present the correct chronology and context, reveals the hand of the author as the creative source of the speech. Any argumentation for a Samaritan provenance must take into consideration the perspective of the whole material and include an examination also of the Gospel of Luke's use of Old Testament material and its relation to the LXX. It is noteworthy that the theological discussions in Kitab al-Tarikh (AF) and Memar Marqah (MM) are based entirely on the Pentateuch. Although these works are later, they might give some information about the context of Samaritan discussions in Luke's days. Acts 8.1-25 The consequence of Stephen's speech is a dispersion of 'the church' from Jerusalem to the villages of all Judaea and Samaria. Acts 8's story about the acts of Simon and Philip in 'a city of Samaria'29 is partly a
27. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, pp. 141-42; R.J. Coggins, 'The Samaritans and Acts', NTS 28 (1982), pp. 423-33, where Coggins rejects Albright's premises of composition, language and content for assuming a Samaritan origin. The article brings a good oversight of the scholarly positions. 28. See Chapter 6 below. 29. The definite article is missing in some manuscripts, for example, C.D.E. Ypsilon and Mehrheitstext, but is found in: Sin. A B, pap. 74. Some scholars believe that 'the city' is Shechem and not Samaria/Sebaste.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

confirmation of authority and partly a correction of where, from and to whom salvation is directed. Here we have another story that contradicts Mt. 10.5-6. In a recognition of the differences between Jews, Samaritans and heathens it invalidates those in the new context. The salvation comes not from Samaritans nor from heathens; not even when it seems that the power of God can be given to a magician from the city (his relationship is not mentioned, cf. 8.9-11), or that Philip is given great power to preach, baptize and perform miracles (8.5, 12-13). Only with the arrival of the apostles from Jerusalem do people receive the Holy Spirit (8.15-18), and after the preaching in many Samaritan villages, a further dispersion both leads to a rejection of the commandment of going 'to the lost sheep of the house of Israel' and to a realization of the commandment of going 'to the nations'. The text's geographical connection with the emerging Christianity, and its rejection of Simon, the false teacher, later called Simon the Magician, early in patristic literature led to the assumption that he was the eponym of gnosticism, belonging to the Samaritan sect, the Dosithaeans. So Justin, Apol. i 25; 56; ii 15, and C. Tryph. 120, which tells us that almost all the Samaritans believed in him. Justin's treatise on Simony (second century CE) probably forms the backbone of Irenasus's treatment of the sect in Haeresis i, 23 and of Hippolyt's Refutatio omnium haeresium (second-third century CE).30 The Samaritan chronicle AF pp. 170-71, does not combine Simon with the Dositheans. This text relates that he fought the Christians with magi, and furthermore sought help from a Jewish philosopher named Philo in Alexandria. He, however, refused to help with the words, otherwise known from Acts 5.39: 'Be at peace. For if this thing comes from God, then no one will be able to wipe it out.' John 4.1-42 John 4.1-42's participation in the dialogue about Judaean-Samaritan relationship restores the Old Testament prophecy that 'there shall be one flock and one shepherd' (Jn 10.16; Ezek. 34.17-31; 37.16-28). John's prophecy, however, must not be confused with Ezekiel's and Jeremiah's national ideology whose aim it is to unify the two kingdoms,31 since the gospel's prophecy is a much more universal messianic expansion of Yahweh's deeds, which will also include both Samaritans
30. Montgomery, Samaritans, pp. 265-69. 31. See Chapter 7.

4. Samaritans in Jewish, Christian and Hellenistic Literature 121 and Jews. The placement of the Samaritans between Judaea, which Jesus leaves to return to Galilee by passing 'through Samaria', certainly is not merely geographical information, but a signification of the differences between Jerusalem as the heir of the Davidic traditions, Samaria as the heir of the Mosaic traditions and finally Galilee, from where these traditions are given a new orientation. After Jesus' arrival to 'a city of Samaria' (missing in some text variants) called Sychar32 'near the field that Jacob gave to his son Joseph', a Samaritan woman comes to the well to draw water. When Jesus asks her to give him something to drink, her answer reflects her understanding of Jewish-Samaritan relationship: 'How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?' (v. 9). The text here gives the somewhat arbitrary rationalistic information that 'Jews have no dealings with Samaritans'.33 Without any earlier text witnesses, we wouldgiven Jesus' theological answer-still be able to conclude that this is a late interpolation, and that the Samaritan woman's question is set in the context of 'who has something to give to whom?' After a longer dispute between the woman and Jesus about the character of the water and a reference to the heir from Jacob, Jesus asks her to bring out her husband. Here the woman is in trouble, because she has no husband. Jesus agrees to that and tells her that 'you have had five husbands, and he whom you now have is not your husband; this you said truly'. Convinced that Jesus is a prophet the woman now asks him about the right place to worship: 'on this mountain' or 'in Jerusalem'? 'Our fathers worshiped on this mountain; and you say that in Jerusalem is the

32. Shikar or Shukem in some manuscripts. Situated at the foot of Mt Ebal in the Shechem valley. It probably became the new centre of the Samaritans after Shechem's destruction in the second century BCE (cf. H.M. Schencke, 'Jacobsbrunnen-Josephsusgrab-Sychar', ZDPV84 [1968], pp. 159-84 [159]). 33. Interesting because rabbinic sources seek to advise how the relationship should be dealt with. A possible late redaction is supported by the missing of the sentence in Sin* D abej, but is contradicted by the presence of it in pap. 63, 66, 75, 76 rell (second-fifth century CE), cf. Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Grecae, 26th edn. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 159 n. 14, refers to the work of J. Lightfoots from 1684: 'the verb sunxrasthai (Joh. 4.9) corresponds to the Talmudiq histappeq, which is used by Rabbi Abbahu in the 4th century in admitting that in earlier days the Jews had dealings with the Samaritans.' Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, p. 139, prefers the translation 'use together with' which would designate that Jews and Samaritans do not use vessels in common.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

place where men ought to worship' (v. 20).34 Jesus' answer is reflective of both Judaism and Christianity, because the place where to 'worship the Father' in the future, expressed by 'the hour is coming',35 is 'neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem' (v. 21). By this a future equivalence is expressed that does not include the past, since the continuation bears the characteristics of well-known Jewish accusations: 'You worship what you do not know, we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews' (v. 22). The continuation points to Christanity's abolition of past disagreements, which has the ability to include Samaritans in this prophetic claim for true worship: 'But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth. For such the Father seeks to worship him' (v. 23).36 The fulfilment we find in v. 39 that 'many Samaritans believed in him because of the woman's testimony, "He told me all that I ever did'". It is important to recognize this composition to understand that the story's primary goal is not to judge between the theology of Samaritans and Jews. This discussion is like an Hegelian thesis/antithesis that allows a new synthesis to sprout from the encounter. The setting of the encounter at Jacob's well as symbolic for the tradition of the fathers is given expression in v. 12's question, 'Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank from it himself, and his sons, and his cattle?' When Jesus tells the woman that the water he has to give her for ever will bring her thirst to an end (v. 14), and she therefore asks for some of it, Jesus' answer is not given straightforwardly, but refers to another inequity: her relation to the Law, symbolized by her five husbands and a rejection of her sixth 'husband' (read: law) as not being legal. Thus deprived of both tradition and law, the woman finally sought to attain some clarity about the place of worship. Jesus' answer leads the woman beyond the question and the disagreement, which in a reconciliative context have lost their importance. The same view has been brought forward by E.D. Freed in two arti-

34. oi jccrcepet; fiudov ev TOO opei -coma) TipoaeKiJveaav KOI \)u.ei<; ^eyete on ev 'lepoaoMuoic; ecmv 6 TOTICK; onov TipoaKvveiv 5ei. Note the missing object in both sentences. 35. epxeiai (bpa. 36. Although this sounds like an Old Testament prophetic saying it is not. Nowhere does this expression occur in the Old Testament. Truth, TON, appears several times together with ion, esp. in Psalms and Proverbs, but never with m~l.

4. Samaritans in Jewish, Christian and Hellenistic Literature 123 cles37 based on J. Bowman,38' A. Spiro,39 and W.A. Meeks.40 The existence of Samaritan place names in the Johannine Gospel, for example, Aenon (Jn. 3.23); Salim (3.23); Sychar (4.5); Ephraim (11.54); 11 references to the Mosaic tradition; a possible appointment of Jesus as the successor of Moses (Jn 6.30-51) where Moses' bread is set as a contrast to Jesus' bread; Jesus' cancellation of the Mosaic law against adultery (Jn 8.5-11); Moses' testimony about Jesus (Jn 5.46); the healed blind man's discussion with the disciples of Moses (Jn 9.24-34); and finally the comparison of 'the son of man' with the healing 'serpent in the wilderness' (Jn 3.14-15) becomes an exaltation by the hands of Moses:
Hence the passage compares an action which takes place through Moses with an action associated with Jesus... Again the main thrust of the passage is that what takes place through Jesus is parallel to, but far superior to what was enacted by Moses.41

Such a theology would appeal to Jews and Samaritans who both expected their messiah, but certainly did not share opinions of the characteristics of that messiah. A messiah like Elijah would never have been accepted by the Samaritans. It is noteworthy that this question is settled right at the opening of John's gospel by the Baptist's testimony that he is neither Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet (1.19-28). Also noteworthy is John's silence about John the Baptist's connection with Elijah raised in Mt. 11.13-14, which makes the prophets and the Law42 prophecy that 'he is Elijah who is to come', thus forming a contrast also to Lk. 7.2930's avoidance of this question. Jesus' incorporation of Moses and Elijah in the theophany scene is shared by the synoptic gospels (Mt. 17.3-13; Mk 9.2-13; Lk. 9.28-36), but only Matthew and Mark bring
37. E.D. Freed, 'Samaritan Influence in the Gospel of John', CBQ 30 (1968), pp. 580-87; idem, 'Did John Write his Gospel Partly to Win Samaritan Converts', NT 12 (1970), pp. 241-56, the last-mentioned work is based on Macdonald, Theology, and Gaster, Samaritans. 38. J. Bowman, 'The Fourth Gospel and the Samaritans', BJRL 40 (1958), pp. 298-308. 39. A. Spiro, 'Stephen's Samaritan Background', in J. Munck, The Acts of the Apostles (revised by W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann; AB, 31; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1967), pp. 285-300. 40. W.A. Meeks, The Prophet-King Moses Traditions and the Johanine Christology (NovTSup, 14; Leiden, EJ. Brill, 1967). 41. Cf. Meeks, Prophet-King Moses, cit. in Freed, 'Samaritan Influence', p. 584. 42. A few manuscripts do not have KOI 6 vouoq.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

the discussion about Elijah's precursor role in the form of John the Baptist. The close connection of this discussion to Jesus' misunderstood shout as a cry echoing (Ps. 22.2-3) for Elijah in the crucifixion scene (Mt. 27.47; Mk 15.34-35) is made clear by the fact that Elijah does not appear, thus signifying that 'his time is over'. Conclusion It has now become clear that the Samaritan question is not an independent issue for the single evangelist. It partakes in their internal dialogue about the Christian movement's involvement with both Judaism and Samaritanism. In this dialogue, Matthew represent the severest criticism of Judaism as those 'who are the lost sheep of the House of Israel'. From those and to those, salvation is determined. It is not until the very rejection of the resurrection that salvation is determined for the nations. The 'anti-Samaritanism' inherent in this criticism is the neglected state of the Samaritans: they are not the 'chosen people'. Mark does not actively engage himself in this discussion, of which he might not have had any knowledge. The absence of geographical or ethnic terms related to the issue could point in that direction.43 Luke both knows and engages himself in the question. He does not share Matthew's 'antiSamaritan' attitude,44 which to some extent he abolishes, while still arguing critically against the rabbis. He does not go as far as John does in his direct criticism of Jewish anti-Samaritanism, explicated in the question of whether Jesus is obsessed by a demon (Jn 8.48-59): 'The Jews answered him, "Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?" ' 45 Jesus' answer gives the Jews reason to
43. If the gospel is written about 70 CE, the question might not have had any special importance. The testimony of the question's greater importance in Josephus's writings of the nineties CE, rather than of the seventies CE, should be kept in mind here (Chapter 5). 44. This does not necessarily involve a dependency on the Gospel of Matthew, but on its views. The conclusion does not imply a statement about the question of dating, although much can be said in favor of Luke's dependence on Matthew. 45. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 155, makes connection between Sir. 50.25's 'foolish people in Shechem', T. Levi 1: 'From this day will Shechem be called the city of fools' (TCO/VK; dcruveTCOv) and Jn 8.48: 'Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?' all playing with the term 'fool'. That the Jews consciously played with this mockery Montgomery found attested in Mt. 5.22's use of (icope ('fool') as a pun on the place name Moreh in the neighbourhood of Shechem paralleling shikkore ('drunkard'; exact Greek uncertain) as a pun on the

4. Samaritans in Jewish, Christian and Hellenistic Literature 125 decide that he has a demon, but not that he is a Samaritan (v. 52). The following question about authority, "Are you greater than our father Abraham?" 46 (v. 53) echoing Jn 4.12, "Are you greater than our father Jacob?" expresses that in the Gospel of John Jesus does not only supersede Moses but also the ancestors of both Samaritans and Jews. These two stories' equation of Jews and Samaritans not only brings the Samaritan woman to exclaim, 'Sir I perceive that you are a prophet' (Jn. 4.19), which implies that he is a prophet like Moses,47 but it also brings the Jew born blind (immediately after the discussion in Jn 8) to claim, 'He is a prophet' (Jn 9.17). Compositionally, the feeding of the crowd with five loaves and two fishes (Jn 6.1-15) is placed between these stories. Only the Gospel of John ends this story with the testimony that he 'is indeed the prophet' (6.14). The story is hereby given a typological function that differs from the synoptic gospels' use of it. The five loaves must be understood as representative of the Law of Moses and the two fishes are the two forms of Judaism, which as interpreted by the true prophet are enough to fill the 12 tribes of Israel (and the nations with the leftovers). As the water in Jacob's well could not stop the thirst, so the bread from heaven could not hinder that the fathers who ate died (Jn 6.58). Only in Christ could these necessities become transformed to living water and living bread. The Request for an Identification of Simon the Just and Ben Sira 50.25-26
With two nations my soul is vexed, and the third is no nation: those who live in Seir48 and Philistea, and the foolish people49 that live in Shechem.

place name Sychar. The weakness in Montgomery's argumentation lies in the interpretative insecurity, since the Gospel gives no literary evidence for Montgomery's claim. 46. lot) naipoq fiuxov is missing in some manuscripts. Could that reflect a wish to avoid a Samaritan terminology? See Freed, 'John's Gospel and Samaritan Converts', pp. 247, 242, who, however, is not aware of the apparatus. 47. AF p. 108: Deut. 34.10. 48. So the Hebrew text according to H.L. Strack, Spriiche Jesus, des Sohnes Sirachs (Leipzig: Georg Bohme, 1903); LXX reads ev opei Za|iapeiac;. 49. Hebrew ^ ^a, cf. also Deut. 32.2land Deut. 32.6 ^33 DJJ; in both instances the allusion is that of a godless people; Sir. 49.5 renders the same wording in the Hebrew text, but is usually translated 'foreign people' because of LXX's eGvei


1 26

The Samaritans and Early Judaism

This utterance following the praise of the high priest Simeon ben Yochanan in Sir. 50.1-24 has given scholarship difficulties in identifying both the people mentioned and especially the circumstances that could have brought forward such a statement of hatred. Could it be possible that we here have the first genuine testimony of the hatred between Jews and Samaritans that Josephus so often refers to? Are these Samaritans the same Samaritans as in Josephus' s writings? The placement of the verses between the doxology and the author's epilogue has given reason to doubt its genuineness.50 However, since no texts, neither Greek nor Hebrew, witness any variant readings of the composition as such, its genuineness cannot be seriously challenged. Coggins's suggestion that the placement fulfils the need of drawing a contrast between the glories of Simeon and the wickedness of those here condemned51 can be given further weight if we accept the Hebrew reading of v. 24: 'May his love abide upon Simon, and may he keep in him the covenant of Phinehas; may one never be cut off from him; and as for his offspring, (may it be) as the days of heaven.' Although almost all translators here follow the Greek variant52 they agree with the exegetes in accepting the Hebrew reading of v. 25 's VIHD for LXX's Eauxxpeiac;, since this is believed to give historical meaning and can also be argued on the basis of the Vulgate.53 According to this exegesis, vv. 25-26 bring a condemnation of the main enemies of Israel: 1. The people of Seir, usually understood to be the Edomites, are condemned for being enemies since the return from exile. This assertion is based on such texts as Obadiah 11-14; Ps. 137.7; Lam. 4.21; Ezek. 25.12-14; 25.3; Mai. 1.2-5; Jdt. 7.8, 18. According to 1 Mace. 5.65-68 and Josephus, Ant. 12.353, Hebron and nearby villages were ruled by the Idumaeans in the time of Judas Maccabaeus. They probably had conquered this fertile area during the Jewish exile. We probably also
Hebrew: DDBD (verb: 111) TIHB nr DP IDrK 'B^SOm 't0EH H^p D^a ^BD ~nn ^33 '131 nefrsi; cf. Strack, Spruche Jesus. LXX: 'Ev Svoiv eGveoiv rcpoocoxSiaev f] \)/vxri iioi), Kai TO TpiTOv DDK eoiiv e9voq- oi KCtGfpevoi ev opei Eafiapeiat; Kai O\)A.ioTii(i Kai 6 Xaoq 6 (j-copoq 6 KaioiKrov ev ZIKI|J,OI<;. 50. G.H. Box and W.O.E. Oesterley in Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, p. 511, who consider it to be a late addition inserted at the final redaction of the book. 51. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, p. 83. 52. 'May he entrust to us his mercy, and may he deliver us in our days.' 53. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, p. 86.

4. Samaritans in Jewish, Christian and Hellenistic Literature 127 should add the accusation of 1 Esd. 4.45 that it was the Edomites who burned the temple 'when Judaea was laid waste by the Chaldeans' and that they held illegally 'the villages of the Jews' (1 Esd. 4.50). To the complexity of the picture, however, belongs the fact that in Ezekiel's oracles against the nations (chs. 25-37), only Edom and Philistea are mentioned together with Ammon, Moab, Tyre, Sidon and Egypt. Samaria, on the contrary, both shares a fate with Judaea and takes part in a restoration and re-unification under Davidic rule (cf. Ezek. 37.15-28). Neither does 1 Maccabees nor Josephus speak of any Judaean conquests of Samaria in the time of Judas Maccabaeus. This conquest, according to Josephus, takes place in the time of John Hyrcanus and his sons some decades later. 2. The Philistines are considered enemies because of their increasing Hellenization since the Macedonian takeover. 3. 'But the most hated of all were the people of Shechem, i.e. Samaritans, as is well known; they were as Smend54 points out, especially dangerous to their neighbours at this time, because the Seleucidae had made common cause with them against the Jews.'55 These views were also put forward by Di Leila,56 who, paraphrazing Ezra 4.1-24, claimed the Samaritans to be even more hated than the heathens because of their opposition to the temple-building activities and their relationship to the Seleucids. Di Leila based himself on Purvis,57 who dated the original edition of Ben Sira to 180 BCE and the translation to 132 BCE. Purvis, however, did not agree on the Seleucid relationship as a reason for Ben Sira's remark about 'the foolish people', since neither Samaritan nor Jewish policy at that time (before the Maccabaean uprising) proved to be particularly consistent, but rather shifted according to circumstances and benefits.58 Maintaining the early chronology for Ben Sira, Purvis
54. Smend, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, p. 491. 55. Thus the opinion maintained by G.H. Box and W.O.E. Oesterley in Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, based on a reading of 1 Mace. 3.10 and Josephus, Ant. 12.257-64. 56. Skehan and Di Leila, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, p. 558. 57. J.D. Purvis, 'Ben Sira and the Foolish People of Shechem', JNES 24 (1965), pp. 88-94; repr. in idem, The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin of the Samaritan Sect (HSM, 2; Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1968), pp. 119-29. 58. Purvis, Samaritan Pentateuch, p. 123: 'Just as Jerusalem experienced a number of policy shifts, in pro-Ptolemaic/pro-Syrian policy, so too would Shechem have undergone a comparable experience with the changing political climate of Palestine.'


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

rather stressed the importance of the utterance's relation with the praise of the high priest Simeon, son of Onias. This Simeon has, since Zeitlin and Moore,59 been considered to be the famous Simon II whom rabbinic tradition names Simon the Just and whom Josephus erroneously calls Simon I.60 The rabbinic tractate Megillat Ta'anit, called the Fast scroll,61 accounts that at the time of this Simon some Samaritans asked permission from Alexander the Great to build a temple at Mount Moriah. The real purpose, however, was to destroy Jerusalem's temple. With the interference of Simon the Just, these plans were thwarted. The Samaritan attempt turned into its opposite, and, as a punishment, Gerizim was ploughed and sown with 'an undesirable plant'. Since then the 21st of Kislev was celebrated as 'the day of Gerizim', a day on which fasting and mourning is prohibited. The story builds on the wellknown motif 'he was hoist with his own petard'. It has close parallels to Josephus's story about Alexander the Great's meeting with the Jewish high priest Jaddua (Ant. 11.297-347) and to the Samaritan chronicles Abu'1-Fath and Adler, which mention that Jerusalem was attacked at
59. Purvis, Samaritan Pentateuch, p. 123 n. 13: G.F. Moore, 'Simeon, the Righteous', in G.A. Kohut (ed.), Jewish Studies in Memory of Israel Abrahams (New York: Jewish Institute of Religion, 1927), pp. 348-64; Moore, Judaism, I, pp. 3436; R. Marcus, The Date of the High Priest Simon the Just (the Righteous)', LCL 365, Appendix B, pp. 732-36. 60. That Josephus is mistaken here is argued on the background of the 'testimony' given in Ben Sira together with references to Onias, the builder of the Egyptian temple, son of Simeon the Just in various rabbinic passages (t. Sot. 8.6-8; y. Yom. 43c; b. Yom. 39a, b; b. Men. 109b). The list of high priests in the Hellenistic period given in m. Ab. makes Simeon the Just the first high priest in a series of seven generations of teachers of whom Jose ben Joezer, third in line, is datable as a contemporary of Alcimus (161 BCE), Simeon ben Shetah, the fifth in line, is datable as a contemporary of Alexander Jannaeus and Alexandra, and Hillel and Shammai, seventh in line, is datable to the time of Herod the Great. This should statistically place Simeon the Just around 200 BCE (see LCL 365, Appendix B). 61. H. Lichtenstein, 'Die Fastenrolle, eine Untersuchung zur jiidisch-Hellenistischen Geschichte', HUCA 8-9 (1931-32), pp. 257-352 (288, 339-40); b. Yom. 69a. Lichtenstein places the episode in the time of John Hyrcanus because of the destruction of the temple at Gerizim. Schiirer, History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (trans, and ed. G. Vermes et al.\ 3 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973-87), I, pp. 114-15, dates the text to early second century CE. It is written in Aramaic (b. ab. 13b) and relates that the author was Hananiah ben Hezekiah ben Garon. The scroll contains a list of the days on which it was forbidden to fast. Cf. also Jdt. 8.6; m. Ta'an. 2.8; y. Ta'an. 66a; b. RoS. Has. 18b.

4. Samaritans in Jewish, Christian and Hellenistic Literature 129 the time of King Simon. The story is usually considered to be legendary and worthless since the chronology is confused. Zeitlin suggested that the historical nucleous was about Antiochus III, whom he considered to be contemporary with Simon the Just. Josephus's remark that the Samaritan 'flourishing' led them to suppress the Jews at the time of Onias II, son of Simon I the Just, could have given reason for the anti-Samaritan remark in Sir. 50.25-26. Purvis62 followed Tcherikover's63 claim that the ruling priestly class of Jerusalem, together with Simon the Just and the wealthy Tobiads, were pro-Seleucid and, in contrast to the Samaritans' pro-Ptolemaic opinions, supported by the Transjordanian Tobiads. The Samaritans accordingly prospered during the Ptolemaic rule established through Antiochus Ill's league with Ptolemy, whom he had assigned Coelesyria, Samaria, Judaea and Phoenicia as a dowry to his daughter Cleopatra (Ant. 12.154-56). Purvis's argumentation for the influence of the Tobiads is based on Nehemiah 13 and on Josephus's account about the success of the tax collector Joseph, son of Tobiah and his relations to 'friends in Samaria' (Ant. 12.160-227, esp. 168). Further testimony is given in Josephus's account about controversies among the priests of Jeru-salem's temple, fostered by the high priest Simon's support for Joseph's sons, who had been treated unfairly when the licence of taxation was given to the youngest son Hyrcanus. Living near Heshbon in Transjordan and protected by Ptolemy Epiphanes, Hyrcanus maintained his father's pro-Ptolemaic relations (Ant. 12.228ff.).64 On principle, Coggins agreed with Purvis on the possibility of this scenario. The weakness of the argument, however, related to inconsistences of the Megillat Ta 'anit traditions and the chronological problems, together with Josephus's use of Samareis, which could indicate that the population of Samaria was intended. Finally, Ben Sira's character as wisdom literature made Coggins more cautious in seeking any historizisation and harmonization of the various sources.65 To this we could add also the uncertainity about the dating of Ecclesiasticus. The assumed inherent date of 180 BCE can easily be dismissed since the foreword of the text maintains that the translated
62. 63. neum, 64. 65. Purvis, Samaritan Pentateuch, pp. 127-28. V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (New York: Athe1975), pp. 81-89. Purvis, Samaritan Pentateuch, pp. 127-28. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, p. 85.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Greek version might differ from the underlying text, as it in fact does in many instances, according to the old Hebrew fragments found in 1896 and among DSS in the 1950s, not to speak of the Syriac and Latin fragments. The using of the grandfather as authority for a manuscript is a well-known pseudonymous device and should not be given too much credit as an indication of authorial identity. Assuming that the grandfather wrote the book when he was young is another fallacy that cannot be given any serious support and in fact is implicitly contradicted in the foreword, when it relates that the grandfather acquired considerable proficiency in the reading of the Law, the Prophets and the other books. The stock motif of the teaching of the elders found in such various texts as Egyptian wisdom literature, Greek philosophy and Old Testament psalms and sermons (Pss. 44.2; 48.9, 14; Deut. 6.20-25, Qohelet) should be taken into consideration here. The time span between manuscripts is only one of guessing and projecting, and the only 'certain' date is the dating in the foreword (post 132 BCE). The Megillat Ta'anit reference raises similar chronological problems. Without any evidence for a dating of this passage, we are left to project that the celebration of the 21st Kislev either occurs rather late or had gone out of use in Josephus's time, since neither 1 Maccabees nor Philo and especially Josephus bring any evidence of knowledge of this celebration. This is the more striking since other festival days mentioned in the scroll are attested in this literature.66 Ben Sira's character as wisdom literature and the difficulties of addressing it to any specific form of Judaism led Nodet67 to connect it to the rabbinic mention of Simon the Just in m. Ab. 1.2. Nodet considered this Simon to have functioned as a mediator for the various forms of Judaism that developed in the postexilic period:
Pirke Abot 1.1: 'Moses received the Law from Sinai and committed it to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets committed it to the men of the Great Synagogue. They said three things: Be deliberate in judgement, raise up many disciples, and make a fence around the Law.

66. 1 Maccabees: the 23rd of lyyar, the 23rd of Marcheschwan, the 25th of Kislev, the 13th of Adar; Philo: the 22nd Schebat; Josephus: the 15th and 16th of Siwan, the 2nd and 22nd of Schebat, the 17th and 20th of Adar (source: Lichtenstein, 'Die Fastenrolle' passim). 67. Nodet, Origins of Judaism.

4. Samaritans in Jewish, Christian and Hellenistic Literature 131

1.2: Simeon the Just was one of the remnants of the Great Synagogue. He used to say: By three things is the world sustained: by the Law, by the (Temple-)service,68 and by the deeds of loving kindness.69

The idea of the Great Synagogue as being a single generation prior to Simon the Just formed the backbone of Nodet's interpretation. This generation that had just returned from exile revised the 'Bible' and instituted the weekly sabbath, which previously had been connected with the phases of the New Moon. They were Hasidic Jews who were clearly separated from the Judaean Jews and their temple, and who, because of political circumstances, raised new discussions with other Jewish groups, among them also Samaritans. As a result of these discussions, the Pentateuch underwent certain revisions and Deuteronomy was added to it. Simon seemed to be the only person who succeeded in combining this Babylonian oral Torah with the functions of the high priesthood and thus made real the decrees of Antioch III.70 As an expression of a temple function that does not stand in the tradition of the fathers and does not make connections with the founders of the temple: David, Solomon, Zerubbabel and Jeshua, Simon the Just becomes a bridge builder to the rabbinic tradition of the Law as the real temple. Placed in the Moses-Ezra tradition, not mentioned in Pirke
68. Text: iTTQDn; an explanatory note gives that this should be understood:

enpon rrn rrms.

69. The discussions about the great synagogue are concerned about whether it was (1) a synodic institution, as the commentary to m. Ab. 1.1 (Tif. Yis.): 'A body of 120 elders, including many prophets, who came up from the exile with Ezra; they saw that prophecy had come to an end and that restraint was lacking; therefore they made many new rules and restrictions for the better observance of the law', and b. Meg. 17b; m. Meg. 1.6. y. Meg. 1.5 counts 85 elders (the same as the numbers signing the declaration in Neh. 10.1-28) and more than 30 prophets); (2) a popular assembly whose authority is similar to that of the Greek polis system; (3) a single generation that has become significant in tradition. Tradition has ascribed increasing activities to this generation in the writing of the Law. From being only heirs of the Law they have become responsible for its formation (cf. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, pp. 277-86). Schiirer, History of the Jewish People, II, pp. 358-59, gives a detailed description of the history of scholarship on this subject. Taking up the work of A. Kuenen, 'Over de mannen der groote Synagoge' (1876; reprint 1894: 'Uber die Manner der grossen Synagoge') which rejected the idea of a synodic institution or any authoritative institution at all, the hypothesis about Simon the Just as one of its remnants fell apart and Schiirer's conclusion could not admit Simon (II probably) as more than a high priest praised for his piety. 70. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, pp. 271-77, 335, 381-84.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Abot, but in m. Par. 3.5 (the preparation of the red heifer, cf. Num. 19.1-11), he is instituted in a high priestly function that is given only to the select few. Thus Simeon the Just, third in line, becomes the direct heir of the Mosaic tradition and the first in line of the rabbis. Similarly the third reference to Simon the Just in m. Sot. 13.5-6 when on the day of atonement he goes into the holiest of holies, is a reference to a high priestly function which combines law, purification and atonement. Nodet's assumption of a connection between Ben Sira 50's Simon son of Onias and rabbinic literature's Simon the Just, who should be placed in the time of Antiochus III, is the well-established assumption put forward by, for example, G.F. Moore:
The public work for which Simon is here lauded, the repairs on the Temple and the strengthening of its fortifications and those of the city, would fit very well with this date when Jerusalem had recently been taken and retaken in the struggle between Syria and Egypt.71

It becomes clear, however, that Moore's assumption is not one of evidence, but one of hypothesis. The acceptance of this hypothesis is based on tradition rather than on proof, and we must admit that the foundation for bringing these various traditions together is indeed very weak. The problem of identifying Simon I or II the Just still remains unresolved, and for unknown reasons he seems to disappear as soon as he is mentioned. Thus Josephus's various references in, for example, Ant. 12.43-44 and 12.157-58 refer to his death as a way of giving room for the next high priest to take over and become the main character in the story. Similarly, the mention of Simeon II son of Onias, who is followed by Onias III in Ant. 12.224-25. It is remarkable that in Josephus's tradition, it is a Jaddua, who meets Alexander (Ant. 11.317, 326-39), Eleazar who corresponds with Ptolemy II Philadelphus about Jewish Scriptures (Ant. 12.45ff.),72 Onias (III) who brings danger over the
71. Moore, Judaism I, pp. 34-35: 'It is a tempting conjecture that in the story from which Yoma 69 was derived, the king whom Simeon went out to make his peace with was not originally Alexander, but one of these contending monarchs, most likely Antiochus III.' 72. In 3 Mace. 2.1-24 the Jewish high priest Simeon's prayer for divine intervention when Ptolemy IV Philometer (221-205 BCE) plans to enter the sanctuary leads to Ptolemy's cruel treatment of the Jews, cessation of civil rights and forced worship of Dionysius. The denial of this leads to an order of deportation of all Jews to Alexandria. It is only at the prayer by a 'certain Eleazar, famous among the priests of the country' that Ptolemy regrets his decision, delivers and defends the

4. Samaritans in Jewish, Christian and Hellenistic Literature 133 people by refusing to pay the taxes to Ptolemy Euergertes (Ant. 12.15859) and who is the receiver of the letter from Areios, king of the Lacedaemonians (Ant. 12.225-26). It thus becomes more than conspicuous that Josephus does not mention any high priest in the story about Antiochus Ill's war with Ptolemy Philopator and the decrees given to the Jews (Ant. 12.129-53). This of course makes it possible to place Simeon II in this period, if one accept Josephus's rather confusing chronology. Placing Simeon I, son of Onias I (successor of Jaddua) in the time of Ptolemy I Soter (367-283 BCE) followed by his brother Eleazar, who becomes high priest in the time of Ptolemy II (282-246 BCE) because of Simeon's son Onias's young age. Eleazar is followed by his uncle Manasses. Finally, after his death, Onias II obtains the priesthood in the time of Ptolemy III Euergertes (246-221 BCE) or perhaps more probably in the time of Ptolemy IV Philopator (221-205) and V Epiphanes (205-180), an office he held as long as the Tobiad Joseph, the tax collector, was in service (22 years). Only hereafter do we meet Simeon II, son of Onias II, and, in the time of Ptolemy V and Antiochus Ill's son Seleucus IV Philopator (187-175) (cf. Ant. 12.224) (sic) after the time of Antiochus III (223-187). Onias III, whose death caused the many controversies we meet in the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 BCE). This scheme's long time span of nearly 50 years between the death of Onias II, who is said to have been in office for 22 years, and Onias III makes it chronologically possible to place Simeon II the Just in the time of Antiochus III. We simply have to ask why Josephus does not do this and why none of Antiochus's decrees refers to any high priest or high priestly office? If Ben Sira's praise of Simeon ben Yochanan is a praise of a high priest at that time, it is a wonder why it never found its way into Josephus's writings, or is in any way reflected in his list of high priests in Ant. 20.234. Rabbinic literature's re-use of the Jaddua (Simeon)-Alexander story does not make this story more plausible. Quite the contrary! The confusion of names here should warn us about how legends can be used to make up for the lack of historical facts. Should there, however, be any historical nucleus in the Simeon the Just traditions, these might perhaps more convincingly become applied to the Hasmonaean Simeon (high priest from 142-135 BCE), son of Mattathias 'son of John, son of Simeon, a priest of the sons of Joarib
Jews and attain to them certain privileges. This story certainly disfavours Simeon and honours Eleazar.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

from Jerusalem' (1 Mace. 2.1). He is the one also praised for his high priestly duties in 1 Maccabees 13-14. That rabbinic literature does not make this connection might be seen in the light of this literature's generally anti-Hasmonaean attitude. This Simeon is surnamed jPDH "plTT p in the Hebrew manuscript of Ben Sira. In its Greek form in the LXX, his name is written EIJICOV Ovioi) mot; and here called iepeix; 6 iieyaq. It is said about him that he 'hastened to complete the walls of Jerusalem, and he fortified it on every side' (1 Mace. 13.10) and that he 'built up the strongholds of Judaea and walled them all around, with high towers and great walls and gates and bolts, and he stored food in the strongholds' (13.33). 'He strengthened the fortifications of the temple hill and alongside the citadel and he and his men lived there' (13.52b); 'he fortified it for the safety of the country and of the city, and built the walls of Jerusalem higher' (14.37); 'he made the sanctuary glorious and added to the vessels of the sanctuary' (14.15). Against this Sir. 50.1b-2 sounds almost an echo: 'who in his life repaired the house, and in his time fortified the temple. He laid the foundations for the high double walls, the high retaining walls for the temple enclosure.' And Josephus in Ant. 13.202 states, '[H]e made haste to rebuild the city; and when he had made it secure with very high and strong towers.'
In the praise of Simeon in 1 Mace. 14.4-14, it is related how
the land had rest all the days of Simeon. He sought the good of his nation... They tilled their land in peace; the ground gave its increase, and the trees of the plains their fruit. Old men sat in the streets; they talked together of good things... He established peace in the land and Israel rejoiced with great joy.

And in 14.16-24 it is said that the renown of this great high priest and ethnarch of the Jews had reached as far as Rome and Sparta and that they were pleased to renew their former leagues of friendship. When the great assembly (1 Mace. 14.28) decides to honour Simeon by making records on bronze tablets and put them upon pillars on Mount Zion, they refer to his and his brothers' fight; to the offerings he has brought; how he withdrew the heathens/foreign people (id e9vr|) (14.36), not only from the country but also from the city of David in Jerusalem,73 and fortified the city; and to the renown he had acquired. The declaration is closed by a repetition of the appointment as high

73. Contrary to Judg. 1.21.

4. Samaritans in Jewish, Christian and Hellenistic Literature 135 priest and ethnarch, supplied with royal privileges and given the charge of the sanctuary. Thus in 14.35,
The people [6 Xaoq] saw Simeon's faithfulness [TTIV rcicmv] and the glory which he had resolved to win for his nation [TOO e9vei OUTOU], and they made him their leader [fryoiju.evov] and high priest [dp%iepea], because he had done all these things and because of the justice [8iKcaocruvriv] and loyalty [ir|v TUOTIV] which he had maintained toward his nation. He sought in every way to exalt his people [TOV Xaov]... And therefore the Jews and their priests have decided that Simeon should be their leader and high priest for ever, until a trustworthy prophet should arise [eox; TO\> dvaoTfjvai npO(|>fiTr|V KIOTOv].74

That he is not one among several is clearly marked out when in v. 43 it is stated 'that he should be obeyed by all, and that all the contracts in the country should be written in his name'. This decree must be read on the basis of 1 Mace. 13.41-42:
In the one hundred and seventieth year the yoke of the Gentiles was removed from Israel, and the people began to write in their documents and contracts, 'In the first year of Simeon the great high priest and commander and leader of the Jews'.

This is no less than being master in one's own house; no longer is it necessary to legalize documents by writing under Seleucid or Ptolemaic seal. That is the reason for the uniqueness for which he is praised by Ben Sira.75 He is not appointed high priest but elected by the people and legitimated by the people. This might have caused some disagreements and certainly we know that Simeon's peaceful reign soon became threatened by the surrounding enemies, especially the newly conquered areas, Lydda, Ephraim, Ramathaim, Gazara, Bet Sur, and so on, which Antiochus VII Sidetes fought hard to reconquer. Geographically and

74. In 4QTest. and in T. Levi 5.2 it is Levi who is appointed. Christianity's historisizing use of the Deuteronomic expression, 'until there arise a prophet like Moses', should not in all instances lead us to the conclusion that Judaism or Samaritanism expected such a prophet to arise soon. In 1 Maccabees the titular use of the expression seems to designate scribal piety rather than eschatology. 75. For the first time in 'postexilic' history it is not a king or a governor who orders and brings out the rebuilding of the sanctuary. In contrast, the placement of Simeon in the time of Antiochus III becomes problematic, since the high priest would not have been given the honour for the rebuilding if this was done in accordance with Antiochus's decree.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

politically the Seleucid dominion included those living in Shechem also. The mention of the great synagogue (cruvaycoyri uydA,ri) makes the literary connection to the rabbinic reference to Simeon the Just and n^tn nO]DH (m. Ab. 1.1). The term's usage outside of rabbinic literature is insignificant. In fact, it occurs only in the text mentioned in 1 Mace. 14.28, and in two instances in DSS.76 One in 4Q252 (4QpGena) which in messianic language speaks about the righteous messiah (1.3) and the assembly of men (1.6): There shall not] cease a ruler from the tribe of Judah (rniiT); when there shall be dominion for Israel 2. there will not] be cut off a king in it belonging to (the line of) David (Til1? NOD DtZJV). For the ruler's staff is the royal mandate; 3. the families of Israel are the feet. Until the Messiah of Righteousness shall come, the shoot of 4. David (TH HQ^ pf^n ITOD KB Itf) for to him and to his seed has been given the royal mandate (mn^Q rr"Q) over his people for everlasting generations; which 5. has awaited ("IQCZ?) [...the interpreter of?] the Law (mm), with the men of the Community (Tim "GK) for 6. ...] it is the Assembly of the men of CCHK HODD)77 The second reference is found in 4QpNah frag. 3-4, col. Ill 7, which refers to 'the seeker of smooth things', whose community shall die and their assembly become cursed (DDOiD rn")D3). It thus seems reasonble to assume that the references concern a certain constitutive group, which can be dated, and only later was applied to Simeon II in rabbinic literature.81 Rabbinic animosity against the Hasmonaeans might have established a tradition that avoided praising the Hasmonaean Simeon.
76. J.H. Charlesworth, Graphic Concordance to the Dead Sea Scrolls (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1991) refers to this text and to 4QpNah. 3, 7. See, further, J.M. Allegro, 'Further Messianic References in Qumran Literature', JBL 15 (1956), pp. 174-87. The widespread use of ^Hp in biblical literature seems not to be equivalent to rabbinic rh~ttT] DO]D. 77. The translation is from Allegro, 'Messianic References', pp. 171-76. 78. L. Finkelstein, 'The Maxim of the Anshe Keneset Ha-gedolah', JBL 59 (1940), pp. 455-69 (456): 'It was quite natural for the Talmudic Sages who telescoped the whole Persian period into a single generation (thirty-four years), (S. 'Ol. R., c30, ed. Ratner 7 la; b. 'Abod. Zar. 9a) to identify also the first and the second of


4. Samaritans in Jewish, Christian and Hellenistic Literature 137 2 Chronicles 28.1-27 This text offers a third possibility for identification. As the only biblical text, it brings together Shechemites, Edomites and Philistines in a common attack on Judaea. This event's compositional connection with Hezekiah's good leadership and high priestly merits in 2 Chron. 29.132.33 could have functioned as the literary pattern for Ben Sira 50's praise of Simeon and the rebuke of 'the foolish people in Shechem'. In the Samaritan Chronicle 2 (2 Kgs-2 Chron. JD*), they refused the invitation of Hezekiah with the argument that the passover had to be celebrated on Mt Gerizim. The details of the biblical story is somewhat obscure and the information that Zikri (2 Chron. 28.7) from the tribe of Ephraim is a member of the Samaritan Israelites is given only in the Samaritan Chronicle ID*. This version also relates that the leaders of the Samaritan Israelites are those responsible for the return of the captives, in both texts called brethren (DTTN). King Ahaz is attacked not only from the ten tribes of Israel,79 but also from the Edomites (2 Chron. 29.17) and Philistines (v. 18). The description of the temple service in Sir. 50.11-24 has close parallels to 2 Chron. 29.30-36. In both instances, we are dealing with a new situation that needs to be placed in a cultic context. In both instances, the description is inserted in a description of royal duties, such as the repair of the temple (Sir. 50.1-2; 2 Chron. 29.1, 5-19; 31.11) and the making of the conduit and water pool (Sir. 50.3; 2 Chron. 32.3-4, 30). It is significant that Hezekiah's reform of 2 Chronicles is inaugurated by the celebration of the passover. With the participation of some few from Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar and Zebulon, the aim is reconciliation or perhaps more correctly unification, expressed in the words 'that there was a great joy in Jerusalem for since the days of Solomon, the son of David king of Israel, no such thing had happened in Jerusalem' (2 Chron. 30.26). First

these national assemblies. This necessiated placing Simeon the Righteous a century before his time, making him the contemporary of Alexander the Great, and therefore (according to his chronology) a younger contemporary of Ezra. Hence it came about that in the Mishnaic tradition, Simeon the Righteous, whose name was inextricably associated with the second of the Great Assemblies, is described as "one of the survivors of the Great Assembly", meaning the first (and for Talmudic sages, the only) Great Assembly.' 79. Samaritan tradition counts eight northern tribes, independent of the Samaritan Israelites, who are believed to have originated from Joseph's Ephraim and Menasseh branches. See Chapter 6 below.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

thereafter are the cult places torn down throughout all Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim and Manasseh (2 Chron. 31.1). The high priest is remarkably absent in 2 Chronicle 29's description of the temple rededication. The priests maintain the conduct of the offerings and the king's role is (together with the assembly, ^Tfp) to lay his hands on the he-goats (2 Chron. 29.23), a function that is given to Aaron in Lev. 16.21. The sequence of events in the Chronicler's description of Judaean-Samarian hostilities, which with fatal conclusions for both areas brought in the Assyrians, is in a different context similar to events of the GraecoRoman period. Thus it is quite appropriate to ask whether Ben Sira 'made use' of the Chronicler's material or whether these later events in fact gave voice to both versions. The Foolish People in Shechem: Who Are Theyl In Prep. Ev. 9.22, Eusebius 'quotes' Alexander Polyhistor's reference to Theodotius's poem about Levi's and Simeon's attack on Shechem (the Shechem poem). This author who is mentioned also in Josephus's Apion 1.216 is unknown, and it has long been assumed that he was of Samaritan origin.80 This assumption, which based itself on the poem's reference to the town of Shechem as 'holy' and to Shechem as being the son of Hermes,81 has only recently been challenged by J.J. Collins.82 He established definitely that Theodotus was a militant Jew and that the use of 'Hermes' must be ascribed to Alexander Polyhistor's transmission of the text, since Theodotius elsewhere consistently wrote 'Emor' (the same as biblical Hamor). The outline of the poem follows closely the similar story of Genesis 34. Yet it is remarkable that it represents significant differences. The prelude to the events is more or less the same as in the Genesis variant. The poem offers a description of the city, which is declared holy. It is situated between two mountains and it

80. J. Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor und die von ihm erhaltenen Reste juddischer und samaritdnischer Geschichtswerke (2 vols.; Hellenistische Studien, 1 and 2; Breslau: Skutsch, 1875), was the first to bring forward this hypothesis, which remained unquestioned and has even gained widespread support (cf. J.J. Collins, 'The Epic of Theodotus and the Hellenism of the Hasmoneans', HTR 73 [1980], pp. 91-104 [91-92]). Schurer, History of the Jewish People (rev. edn, 1986), III, pp. 561-62. 81. Expressing the 'well-known' Hellenization of the Samaritans. 82. 'Epic of Theodotus', p. 102.

4. Samaritans in Jewish, Christian and Hellenistic Literature 139 is surrounded by a wall.83 Jacob arrives at this city after his travels in Mesopotamia, his two marriages and the birth of his sons and his precious daughter Dinah. The rape of Dinah at a feast, and of Shechem and his father's request to Jacob for marriage, is told briefly. Jacob refuses the request giving the reason that the Shechemites have to be circumcised and convert to Judaism, since it is stated, 'Hebrews are not allowed to marry a foreigner, but only those of their own race, and that the circumcision is commanded by God through Abraham'. Before the event of the circumcision, however, Simeon and Levi are urged by God to annihilate the unjust and evil citizens in Shechem. After their killing of Emmor and Shechem, the remaining brothers participate in the massacre in the city. Thus the poem is presented in Eusebius's Praeparatio with Alexander Polyhistor's commentary, and, in this version, it has been compared with other stories of the same 'event'. Significant differences in the various parallel accounts84 concern: (1) circumcision; (2) God's intervention; (3) the unjust and evil citizens of the city; (4) Jacob's reaction; and (5) Levi's status after the event. Jubilees 30.1-6 is in many ways more in accord with the Shechem poem than with the variant story in Genesis 34. There is no performance of circumcision in Jub. 30.3-4:
then they spoke treacherously with them and defrauded them and seduced them. And Simeon and Levi entered Shechem suddenly. And they executed judgment upon all the men of Shechem and killed every man they found therein and did not leave in it even one. They killed everyone painfully because they had polluted Dinah, their sister.

The discussion about circumcision, which in the Shechem poem is given as a commentary in Jub. 30.7-12, forms a midrash on the defilement inflicted on Israel because of marriage with foreigners/Gentiles. The conclusion of the first part of this midrash in Jub. 30.12 is given with a quotation of Gen. 34.14: 'we will not give our daughter to a man who is uncircumcised because that is a reproach to us'. This quotation is somewhat arbitrary since the question of circumcision is not raised at all in the text or in the midrash, where the prohibition concerns Gentile

83. The dating of this wall, probably built during Alexander the Great's time and destroyed/dilapidated in the mid-second century BCE, have been influential in the dating of the poem. Cf. the discussion in Collins, 'Epic of Theodotus'. 84 Cf. also Gen. 34; Jub. 30; T. Levi 7; Jdt. 9.1-6; Jos. Asen. 2.23; PseudoPhilo 8; Josephus, Ant. 1.337-42.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

origin as such. In Gen. 34.15-16's conclusion, circumcision is set as a solution to the ethnicity problem:
If you will become as we are and every male of you be circumcised, then we will give our daughters to you, and we will take your daughters to ourselves, and we will dwell with you and become one people [DU1?

~WThis solution of the conflict must be seen in connection with Hamor's and Shechem's offer to Jacob and his sons to dwell freely in the country and profit from it (Gen. 34.9-12). Hamor and Shechem bring the same argument to their own countrymen in their persuasion of the act of circumcision, weighing the benefits of being one people (vv. 22-23). Not before the third day after the conduct of the circumcision do Simeon and Levi attack the Shechemites and kill every male citizen, including Hamor and Shechem. Having carried Dinah away from the house, the remaining brothers plundered the city. These acts in Genesis have as their conclusion Jacob's rebuke of Simeon and Levi for having made him 'odious to the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites and the Perizzites' (v. 30). Consequently, they are cursed rather than blessed in 'Jacob's blessing' in Gen. 49.5-7, which does not mention 'the evil people'. In Jub. 14.24-25 we are faced with Jacob's worry, which is superfluous here, since 'the terror of the lord was in all the cities which surrounded Shechem and they did not rise up to pursue the sons of Jacob because a dread had fallen upon them'. This same text we find in Gen. 35.5, but not until after Jacob has commanded the people to purify themselves and change their garments and to give to him all the foreign gods 'that are among you', and the earrings, which he hides under the oak that is at Shechem. After this Jacob goes to Luzah in the land of Canaan, where he raises an altar to 'El Bet'El. In Jubilees, a similar act with foreign gods is supplied with the information that also 'the idols which Rachel stole from Laban' were 'burned and crushed and destroyed' (Jub. 31.2; cf. also Gen. 31.19, 3035). Genesis does not give this information, and the reader is left with the question of whether it was Shechem's gods or whether it was Jacob's own gods that were buried. This doubt could be intentional and might have as its implicit comment Jacob's answer to Laban: 'Anyone with whom you find your gods shall not live' (Gen. 31.32). Much later, this unsolved problem still formed part of the Judaean-Samaritan dispute. Thus the Talmud relates a dispute taking place in the end of the second century CE: On his way to Jerusalem, R. Ismael ben Joseph,

4. Samaritans in Jewish, Christian and Hellenistic Literature 141 falling into a dispute with a Samaritan at Shechem, accused the Samaritans of worshipping the idols hidden under Gerizim by Jacob on his return from Haran. Certainly, the rabbi had to run for his life.85 Josephus might for the same reasons have found it necessary to state explicitly that it was the gods Rachel had secretly stolen that Jacob 'hid in the ground beneath an oak at Shechem' (Ant. 1.342). The question of blessing or cursing is combined with the question of God's intervention and is given a more central role in the stories that seek to justify the act. Thus Thodotius's Shechem poem tells that God inspired Simeon and Levi. The same motif is found in Jub. 30.6. In Jub. 30.17, 18-19 and 23, their act is declared 'a righteousness for them... written down on heavenly a blessing'. Furthermore, because of this act, Levi and his sons are chosen for the priesthood, an election which, in the Pentateuch, is combined with Exodus's 'golden calf story (see further below 'The Levites in Jewish Tradition'). The Testament of Levi brings a reference to the 'event', for the understanding of which one needs knowledge of some of the more elaborated stories. Combining various traditions, the reference mentions the circumcision and Jacob's rebuke of his sons' acts. Jacob's opinion, however, is corrected by the statement that his sons acted in accordance with the will of God. Because of the evil of the Shechemites against the nomads in the time of Abraham, the anger of the lord ultimately came over them. As in the Shechem poem, the sin has become a condition and is not entirely related to a single affective act. To Jacob the promise is given that through him the Canaanites will be exterminated and their land given to him and his seed: 'because from this day forward Shechem shall be called City of the Senseless (7i6A,i<; dcruveicGv), because as one might scoff at a fool,86 so we scoffed at them, because by defiling my sister they committed folly in Israel' (T. Levi 7.2).87 The text stands in the same tradition as Genesis 34-37: 'he had wrought folly in Israel fptnern rta nt2W] by lying with Jacob's daughter, for such a thing ought not to be done'. The use of the term
85. I am indebted to Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 168, for this reference to Gen.R. c.81; Deut. R. c.3. 86. TOV jicopov; cf. also Sir. 51.26: 6 Xaoq 6 uxopoq. 87. Jdt. 5.16 similarly counts the Shechemites among the enemies: 'and they drove out before them the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Jebusites and the Shechemites and all the Gergesites'. The Shechemites here replace Hivvites in other lists, referring to Hamor in Gen. 34.2 called the prince of the Hivvites.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

^33 ('futile/worthless/godless/foolish') has here a clear parallel to Tamar's saying to Amnon when he wants her to lie with him, 'Do not do this wanton folly [HNTn rteirrnK rTOn ^K]. As for me, where could I carry my shame? And as for you, you would be as one of the wanton fools in Israel frioer:! D^run into], 2 Sam. 13.13. This story seems to form a variant of the Shechem story containing the same elements and a similar plot line. Another variant of the theme is given in Judges 19-21 's story about the war between the tribe of Benjamin and the remaining tribes. The rape of an Ephraimite's concubine is the provoking factor. Three times the expression ^NIC^O n^ 7WV is employed (Judg. 19.23; 20.6, 10). These scanty occurrences of ^33 in all instances designate a serious transgression of God's ordinances. It is found mostly in texts dealing with sexuality,88 but its deeper meaning is rooted in the question of sacrilege and disobedience, as the usage in Josh. 7.15, Deut. 32.6 and 1 Samuel 25 clearly shows. Testament of Judah only refers indirectly to the Shechem incident (4.1), and there is no mention of it in Judah's commandment to his children to love Levi and accept that the priesthood is superior to the kingship given to Judah (21.1-2). Judith 9.2-4 is significant for praising Simeon in her address of the prayer to 'O Lord God of my father Simeon'. Simeon is here praised for having taken revenge on the foreigners that had defiled the virgin.89 Neither Levi nor the eternal priesthood are mentioned; nor is circumcision. The shamelessness of the deceit and zealousness in keeping God's commandments ('for thou hast said, "This shall not be done"yet they did it', v. 2) are the central themes in Judith's version. In Josephus, Ant. 1.337-42, the incident, as in Theodotus's Shechem poem, takes place during a festival. Dinah's curiosity brings her into the town where she is raped. In the request for marriage, Jacob becomes uncertain about what to do. Because of the petitioner's rank, he has difficulties in refusing the request although the law against foreign marriage makes it necessary to do so. The decision is left to his sons to make, of whom none but Simeon and Levi take courage to take revenge on and liberate their sister. As in most instances, Josephus here omits the circumcision. Another feast sets the stage for the performance of the
88. A. Philips, 'Nebalaha Term for Serious Disorderly and Unruly Conduct', VT 25 (1975), pp. 237-41. 89. The Shechem poem, in fact, lends the decisive role to Simeon who producing an oracle, persuades Levi to join him in the act.

4. Samaritans in Jewish, Christian and Hellenistic Literature 143 killing, while 'the Shechemites were given up to indulgence and festivity'. Jacob is here not at all pleased with the acts of his sons, which implicitly (although Josephus is careful here) is said to be in accord with the will of God (Ant. 1.341). The rape is not given any special attention in Josephus's story; and there is no mention of the people being evil or having transgressed the law as in Jubilees, Testament of Levi and the book of Judith. The reason for the act is the unlawfulness in committing marriage with a foreigner. Making this the pivotal motif, Josephus demonstrates his principal accusation against the Shechemites, 'that they are foreigners'. Since this accusation forms the leitmotif in all of Josephus's Samaritan/Shechemite stories, and since Josephus's justification of the act is in accord with Jubilees, the Shechem poem, Testament of Levi and Judith (but goes against MT and SP Genesis traditions), we are bound to consider whether these developments of the various traditions are reflective of a historicizing interpretation of Genesis 34. This consideration must take into account the possibility that not only the secondary stories, but also the story as it is presented in MT Genesis 34 and SP Genesis 34, are reflective of the same event; or whether Genesis 34 functioned as a 'carte blanche'90 for the destruction of the Samaritan temple during John Hyrcanus (129-128 BCE) and the later destruction of Shechem in 109 BCE. Accusations of syncretism and Hellenization laid the 'legal' foundation for the destruction. The impact of these accusations has been considerable in ancient as well as modern historiographies of the Samaritans.91 It is noteworthy that neither the SP nor the Samaritan Targum nor Memar Marqah give reason to believe that Genesis 34 in Samaritan tradition is seen as reflective of Jewish-Samaritan hostilities in the second century BCE. If we consider, however, Genesis's conflict resolution, which Simeon and Levi destroyed against Jacob's will, the argumentation for any anti-Samaritan polemic in the story falls apart. There should therefore be no reason for non-acceptance of the story as it stands. The variant stories' omission of the circumcision, which in the Shechem poem has led to the quite ironic composition that Jacob sets the condition for the circumcision, while Simeon (and Levi) prevent it from being conducted, offers a solution to the justification of the act that avoids the embarrassing question held implicit in the Old Testament
90. What seems to be meant by Kippenberg's (Garizim und Synagoge, pp. 90, 93) 'MagnaCharta'. 91. See Chapter 5 below.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

tradition, 'were they brethen'. This, however, is not Genesis's question. Here the story meets the question of syncretism. With the killing of the Shechemites, although they had become circumcised, the story raises a severe critique against Judaism's expansionist policy, which in the time of the Hasmonaeans required all the neighbouring people's submission to circumcision and Jewish customs, while formerly they had not been reckoned as belonging to the Jewish race. A re-reading of the Shechem poem now becomes illustrative. As mentioned in the introduction, the poem has been preserved by Eusebius, who quotes Alexander Polyhistor. He, however, has given his commentary to the poem, which is thus combined with some of the traditions of the Genesis story. The quotations from Theodotius's poem given by Alexander/Eusebius are as follows:92
1. Thus the land was good and grazed upon by goats and well watered. There was neither a long path for those entering the city from the field nor even leafy woods for the weary. Instead, very close by the city appear two steep mountains, filled with grass and woods. Between the two of them a narrow path is cut. On one side the bustling Shechem appears, a sacred town, built under (i.e. the mountain) as a base; there was a smooth wall around the town; and the wall for defense up above ran in under the foot of the mountain. O stranger, Jacob came as a shepherd to the broad city of Shechem; and over their kinsmen Hamor was chief with his son Sychem, a very stubborn pair' Jacob came to well-grazed Syria and left behind the broad stream of the Euphrates, a turbulent river. For he had come there when he left the sharp rebuke of his own brother. Laban, who was his cousin and then alone ruled over Syria since he was of [native] blood, graciously received him into his house. He agreed to and promised the marriage of his youngest daughter to him. However, he did not at all aim that this should be but, rather, contrived some trick. He sent Leah, who was her older sister, to the man for his bed. In any case, it did not remain hidden to him; rather, he understood the mischievousness and received the other maiden. He was mated with both, who were his kinsfolk. To him



92. The French translation in Eusebe de Cesaree, Le preparation evangelique (Sources Chretienne 369 [Paris], 1991) more clearly distinguishes between quotation and paraphrases than does the English version. It furthermore is presented with its Greek Vorlage. Comparing this with the translation given in OTP, it must be noted that the ending, 'When the other brothers learned of his deed, they assisted them and pillaged the city; and after rescuing their sister, they carried her off with the prisoners to their father's quarters', is not in the Greek text of Theodotius.

4. Samaritans in Jewish, Christian and Hellenistic Literature 145

there were born eleven sons who were exceedingly wise in mind and a daughter, Dinah, who had a beautiful form, an admirable frame, and a noble spirit. For this is not allowed to Hebrews to bring sons-in-law or daughters into their house from elsewhere but, rather, whoever boasts that he is of the same race Once (God) himself, when he led the noble Abraham out of his native land from heaven called upon the man all his family to strip off the flesh (i.e. the foreskin), and therefore he accomplished it. The command remains unshaken, since God himself spoke it. For I have indeed learned the word from God, for of old he said that he would give ten peoples to the children of Abraham. God smote the inhabitants of Shechem, for they did not honor whoever came to them, whether evil or noble. Nor did they determine rights or laws throughout the city. Rather, deadly works were their care. Thus then Simeon rushed upon Hamor himself and struck him upon the head; he seized his throat in his left hand and then let it go still gasping its last breath, since there was another task to do. At that time Levi, also irresistible in might seized Sychem by the hair; the latter grasped his knees and raged unspeakably. Levi struck the middle of his collarbone; the sharp sword entered his inward parts through the chest; and his life thereupon left his bodily frame.'



6. 7.


In this text, there is no mention of Shechem's love for Dinah, no rape, no immediate crime, which needs revenge, no mention of Jacob's considerations and no explicit demand for circumcision. Simeon and Levi kill Hamor and Shechem because they are hostile and do not observe the laws. The plot line of the text (although some fragments might have been lost) is meaningful. Thus v. 2 refers to a stupidity of Simeon and Shechem that in v. 7 reaches criminal dimensions. The mention of the virtue of Jacob and his beautiful and wise children is set in contrast, and forms the background for God's promise to Abraham in v. 6. By this, reason is given for the act of Simeon and Levi without bringing in any conflict of ethnicity. With a clear justification of the treatment of those who do not keep the laws, the act becomes a fulfilment of God's promise to Abraham: that he will give ten godless people to his children (Gen. 15.18-21). This part of the poem might be the Samaritan part, which calls the city holy, inhabited by those people that was given in the hand of Abraham. The purpose of Theodotius's poem is to tell how this happened and to give aetiology for the city's name. It is Alexander Polyhistor's paraphrasing comments that brings up the possible underlying Jewish-Samaritan conflict. For a more compre-


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

hensive treatment of this conflict it has now become necessary to examine briefly the traditions related to Shechem, and to the promises of eternal priesthood given to the Levites. Shechem in the Old Testament Tradition The Genesis story, followed by the burial of foreign gods, the building of the altar in Luzah (which is given the name 'El Bet-'El) and God's blessing of Jacob, must be seen as an origin story describing how Jacob's children became bene yisrdel. Previous to Genesis 34, we find in Gen. 32.25-32 the story of Jacob's fight with 'God and man' (v. 29), and the consequent recognition of Jacob as Israel, since he had prevailed. Jacob's request for the man's name is answered by another question: 'Why is it that you ask my name?' and God blessed him. When this scene is recalled in Gen. 35.9-15 after Jacob's second arrival at Bet- 'El the changing of Jacob's name has the addition that he now is told that it is 'El Shadday, who blesses him (v. 11). This scene is repeated also in Gen. 48.3-4 (and 49.24-26). More interestingly, however, is 2 Kgs 17.34's quite remarkable reference since this text makes a direct connection to Gen. 35.2-4's removal of the foreign gods. Here the text is concerned with the foreign people placed in Samaria/Bet- 'El (2 Kgs 17.28), who, although they had been taught to fear Yahweh are accused of worshipping their own gods also:
They do not fear Yahweh, and they do not follow the statutes or the ordinances of the law or the commandment which Yahweh commanded the children of Jacob, whom he named Israel. Yahweh made a covenant with them, and commanded them, 'You shall not fear other gods or bow yourselves to them or sacrifice to them' (2 Kgs 17.34-35).

As Shechem became defiled by the burial of the foreign gods in the Jacob story, so Bet- 'El becomes defiled when King Josiah, after he has burned 'all the vessels made for Ba'al, for Asherah and for all the host of heaven in the fields of Kidron, brings the ashes to Bet-'El' (cf. 2 Kgs 23.4). Not only Bet-'El, but all the high places in Judaea's and Samaria's cities become defiled (vv. 8, 19-20) and as a result of Josiah's reform only Jerusalem remains clean. It thus seem clear that in this (later?) tradition, Shechem is not recognized as the true Israel, in spite of its adherence to the glorious past of the patriarchs. It was here Abraham met God after he had arrived at Canaan and raised the first Yahweh altar at Elon Moreh (Gen. 12.6-7).

4. Samaritans in Jewish, Christian and Hellenistic Literature 147 Jacob raised an altar (on the ground he had bought from the sons of Hamor) that he called 'el-'elohe-yisrd'el (Gen. 33.20). Joshua gathered the twelve tribes of Israel and asked them to decide whom to serve (Josh. 24.1, 14-24). When the people declared that they had decided to serve Yahweh (vv. 21, 24), they are told to put away the foreign gods (v. 23, "D3n Tl^N). These include the ancestral gods from Mesopotamia ("irrcn "ai?) and Egypt (Dnsa) and the Amorite gods C"lQn sn^) of the land in which they dwell (vv. 14-15).93 Joshua has already set himself in opposition to these gods in his declaration: 'Choose this day whom you will serve...but I and my house will serve Yahweh' (v. 15). Thereafter the covenant is made and written down in DTl'PN n~nn ISO, and a great stone (n^HJ pK) is set up as a witness under the oak in the sanctuary of Yahweh. Here the patriarchal narratives end, the transition has taken place, and the past is recalled as a last gestus in the burial of the bones of Joseph at Shechem in the same ground as Jacob had bought from the sons of Hamor, Shechem's father, which became the inheritance of bene Ydsef(Josh. 24.32). These references to Shechem in the Hexateuch stand in sharp contrast to Shechem's status as the faithless city in the later chronology. In the time of the Judges, this faithless city chooses the kingship to the council of the Elders (the 70 sons of Jerubba'al). This king, Abimelek, son of Jerubba'al/Gideon and his Shechemite concubinepresented in contrast to Jerubba'al's legitimate sons (Judg. 8.30-31)whom the lords of Shechem (DDE' "^lO) appointed at the oak of the 'stone' at Shechem (DD&n H&N 3KQ ]V7R) (Judg. 9.6), they betray after three years' rule (Judg. 9.22ff.). The text gives the impression that this stone, which was raised as a witness to the people's covenant with Yahweh (Josh. 24.23) becomes a witness to the double faithlessness of the people. They killed here the legal heirs to the kingship 'upon one stone' (ni~IN pK "7D, vv. 5 and 18), after which they elect the illegal king (v. 6), who is said to 'serve the men of Hamor the father of Shechem' (v. 28).94 This betrayal,
93. This theme about the ancestral gods is missing in the Samaritan Chronicle II Jos. UA*. Here it is the gods of the land that are set in contrast to Yahweh. Thus the Old Testament text marks a new beginning that (similar to the reforms of Josiah and of Ezra-Nehemiah) is set in the context of the new Israel's rejection of the past. 94. This might be an overinterpretation of PinK ptf ^tf. However, no doubts can be raised against the importance of the 'stone' in the election scene (v. 6, p'PN'DU 3KQ). This expression is found here only. In Gen. 35.14 it is told that Jacob raised a pK fQ^Q at the place where God had spoken with him. The importance of the stone


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

which is described as the evil of the Shechemites (DDE? ^N niH), God (Elohim) reversed in a fulfilling of Jotham's curse (v. 57), when not only their temple (El-berith) and its stronghold were set on fire over them, but also Abimelek was killed by a woman's hand (vv. 46-55). Similar critique is raised in the traditions related to the time of kingship. In 1 Kings 12, the people (^KHttT l?np~'pD) declare Jeroboam king as protest against Rehobeam's harsh treatment. With the Israelite renunciation of 'portion' and 'inheritance' in David (12.16), the rebellion of no return is accomplished (vv. 17-19). This, however, is in accord with the will of Yahweh-elohe-Yisrael (cf. 1 Kgs 11.31-39; 12.15, 24). What is not in accord with the will of Yahweh is the apostasy of the people, the erection of the golden calves in Dan and Bethel (1 Kgs 12.28-29)95 with the purpose of preventing the people from going to offer sacrifices in bet-Yahweh in Jerusalem and turn their hearts to Rehobeam, n~niT "j^Q (vv. 26-29).96 The promise of a sure house like David's and the allotment of Israel (11.38) are forfeited, and the final exclusion is waiting right around the corner: '...and he (Yahweh) will root up Yisrael from this good land which he has given to their fathers and he will scatter them beyond the river (Euphrates)' (1 Kgs 14.14-16). 2 Chronicles' story about the destruction is composed as a parallel story. In the first story Shishak attacks Rehobeam because of the apostasy of the people. When, however, they humbled themselves and recognized that 'Yahweh is righteous' (miT pHK), Yahweh decided not to destroy them (2 Chron. 12.1-8). In contrast to this story, the story about
is described in more detail in Gen. 28.22, Jacob's dream in Bethel, where it is said

thatDTftK rrn rrrr m^Q TiQcn&K nKtn pm. Cf. also Gen. 31.13, 'I am the
God of Bethel, where you anointed a pillar and made a vow to me' (LXX and Targ. Ps.-J., Pal. Targ. read, 'I am God who appeared for you at Bethel'). 95. It is here worth noticing that Shechem has lost its religious importance here and probably only serves as the main capital of the northern kingdom, cf. 1 Kgs 12.25,29,33; 13.1. 96. The erection of the calves is not mentioned in 2 Chron. 11.13, where it is said that 'the priests and the Levites, who were in all Israel presented themselves to him from all their territories. The Levites had left their common lands and their holdings and had come to Judah and Jerusalem, because Jeroboam and his sons had prevented them from serving as priests of Yahweh, and had appointed his own priests for the high places, and for the goat-demons and the calves, he had made.' The underlying irony of the text that Jeroboam erected the golden calves to hinder the people in going to Rehobeam's Jerusalem (1 Kgs 12.26-27) should not go unnoticed.

4. Samaritans in Jewish, Christian and Hellenistic Literature 149 Judah's King Abijah's attack on Jeroboam (2 Chron. 13.1-18) is given. In spite of Abijah's mocking speech, which elucidates the people's apostasy that they follow after Jeroboam's golden calves and have driven out the priests of Yahweh (i.e. the sons of Aaron and the Levites), the Israelites have no intention of humbling themselves. As a result, the defeat and slaughter is inevitable: '[T]hus bene-Yisrdel were subdued at that time and bene-yehuda were strengthened, because they relied upon Yahweh the god of their fathers' (DiTrTQN TI^N). This language has previously been used only against the foreign nations. The intertextuality of these texts expose an exceedingly well-composed structure aiming to demonstrate why and how the cult moved from Shechem (Gen. 12.6-7) to Jerusalem (2 Chron. 11.13-17 and 2 Kgs 23.4-20), and why Jerusalem, in spite of the apostasy of its Jewish population, remained the true Israel that did not share Shechem's fate to become defiled by the presence of foreign gods and peoples. The reform of Josiah did not remove the uncleanness from Shechem, Bet'El, Samaria's and Judaea's towns; it rendered the places unfit for the Yahweh cult (2 Kgs 23.8, 13, 14, 16, 20). Even the uncleanness from Jerusalem added to this, when Josiah brought the idols from Jerusalem outside the town to be burned there; and the ashes he brought to Bet-'El (2 Kgs 23.4).97 In addition to this picture, the 'myth of the empty land' (2 Chron.
97. A similar paradigm is found according to other cult places of the Pentateuch, e.g. Bethel, where Abraham builds the second altar (Gen. 12.8), Jacob meets God in a dream and is promised a splendid future in the country (Gen. 28.13), he goes to Bethel after the events in Shechem and is given another revelation (Gen. 35.6). The place is the centre of the people's internal conflict (Judg. 19-21) where the people goes to Bethel, where the ark is and where the priest Phinehas, Aaron's grandson, is in service, and the people here inquire of Yahweh whether they should once more go against the Benjaminites (Judg. 20.21, 22-23, 26-29; 21.2-4). Jeroboam places one of the golden calves in Bethel (1 Kgs 12.29) and he places priests there (1 Kgs 12.32) and the place becomes the centre of the cult after the fall of the northern kingdom (2 Kgs 17.28), and it is made unclean with the reform of Josiah (2 Kgs 23.15-18). Shilo obtains its days of glory during Joshua (Josh. 18-22) and its fall in the time of Eli's corrupt priesthood and the defilement of the ark (1 Sam. 1-4). It is worth noticing that the ark never is returned to Shilo, but is kept in custody in the house of Abinadab in Kirjat-Jearim (1 Sam. 7.1-2) before it ends in Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6.119) and that the cry of Eli's daughter-in-law (1 Sam. 4.21-22) 'the glory [1132] has disappeared from Israel, for the ark of Yahweh is taken' is given fulfilment in the move of the cult to Jerusalem.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

36.21) forms a theological metaphor for the purpose of keeping Jerusalem free from defilement and creating the foundation for a new beginning. This beginning takes its departure in creation, not in Gen. 1.2's emptiness as creation ex nihilo, but in creation's tohu wa-bohu (irm inn), in its chaotic structures of emptiness and disorder. The city is deserted: empty because it is filled with horror over the people's apostasy (Lev. 26.32). It rests (ni"QC?) in one long sabbath rest of 70 years (2 Chron. 36.21) because it could not rest 'in your sabbaths when you dwelt upon it'.98 The tohu wa-bohu prophecy of Jer. 4.23-27 echoes pre-creation's empty chaos with the 'emptiness' of the exile, where the earth was waste and void, the heavens had no light, the mountains were quaking, and all the hills moving to and fro; where there was no man, no birds; where the fruitful land was a desert, its cities laid in ruins because of the divine wrath of Yahweh. Because of this wrath, 'the whole land shall be a desert [ilQQtD], but I do not completely exterminate it [il^^K $b rfpDI], says Yahweh'. This wonderful anti-climax just before the destruction of the whole creation takes Jeremiah away from poetry and back to 'history's' implicit knowledge of the outcome. I 'do not make a full end of you' (as SRV has it here and in Jer. 5.18) is the conclusive comment that sets the stage for Jeremiah's prophecy in the centre of Leviticus's self-fulfilling prophetic doom: 'If you will not listen to me.. .if you walk contrary to me.. .if you spurn my statutes.. .if your soul abhors my ordinances...if you break my covenant, the...' (ch. 26 passim). This myth's impact on Jewish self-identification is given full expression in Josephus's description of the deportation under Nebuchadnezzar:
Now when Salmanesses removed the Israelites, he settled in their place the nation of Cuthaeans, who had formerly lived in the interior of Persia and Media and who were then, moreover, called Samaritans because they assumed the name of the country in which they were settled. But the king of Babylonia, when he carried off the two tribes, did not settle any nation in their place, and for this reason all of Judaea and Jerusalem and the temple remained deserted [epr||j.o<; Siejieivev] for seventy years (Ant. 10.184).

For that reason, the return from exile is not a new conquest story. There are no old or foreign gods (or people) to throw away. The cleansing of the land and the people is no longer a human affair. The returnees are
98. Cf. also Lev. 26.34, 35, 43, which is the only text using the same form as 2 Chron. 36.21 (hophal inf. with suffix of fern. sing, of the root DQ2J).

4. Samaritans in Jewish, Christian and Hellenistic Literature 151 those purified in exile who are given a paradise to guard. We are thus given the story reversed, so to speak, the story about how to keep this paradise clean, how to keep the idols and the foreigners out of it, outside the walls, outside the cult. The success of this story in the Old Testament tradition is given preliminarily in the abrupt endings of the Ezra and Nehemiah narratives. Here begins the period of the teachers of whom Simeon the Just is the first in rabbinic tradition, comparable to the righteous teacher of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Christianity's teaching Messiah, all of whom have no other story to tell than that of the rise and fall of the Jewish nation, the bene-Yisrael in past and present, presented in their personal singularity as well as their symbolic national wholeness. It is within that tradition that we must understand Jacob's pragmatic reaction seeking a peaceful conflict solution in contrast to his sons' militant reactions." In this Jacob tradition of the old Israel, there is credited no promise of eternal priesthood. The Levites are those who, dispersed among the cities of Israel, are ranked lowest. From here sprouts reinterpretations of this tradition, which in Testament of Levi, Jubilees and parts of the Old Testament became paradigmatic for the zealous Israel, which in the Ezra-Nehemiah model denies 'am ha'ares any participation in the building of the temple; and which raises a fence, a wall around the city and the law. The historical reality that is reflected implies a rejection of the Shechemites/Samaritans, who, as 'am ha'ares in rabbinic tradition, keep the old law written in Hebrew characters while the true Israel100 is given the new law written in Aramaic by the hand of Ezra. This is the Judaea/Jerusalem alone policy that, with the reform of Josiah, destroys the old cult places and does not invite people from the outside to participate in the celebration of the passover (2 Kgs 23.21-23). In contrast to this tradition, the reforms of Hezekiah in Chronicles stands as part of the old tradition. Like Jacob, Hezekiah seeks reconciliation and celebrates the passover twice. This suggests that he acknowledges the calendar disagreements with the northern tribes (those from Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar and Zebulon, cf. 2 Chron. 30.18-20). The aim is, as in Gen. 34.22, the unity of the people, expressed in the commentary that 'since the time of Solomon, the son of David king of Israel
99. So also Isaac in Gen. 26 and Jacob in Gen. 33. 100. b. Sank. 21b: 'He also had the Bible rewritten in "Assyrian" characters, leaving the old Hebrew characters to the Samaritans.'


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

there had been nothing like this in Jerusalem' (2 Chron. 30.26), a commentary that is missing in the stories about the reform of Josiah, which, in both instances (2 Kgs 23.22; 2 Chron. 35.18.), refers to the pre-monarchic period. The Testament of Levi brings both of these traditions together. In carrying out the circumcision Jacob becomes 'concerned unto sickness'. He certainly could not give his blessings to Simeon and Levi:
When my father heard of this he was angry and sorrowful, because they had received circumcision and died, and so he passed us by in his blessings. Thus we sinned in doing this contrary to his opinion, and he became sick that very day.

In contrast to this in the same text, God's blessing to Levi concerning the eternal priesthood is based on the very same incident, which, in an apologetic justification, makes up for all the terrible deeds of the past:
they had wanted to do the same thing to Sarah and Rebecca that they did to Dinah, our sister. But the Lord prevented them. They persecuted Abraham when he was a nomad, and they harassed his flocks when they were pregnant, and they grossly mistreated Eblaen, who had been born in his house.101

Such an original sin is the background for God's sanction of Levi's action. Behind this lies the conflict between the old and a new covenant, which, in the underlying religio-political reality, implied an interpretative conflict regarding the acceptance of past traditions. The Levites in Jewish Traditions The book of Jubilees tells us that Levi and his sons were chosen for the eternal priesthood because of Levi's zealous act in Shechem. This tradition does not form part of the Pentateuch material. Neither does the zealous act of the Levites in Exod. 32.25-29 provide them with this status, although they are said to have 'ordained themselves for the service of Yahweh'. 102 The seeming contrast set here between Aaron and the
101. Eblaen is otherwise unknown. The Textual tradition offer a wide range of variants (OTP, I, p. 790 n. 6d). 102. IT "]^7D, the filling of the hands, is a euphemism for a consecration ceremony. Cf. Ezek. 43.26 and 2 Chron. 29.31, HIT1? DDT DPI^G; Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton, The Septuagint with the Apocrypha, Greek and English (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980 [1851]), which translates, 'Now ye have consecrated yourselves to

4. Samaritans in Jewish, Christian and Hellenistic Literature 153 Levites serves quite a different purpose as the composition of Moses' triparte ascent of the Mountain shows (Exod. 19.24, 24.1-14, 34.3). In his first ascent Moses is accompanied by Aaron (Exod. 19.24) who seems to stay with Moses on the mountain. The second time he is accompanied by Aaron, Nadab, Abihu and 70 of the elders of Israel (Exod. 24.1), and they 'saw 'elohe-yisrdel...and they ate and they drank' (24.10-11). These companions, however, are not allowed to come near to Yahweh. The third time nobody is allowed to join Moses or even come near to the mountain (34.3). Here Moses' role as the righteous prophet has reached its climax. At his descent, not only the people were 'afraid to come near to Moses because his face shone', but Aaron participated equally in this fear (Exod. 34.30). Noticing that Yahweh's commandment to Moses to appoint Aaron and his sons as priests (Exod. 28.1-2) takes place at the same time as Aaron is collecting gold for the golden calf (Exod. 32.2-6), and that Aaron (together with Hur) is appointed leader of the Israelites while Moses and Joshua are on the mountain (Exod. 24.14), the dethroning of Aaron finds its fulfilment in his shameful blaming of the people for having led him astray (Exod. 32.22-24). Failing to take up the responsibility that was given him, he further accentuates the role of Moses as the only spokesman of Yahweh, who must be obeyed also by Aaron and his sons, who 'did all the things which Yahweh commanded by Moses' (nKJQ'TS, Lev. 8.36). The three attempts of rebellion in Lev. 10.1-5, 16-20, Num. 12.1-16 and Num. 16.1-17.5 did not change these conditions. Neither did they change the condition for the Levites, which in fact was the purpose of the third rebellion. Ranking even lower than Aaron and his sons (Num. 1.48-53; 3.6-9, 32; 4.27-28, 33; 8.22; 18.1-2, 6), they were those appointed to guard the tabernacle of the testimony to prevent anyone uninitiated (i.e. anyone other than Aaron and his sons) from coming near (Num. 1.47-53; 3.7-10; 18.2-7). As workers and guards of the sanctuary (enpn mDCOQ '"OB, Num. 3.28, 32), they are set in opposition to Aaron and his sons, who are responsible for the temple service, everything concerning the altar in the Holy of Holies and the bearers of iniquity (Num. 18.1-3; 6-7). The stressing of this hierarchy is a consequence of the Levite rebellion's challenge in Num. 16.1-35:

the Lord', and Exod. 32.29, 'Ye have filled your hands this day to the Lord'. The LXX in both texts reads eTiAipcoaaTe me, xeipaq vurov.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said to them, 'You have gone too far! For all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and Yahweh is among them. Why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of Yahweh (mil1' tnp~i7i>)?' (Num. 16.3)

Moses' answer clearly illustrates the underlying conflict, the Levites' discontent with their layman position:
'Listen now, you sons of Levi: is it too small a thing for you that Israel's God has separated you from the congregation of Israel, to bring you near to himself (V^K DDntf mpn1?), to do service in the tabernacle of the lord, and to stand before the congregation to minister to them; and that he has brought you near him, and all your brethen the sons of Levi with you? And would you seek the priesthood (rmD) also?' (Num. 16.8-10).

The answer is somewhat ironic in its recurrent statement that the Levites can come near Yahweh. It was exactly what they claimed they could not and it is exactly what is stressed after the settling of the conflict. 'They [the Levites] shall attend you and attend to all duties of the tent; but they shall not come near to the vessels of the sanctuary or to the altar, lest they and you die' (Num. 18.3). The confirmation of Aaron's position as the head of the house of Levi in the story about the sprouting rod (Num. 17.1-11 (vv. 3, 8) clearly states that in Israel there is no room for more than one priestly line and that this undivided line is settled in Luzah/Bet-el, cf. 17.8. The ambiguity about this separation of the Levites from the Aaronides is given expression in the various genealogies of the Old Testament. Thus, in Num. 3.1-6, the toledoth of Aaron and Moses are those after Aaron: his sons Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, of whom Nadab and Abihu are said to have died in the wilderness of Sinai when they offered unholy fire before Yahweh (Lev. 10). Left are Eleazar and Ithamar, who are said to have served as priests in their father's lifetime. Of these Eleazar is said to have been chief over the leaders of the Levites and to have oversight of those who had charge of the sanctuary (enpn nna^D notO, Num. 3.32). The related mention of the families of the Levites (Num. 3.17-35), the Gershonites, the Kohathites and the Merarites does not include a refererence to Levi nor the line from Kehat to Amram, while in Exod. 4.14; 6.16-25 and Num. 26.57-61 Aaron is explicitly combined with the genealogy of the Levites. The need for a clarification of Aaron's position in Numbers 17 reinstates him in this genealogy.

4. Samaritans in Jewish, Christian and Hellenistic Literature 155 That we are dealing with purpose-fulfilling genealogies probably becomes most clear in the way they are presented in the book of Chronicles. In 1 Chron. 27.17 (16-22) the number of the tribes of Israel is 12, including both Aaron and Levi, but excluding Gad and Asher. They, however, are included in the closely variant genealogical list of 1 Chron. 12.25-39, which places Aaron in the tribe of Levi (12.26-28). This is in accord with 1 Chron. 5.27-41 (RSV 6.1-16), where Aaron is placed in an unbroken genealogy of Levi's Amram line, as the purpose is to demonstrate the unbroken succession of high priests from the Egyptian exodus until the Babylonian exile. In contrast to this line,103 the other Levitical families are listed, representing those who served in the layman functions of the temple. If these genealogiestogether with the various hierarchy conflicts in Exodus-Numbershad as their underlying reality competing priestly families (or perhaps a growing layman movement) who claimed a right to share in the priestly duties, then this conflict seems to have found its resolution in Deuteronomy's D^PI D^rDH the Levitical priests,104 who combine synagogue and temple in their functions.105 In composition, they are not mentioned until after the death of Aaron106 and Eleazar's succession to the priesthood (Deut. 10.6). Their duties after settling in the promised land are no longer connected with the tent or the desert sanctuary. Conflating the differences between the Levites and the priests, they share the same duties: the service before Yahweh and the blessing in the name of Yahweh (10.8; 18.5; 21.5), court decisions in accord with the word of Yahweh (21.5) and the reading of the Law at
103. 1 Chron. 5.49: 'but Aaron and his sons...' 104. Deut. 17.9; 18.1; 24.8; 27.9. Translation here is difficult because of the grammar, which suggests that D^n stands as an apposition to D^HDH. 105. This is also characteristic of Ezra and Nehemiah in the appointment of singers, gatekeepers and temple servants (Ezra 7.7; Neh. 7.1) which deprived the Levites of their servant duties and transferred them to synagogal functions: the teaching of the people (Neh. 8.7, 13). Neh. 9-10, where the confession of the people is expressed by the Levites but only mentions priests and prophets (vv. 32 and 34), and where the signing of the contract mentions the Levites before the priests (Neh. 10.1) but enumerates those in the usual way: officials, priests and Levites (Neh. 10.2-28). This must be the rule confirming exception, as in both books the hierachy is clear and unchallenged (cf. Ezra 6.16; 9.1; 10.5; Neh. 10.39; 12.47). 106. Who, with the exception of Deut. 9.20, 10.6 is remarkably absent in the book.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

the feast of the booths every seventh year (31.9-13). The blessing of Levi in Deut. 33.8-11 refers to Aaron's doubt at Meriba and to the zealous act of the Levites in Exod. 32.27-29. Num. 25.1-15's influence here can be stated by implication only. However, it should not go unnoticed that the Israelite killed by Phinehas is from the tribe of Simeon and that this tribe is missing in the blessing of the tribes in Deuteronomy 33. Deuteronomy's favourable attitude towards Levites is shared also by the Chronicler, who, in the story about Hezekiah' reform, states that the Levites were more 'upright in heart (DD^ "H2T, 2 Chron. 29.34) than the sons of Aaron, the priests (D^HDH pilN ^2, v. 21) in sanctifying themselves'. Nevertheless, the priestly duties given to the Levites are due to necessity (that there were not enough priests) and they are temporarily helping their brethren, until...(cf. 2 Chron. 29.34). Maintaining a distinction, the Levites are not allowed to sprinkle the blood, which they hand over to the priests (30.16). The skills they showed in the service of Yahweh (30.22) do not lead to any other hierarchic system than that established by David (2 Chron. 31.2-19; cf. 1 Chron. 23.28-32) or Moses (Num. 3.5-9). It becomes clear that Deuteronomy is exceptional in its attitude to the Levites, who elsewhere rank lower than the Aaronides. Furthermore, in Ezek. 44.10-31 they are decommissioned from priestly duties. As a punishment, they are (re)instated in 'Levitical' services: overseeing the gates of the temple; keeping charge of the temple107 and ministering before the people. In contrast stand D^rpH D'l'pn pil^ "O?, the righteous priests of the Levitical stock: those 'who kept the charge of my sanctuary ptinpQ n~IQ2?Q~nN 1~1Q^] when bene-Yisrdel went astray of me' (v. 15). They are allowed to come near108 to Yahweh and minister
107. Philo's mention of the Levites gives them a similar status: 'Some of these are stationed at the doors as gatekeepers at the very entrances some within front of the sanctuary to prevent any unlawful person from setting foot thereon, either intentionally or unintentionally, some patrol around it by turn in relays by appointment night and day, keeping watch and guard at both seasons. Others sweep the porticoes and the open court, convey away the refuse and ensure cleanliness' (Spec. Leg. 1.156). 108. 13"lp\ Used also in Ezek. 40.46: pllK'^n HQH nDTQH rnOBQ notO D-3TO THVb miT"^ "n^nD D^mpn, 'those are the sons of Zadok who alone of the sons of Levi may come near to Yahweh and minister for him', and 42.13-14: D^ron miT'1? D'mp ~I2?N, 'the priests who come near to Yahweh'; 43.19: D^n D^ron ^N trmpn -[UK mm an ~I2?N, 'the levitical priests who are of the seed of Zadok can come near to me'.

4. Samaritans in Jewish, Christian and Hellenistic Literature 157 to Yahweh (vv. 15-16); they shall teach the people the difference between holy and unholy, clean and unclean (v. 23), they shall judge in controversies (v. 24) and they shall keep Yahweh's laws, statutes, appointed feasts and sabbaths (v. 24). Ezekiel echoes here the tone of Numbers 18's clarification of the hierarchy as a reaction to the Levitic rebellion in Numbers 16. Here the background is another rebellion, namely the Levites' failure when Israel went astray and followed their idols and (contrary to Exod. 32) the Levites served these idols (44.10, 12; 48.11). If this accusation refers to the acts of the Levites in the time of Jeroboam, then we must state that it finds no support in Old Testament historical books.109 1 Kings 12.31; 13.33 tells that Jeroboam appointed priests from among the people who were not the Levites. 2 Chronicles 13.9 states furthermore that Jeroboam 'had driven out the priests of Yahweh, the sons of Aaron, and the Levites' (priK "nTIK mns ^HD'HS D^m) and made priests for himself 'like the peoples of other lands' (m:nsn ^UD). 110 M. Delcor111 understood this to be a reference to the Samaritan schism since the ritual of ordination follows that of Exodus 29, which could mean that the priests mentioned were those 'Jewish' priests who did not belong to the right lineage. In Delcor's interpretation m^-iNn s nu (2 Chron. 13.9) should not be compared with 1 Kgs 12.31 and 13.33's DVTi mupQ, who are the Canaanites mentioned similarly in 1 Chron. 5.25 and Num. 14.9. Following the reading of the LXX Delcor interprets m^~)Nn "'QI? as being the same people as 'am ha'ares mentioned in Ezra 4.4, which means that they are those Jews who did not go into exile, and whose priests did not stand in the right lineage and succession. It must be questioned if Delcor in fact muddles the case. If 2 Chron. 13.9 refers to the Samaritan problem and succession of priests, the Masoretic reading is to be preferred: that Jeroboam act according to the practice of the Gentiles. The issue of the text is to
109. G.A. Cooke, The Book of Ezekiel (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1967 [1936]): refers to Ezek. 7.19, 20.5 and 2 Kgs 23.9. W. Zimmerli, Ezechiel (BKAT; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2nd edn, 1979), in a consideration of Wellhausen's assertion that the polemic has as its purpose to get rid of unemployed priests after the reform of Josiah in 622 BCE, does not support this assertion and points to the argument's stereotypic character. 110. LXX (Syr.): EK TOti Xaou Tfjq yn<;. 111. M. Delcor, 'Hinweise auf das samaritanische Schisma im Alten Testament', ZAW74 (1961), pp. 281-91.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

question this practice112 and to declare those incorrectly appointed priests to be servants for something which is not Elohim. In contrast to this practice is set the righteous cult of the Judaeans, whichclaiming to belong to the right succession: bene 'aharon we-ha-leviim 'sons of Aaron and Levites'declare themselves to be <13TTI?K miT mD2?Q-ntf IDIDN D'HQCB, while Jeroboam's people is characterized as having left this cult: intf Dnnti? DHK1 (v. 11). 13mK and DDK forms a contrast. The debatable question is the problem of who are miT fl~lQ^Q~n^ "HQ27. This, of course, could fit well into Judaean-Samaritan disputes, as well as in other disputes about the priesthood mentioned frequently in DSS, in 1 and 2 Maccabees and in Josephus. We therefore need a broader examination of the issue and especially of the Zadok tradition(s) before conclusions can be drawn. Zadok; pits* m D^n D^HDH and the Levites According to Ezra 7.1-5, 1 Esd. 8.1, Neh. 10.11-12 and 1 Chron. 9.1013, Zadok belongs to Aaron's Eleazar genealogy. In these genealogical lists he is placed later than the chronology of the David narrative, where he is mentioned as son of Ahitub (2 Sam. 8.17) and father to Ahimaaz (2 Sam. 15.27). This genealogy is found also in 2 Chron. 6.35-38, which reckons 12 generations from Aaron to Ahimaaz. In contrast to this is the genealogy in 1 Chron. 5.29-41 (RSV 6.1-16) which reckons 23 generations from Aaron to Jehozadak, and, with a doubling of Amariah, Ahitub and Zadok, sets Ahimaaz as son of Zadok in the first part of the list and Shallum at the end. The references to Zadok clearly place him in the David-Solomon tradition. Together with Abiathar, he serves as priest under David's rule (cf. 2 Sam. 8.17; 20.25; 1 Kgs 2.4; 1 Chron. 18.16; 17.39). He supports David during his fight with Absalom (2 Sam. 15.24-29; 17.15) and Solomon during his fight with Adonijah (1 Kgs 1.8, 26). He anoints Solomon for the kingship (1 Kgs 1.38-40); and 1 Chron. 29.22 relates that Zadok was anointed for the priesthood at this event. In the bibilical material, Ezekiel is exceptional for his praise of Zadok, who is mentioned only in the David-Solomon narratives of 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings and Chronicles, and in the formerly mentioned genealogies of Ezra and Nehemiah. 2 Chronicles 31.10 is the only
112. Supported by 1 Kgs 12.31 and 13.33 and the criticism of the feast on the 15th day in the 8th month. 1 Kgs 12.33 only gives meaning if Jeroboam's cult falls within the established Yahweh cult.

4. Samaritans in Jewish, Christian and Hellenistic Literature 159 reference to a high priest of the house of Zadok (pnirrTO). The confusion about the various genealogies, questions of their authenticity and Zadok's relation to the established Aaronite lineage have led to several hypotheses.113 Assumptions of a possible conflict of interests related to two competing classes of priests, one from the line of Eleazar and the other from the line of Itamar (cf. 1 Chron. 24.3-19), have not been provable since we have no Itamar tradition and the references in the biblical material are insignificant. The possibility of a priestly class, originating from Zadok in Jerusalem and in an established genealogy placed in the Eleazar-Aaron genealogy, can not be proven historically. Traditionally and literarily, however, this is exactly what is claimed. Eliminating possible competing lists, the biblical tradition asserts that the high priest serving in the house of David is of the lineage of Aaron and that this family can trace its pedigree in an unbroken chain of high priests from the exodus to the exile (Yehoshua b. Yozadak), and in the Ezra genealogy further on into the postexilic period. The importance of this claim serves the Zadokite interests in a variety of DSS texts' legitimation of the true miT motDOTIK '"OB. The Damascus Document Taking up the visions of Ezekiel's new temple, the Damascus document 4.1's interpretation of Ezek. 44.15's "notD IBN -p-ra "on D^n D^ron ""ETIpQ rnQEJD'DK either includes or excludes the priests and the Levites in the new covenant. With an insertion of the conjunction 1 CD reckons
113. See the discussion in Schiirer, History of the Jewish People (rev. edn, 1979), II, p. 252 n. 56, and G.W. Ramsey, 'Zadok', ABD, VI, pp. 1033-36. The issues dealt with in the discussion as presented in Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 163, are as follows: 'The importance of the Zadokite priesthood seems very clear at Jerusalem, but it was not of levitical origin, its attachment to Aaron is historically doubtful, and it is in no way proved that the high priests of the monarchical period would have been of Zadokite ancestry: (J.R. Bartlett, 'Zadok and His Successors at Jerusalem', JTS NS 19, 1968, pp. 1-18) it was therefore a matter of providing a literary backing for the post-exilic high priests. On the other hand, if the Levites before Deuteronomy had only been what was left of a category of "resident foreigners, they became at that time, and they alone, capable of being chosen for the exercise of priesthood at the unique sanctuary; in Deut. 17. 8f., they are called levitical priests, and in Deut. 18.6, just Levites. Nevertheless following the reform of Josiah, the high priests had to be Zadokites, at least gradually (Ezek. 40.45f.), and later on this priesthood was connected to Aaron, became a Levite.' References are made to J.R. Bartlett, 'Zadok and His Successors at Jerusalem', JTS NS 19 (1968), pp. 1-18, and Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, pp. 92-93, 150.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

three groups of which the sons of Zadok rank highest. Thus the 'priests are the converts114 of Israel who left the land of Judah; and the Levites are those who joined them. The sons of Zadok are the chosen of Israel, those called by name who stood up at the end of days. Conflating Ezekiel with the traditions of the Levitical priests of Kings and Chronicles, we are left to consider that the Zadokites are those chosen because they remained steadfast. As in Ezekiel and for that sake also, Chronicles' description of the reform of Hezekiah, the priests and the Levites did not disappear after they had either gone astray or been captured. They went into the new covenant, though their role had been changed. At the head of the cult are now the righteous priests, the pT"[2 ""p whose task it is to re-establish the priestly duties and the rank order of Leviticus and Numbers. The Manual of Discipline and the Community Rule In spite of all attempts to understand the Damascus covenant, the Manual of Discipline (1QS + parr.) and the Community Rule (IQSa) as expressions of a Judaism that was led by a priest called Zadok and who themselves 'sons of Zadok', as being a sectarian group opposing the established Judaism at the temple in Jerusalem and the priesthood there,115 this hypothesis never succeeded in documenting that this group was in fact sectarian in regard to Old Testament Scripture. The various references to Zadok and Aaron and their sons (i.e. the priesthood of this tradition) deviates only from parts of the Old Testament material. The interest in cult practice and the establishment of a holy society of priests is a direct continuation of Old Testament prophetic literature and echoes Ezra and Nehemiah's 'holy city'. 116 Thus the entering of the covenant
114. Charlesworth's translation (J.H. Charlesworth [ed.], The Dead Sea Scrolls): 'The priests are the penitents of Israel who depart(ed) from the land of Judah, "the Levites" who accompany them and the "Sons of Zadok" are the chosen ones of Israel, those called by name, who stand in the end of days.' B.Z. Wacholder, 'Historiography of Qumran: The Sons of Zadok and their Enemies', in F.H. Cryer and Th.L. Thompson (eds.), Qumran between the Old and New Testaments (CIS, 6; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 347-77 (357), suggests that the verb should be translated 'captives' on the basis of the 'exilic context of CD VI.5'. 115. So, already S. Schechter, Documents of Jewish Sectaries, I (2 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910), who only had the Damascus document from the Cairo geniza at his service. 116. This view has been argued by S. Talmon, 'The Emergence of Jewish Sectarianism in the Early Second Temple Period', in P.O. Miller, P.D. Hanson and S.D.

4. Samaritans in Jewish, Christian and Hellenistic Literature 161 after the recitation of Israel's sin in the Manual of Discipline (1QS) 12, clearly modelled after Nehemiah 9-10 and reckoning priests, Levites and the people, seems with 1QS 2.18-22 to be a literary trope which might not have any reality outside of this text. This is reflected in the immediate mention of various groups and the lack of references to the Levites in passages where they could be expected to occur. Thus in 1QS 5.2, 9 are mentioned sons of righteousness/Zadok, the priests as those keeping the covenant and as the multitude of men who persevere steadfastly in the covenant, but the Levites seem to have been forgotten. Similarly, in 1QS 6.8's ranking of the community members, 'the priests will sit down first, the elders next and the remainder of the people will sit down in order of rank'. Col. 7's mention of punishment rules mentions only the punishment for having 'spoken angrily against the priests enrolled in the book'. Col. 8.1's community counsel counts 12 men and 3 priests. According to 5.2, 9, these priests are bene sadoq who belonging to the 'holiness of Aaron' lead the whole community into this holiness (5.6, 21; 8.5-6, 8-9; 9.5-6). That we are here dealing with a manifest prescribing the ideal society is traceable in several instances. Thus 8.4: 'When these things exist in Israel'; namely, the formation of a community council consisting of men who are
perfect in everything that has been revealed about all the law to implement truth, justice, judgement, compassionate love and unassuming behaviour of each person to his fellow to preserve faithfulness on the earth with firm purpose and repentant spirit in order to atone for sin, doing justice, and undergoing trials in order to walk with everyone in the measure of truth and the regulation of time.

When this has happened, then 'the Community council will be founded on truth, like an everlasting plantation, a holy house for Israel and the foundation of the holy of holies for Aaron'. Similar expressions are found in 8.12ff. and 9.3-9, emphasizing, however, that only the sons of Aaron will have legal authority. Conflating the relations between the priests and the segregated multitude, who, together, freely volunteer for
McBride (eds.), Ancient Israelite Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), pp. 587-616 (606): 'In the Qumranian's vision of the "Age to come" the politicosocial and cultic institutions would be reinstated in accordance with their concepts, customs and codified law. This vision was patterned upon the basically mis-worldly conception of the Hebrew Bible, or at least of some major strata of that literature, which put a premium on a good life, on family and kinship and on orderly social structure.'


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

this truth (5.7-10; 8.10; 9.3), this distinction should not be stressed too strongly, since it is the community as such that makes atonement for the earth. Community Rule (IQSa) more clearly reckons three classes: the sons of Zadok, who serve as priests, the sons of Aaron, who are in charge of legal and economical matters, and the sons of Levi, who serve under the conduct of the sons of Aaronnot as guards of the temple but as guards of the community members' 'going in and out' according to their ranks.117 Here too the division seems more literary than real. When in the following passage, IQSa 2.11-17, the entering of those who shall eat and drink with the Messiah whom he shall bless, the priests, the Aaronides and the people are numbered but the Levites are missing. The Zadokite preference is clearly spelled out in the Rule of Blessing (!QSb/lQ28b, 3.22):
bless] the sons of Zadok, the priest whom God has chosen to strengthen the covenant, for [ever, to distribute all his judgements in the midst of his people, to teach them in accordance with his commandment... For you may he [re]new the covenant of [eternal] priesthood.

We now can conclude that in those texts of the DSS, Aaron and the sons of Aaron are described on two levels. The one is the concrete level, possibly referring to a group of priests who, together with the community members are JT""Q3 D^p^nDil, those keeping the covenant and "HTH/fT"):^ D^HTinQn, working freely for the community, together with the sons of Zadok, who are the guards of the covenant, HQ2? rr~Qn.118 The other level is the metaphorical level where the eschatological expectation is the community's sanctification in Aaron and the coming of the Messiah from Aaron and Israel (1QS 9.11; CD 12.23). The impact of this metaphor is demonstrated in rabbinic literature's use of such concepts as 'disciple of Aaron' or 'doing the work of Aaron' as synonomous with being the true people of God. Independently of genealogy and proselytism, this allowed laymen to become rabbis and seekers of the hidden things.119
117. J. Liver, 'The "Sons of Zadok, the Priests" in the Dead Sea Sect', RevQ 6 (1967), pp. 3-20, reads this as if the Levites 'are to minister as "the chiefs, the judges, and the officials" and stand under the authority of Zadoks'. The expression, however, seems to be addressed to the community; cf. also cols. 1.27-2.1 and 2.2-3. 118. Liver, ' "Sons of Zadok" ', p. 14. 119. b. Yom. 71b; cf. M. Stern, 'Aspects of Jewish Society: The Priesthood and Other Classes', in S. Safrai, M. Stern et al. (eds.), The Jewish People in the First

4. Samaritans in Jewish, Christian and Hellenistic Literature 163 Similarly, the Levites are described in at least two strata. One stratum that is connected with Genesis 34 and Jacob's rebuke and curse (Gen. 49), which, according to the prohibition against owing land, leads to a dispersion of the Levites among the tribes of Israel in the cities of refuge and the Levitical cities.120 This tradition ranks the Levites low: among foreigners, widows and orphans, reduced to the mercy of their neighbours121 and participating in the people's apostasy. This tradition does not unambiguously count Aaron and his sons among the tribe of Levi.122 The other stratum takes its departure from the blessing and promise of eternal priesthood given to Levi in Jubilees 30 and Deuteronomy 33. This tradition clearly places Aaron in the tribe of Levi (cf. Num. 17.18) and the genealogies supporting that. At the core of this tradition lies the deed of Aaron's grandson Phinehas in Numbers 25. His zealous act for keeping the Israelites free from defilement turned away the anger of Yahweh and supplied him and his sons with the eternal priesthood. The development of this stratum finds its clarification in Jewish literature from the second century and later. Ben Sira In Sir. 50.23, the praise of Simeon is closed with the following prayer: 'May His mercy be with Simeon and may He establish the covenant of Phinehas with him, which He will not cut off from him and his seed as long as the days of heaven.'123 This prayer, together with the doxology
Century, II (CRINT; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1976), pp. 561-630 (620). Ben Sira's praise of the priesthood does not conflict with a praise of he who reads the Law and seeks the hidden meaning of the text (Sir. 39.1-11). It is uncertain whether the Hebrew version uses the term m~in03 (39.3; similar to Greek (m6pi><j)a). A variant in Sir. 4.18 employs the form "HDOQ, participle with suffix for 1st sing. 120. Num. 18.20-24; Deut. 10.8; 14.28; Num. 35.6; Jos. 13.14, 33; 20.7. 121. Deut. 12.12, 19. 122. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, pp. 166-67, argued for a later interpolation of the act of the Levites in Exod. 32 brought together with the mention of Aaron in 32. Ib6; 17-18 and 35b, which, if removed from the story, gives a more homogeneous narrative similar to the Deuteronomic variant, which refers only indirectly to Aaron's participation in the apostasy (Deut. 9.20). 123. This prayer hason the basis of the LXX and Cod. Sin.been translated as a pious wish for God's care for his people. This reading according to Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, and Smend, Weisheit des Jesu Sirach, p. 490, was preferred in an effort to avoid anachronistic misunderstandings, which would make Ben Sira contemporary with Simeon. The translation is based on Strack, Spruche Jesus.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

in ch. 51 (Hebrew version), places Simeon in the Zadokite priesthood. Here, as in Sir. 45.23-24, the promise is juxtaposed to another promise of kingship given to David, son of Isaj of the tribe of Judah (v. 25). The mentioning of the Levites in Ben Sira is restricted to a harsh comment on the rebellion of 'outsiders' (Dathan, Abiram and Korah: 45.18-19). Stressing that 'no outsider ever shall put on' the priestly robes (described in vv. 8-12) 'but only his (Aaron of the tribe of Levi, 45.6) sons and his descendants perpetually' (Sir. 45.13), this conflict seems to have led to a total rejection of the Levites. No praise of Simeon and Levi, no reference to Aaron's failure or to the dethroning in the desert have found place in the writings of Ben Sira. Replacing the duties of the Levites in biblical literature, the Aaronide priests in Ben Sira 50 are serving at the altar and sounding the trumpets, while the singers praise God with their voices. Ben Sira's predominantly apologetic attitude in its praise for the high priest Simeon, and the priesthood's emanation from the house of Aaron, could lead to the assertion that he seeks to legitimize a priest whose genealogy is not quite clear. This situation is unknown before the Hasmonaean period as far as we know.124 The connection to the condemnation of 'the foolish people in Shechem' leads to assert that the high priest mentioned is Simon Maccabee. Seir, Philistaea and Shechem are condemned because of disagreements related to political perspectives. These circumstances certainly should be traceable in historical 'documents' from the period such as the books of the Maccabees. If, however, the apology is polemical and against the leading priesthood at Jerusalem's temple, then the mentioned Simeon might be the unknown Simeon the Just. But why any polemic would occur at such a late time is hard to see. 1 and 2 Maccabees^25 The genealogy of the Hasmonaeans, according to 1 Mace. 2.1, places Mattathias, son of John, son of Simeon, in the priestly tribe of Joarib.
124. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, pp. 277, 335, argued that the Oniads were of Egyptian origin. If that is correct that, of course, would have demanded a legitimation of the cult. 125. Discussions about dating (probably in the last quarter of the second century BCE) and sources must be searched in relevant literature. L.L. Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1992), I, pp. 221-25, gives a useful overview. What is important here in this discussion is that 'it is now generally accepted that 1 Maccabees was to some extent the official version of the

4. Samaritans in Jewish, Christian and Hellenistic Literature 165 By this he is connected to the Aaron-Eleazar-Phinehas-Zadok-genealogy of 1 Chron. 5.29-41; 24.7; 9.11 and Neh. 11.10-11. In the Old Testament Joarib usually is mentioned together with Jedaiah as those priests who went to Babylon together with Jehoshua son of Yozadak (Neh. 12.6, 19). In the organization of the priests in 1 Chronicles 24, the first lot fell to Joarib, the second to Jedaiah. Regardless of these genealogies' uselessness in a historical reconstruction, they give the important information that this literary tradition places the Hasmonaean priesthood in a 'correct' genealogy. This is given special weight in 1 Mace. 2.26's comparison of the zealousness of Mattathias with that of Phinehas in Num. 25.7-8. In the same chapter, the Testament of Mattathias calls Phinehas 'our father', who 'received the covenant of everlasting priesthood' (1 Mace. 2.54). This covenant's transference to Simeon is anticipated in the closure of the Testament with the appointment of Simeon as 'your father' (2.65), implicitly superior to Judas, who is appointed leader of the fight (2.66). In the former mentioned declaration of independence, Simeon's connection with the priestly line of Joarib is stated (14.29). The praise of the fathers in 1 Mace. 1.51-61 also leaves out any tradition about Levi and Simeon and their 'Levitical priesthood'. Neither do we find any references to Levites at all in 1 and 2 Maccabees, which is all the more striking as regards the frequency of stories about temple cleansing procedure, the reinstatement of priests, inauguration of the temple, assembly of the people, appointment of high priest, and so on, events where one would expect to see the Levites mentioned, especially in 1 Mace. 3.51; 4.42-43; 14.28, 41, 47; 2 Mace. 1.23, 31; 10.1-3.126 So what are these conflicts between various priests
Hasmonaean dynasty and thus an account from the Maccabaean point of view' (p. 223). 126. Stern, 'Aspects of Jewish Society', pp. 561-630, understands this absence of Levites in 'the basic sources of the Hellenistic and Hasmonean periods' as reflecting 'the relative decline of the Levites as a social class in the Hellenistic period in contrast to the priests... There is not a single Levite who occupies a significant position in the life of the period' (p. 597). The decree of Antiochus III (Josephus, Ant. 12.138-44) contrasts this situation, as the Levites here are given privileges alonside the members of the gerousia (council of the elders) and the priests (p. 598). The mention of the Levites in the Antiochus III document can be argued to fall within the same lines of immediacy as seen in some of the DSS. It is interesting, however, to notice that Josephus, who almost entirely restricts his mention of Levites to his presentation of biblical material, mentions the Levites in the documents of Antiochus III. This could support Nodet's thesis that the documents are


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

in 1 and 2 Maccabees about? Do they have anything to do with the Samaritan question? 2 Maccabees' rather detailed reference to these conflicts is important for the discussion. Although they take place at the temple in Jerusalem, their result incorporates the Seleucid treatment of the 'Jews' on Gerizim as likely. Josephus's claim that these 'Shechemites' (as he calls them) denied any relation to the Jews is not related in 2 Maccabees. The opening of the story tells us that this is 'the story of Judas Maccabaeus and his brothers and of the purification of the great temple and dedication of the altar, and further of the wars against Antiochus Epiphanes and his son Eupator'. This is important for an understanding of the fighting participants' exploitation of political connections. These exploitations are described indirectly only, but if we take into consideration the book's pro-Ptolemaic view (1.1 Ob), the Hasmonaean uprising is primarily a fight with the Seleucids and only secondarily a fight for religious autonomy. Two families are involved: the high priest Onias III son of Simon II with his brother Jesus/Jason and the captain of the temple Simon with his brothers Menelaus and Lysimachus. It begins with a discussion about the administration of the city market and it ends in a massacre of the city, the defilement of the temple and a transference of the priesthood to the family of Bilga to whom Simon and Menelaus belong.127 When Simon does not succeed in establishing an agreement about the city market, he accuses Onias of withholding temple treasures from taxation (2 Mace. 3.6; 4.1). This 'slander' certainly contrasts Onias's reputation of being pious and honoured even by 'Seleucus king of Asia' (IV Philopator 187-175), which in 2 Maccabees helps settle the matter in a peaceful way (4.1-7). When the king dies, however, Onias's brother Jason takes advantage of the situation and, promising King Antiochus IV Epiphanes a huge sum of money, he obtains the priesthood through bribery (4.7-9). Jason introduces Hellenistic customs and leads both the people and the priests astray (4.10-15).128 Since it had become customreflecting the Nehemiah model and mine that Josephus is using the Nehemiah material here. 127. LXX reads 'tribe of Benjamin', which probably is incorrect. Bilga is preserved in Vet. Lat. and Armenian versions, and m. Suk. 5.8 condemns the tribe of Bilga forever from serving at the altar. See M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism (repr.; London: Xpress Reprints, 1996 [1981]), p. 270. 128. This Hellenization of Jerusalem seems not have been due to any asserted

4. Samaritans in Jewish, Christian and Hellenistic Literature 167 ary to buy the priestly office, Menelaus takes advantage of being sent by Jason to the king with 'the money and to complete the records of essential business' (4.23). Outbidding Jason with three hundred talents of silver, he obtains the high priesthood 'without any qualification for the high priesthood, but having the hot temper of a cruel tyrant and the rage of a a savage wild beast' (4.25). Menelaus's 'rule' from 172 to 162 BCE is marked by cruelty and corruption. With the aid of his brother Lysimachus and also his co-conspirator Andronicus (a general in the army of Antiochus), he robs the temple of its treasures and has Onias killed in Daphne near Antioch when he objects to the robbery.129 Summoned to the king because of these matters, he bribes Ptolemy son of Dorymenes to persuade the king to acquit him of the charges against him (4.45-50). Succeeding in doing so, he continues in the office. Jason, however, who had fled to the country of the Ammonites, had not given up hopes of regaining the priesthood. When false rumours arise that Antiochus has died in Egypt, he hastens to Jerusalem with a small army, makes a quick assault on the city and forces Menelaus to fly to the citadel. When Jason, however, continues to slaughter his fellow citizens, his fortune is reversed. He is driven back and the result is a miserable ending. For the city and for the Jews, the event becomes a catastrophe. Antiochus, who thinks that Jason is leading a general uprising, returns furiously. Aided by Menelaus, he massacres the population and defiles the temple and (not mentioned in 2 Mace.) withdraws the city's polls privileges. In practice, this meant that the city came under Seleucid political and religious administration. As a consequence of this constitutional change he instates governors to afflict the people at Jerusalem and at Gerizim. In Jerusalem the governor is a Phrygian named Philip. At Gerizim, it is the aforementioned Andronicus.
(Schiirer, History of the Jewish People, I, pp. 147-48) increase of Antiochus's Hellenizing policy, which can not be supported in general (Grabbe, Judaism, I, pp. 24849), but coincides with Antiochus's rule only because of Jason's appointment and his application for Jerusalem to become a Greek polis (2 Mace. 4.9), a status that the city held until 168 BCE. Hellenization, as such, seems not to have caused any great concern for the Jewish population, and it was not until Menelaus and his associates' plundering of the temple treasures that the people rioted (cf. Grabbe, Judaism, pp. 280-81). 129. Who does not fly to Egypt as in Josephus's version (Ant. 12.387), building the temple in Heliopolis. In 2 Mace. 4.33 he flies to Daphne at Antioch where he is murdered. Jason, however, flies to the Lacedaemonians, but is shipwrecked and is cast ashore in Egypt (2 Mace. 5.9).


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Menelaus lorded over 'his fellow citizens worse than the others'. This equalization of Gerizim and Jerusalem130 is given further weight when the king sends an Athenian senator to compel the Jews to forsake the laws of God and to pollute the temple in Jerusalem and call it the temple of Olympian Zeus, as well as to call the one in Gerizim the temple of Zeus, the friend of strangers, as is appropriate to the people living there. Contrary to Greek and Latin authors,131 the author of 2 Maccabees had knowledge of a Jewish cult at Gerizim, and, contrary to what we are wont to think, this author seems not to be burdened with any knowledge of cult centralization, apostate Jews or, and perhaps of greatest importance, any Hellenization of Samaritans in contrast to Jews. Nor is any assumed anti-Hasmonaean attitude among Samaritans inherent in 2 Maccabees. Should 1 Mace. 3.10 imply such polemic, this has not found its way into the parallel stories of 2 Mace. 5.24. Those responsible for the opposition are the high priests Menelaus (5.23; 13.3-4) and Alcimus (14.3-11). This rendering is found also in 1 Maccabees, which does not mention Gerizim and does not bring any Menelaus tradition or any stories about struggles among the priests. The high priest Alcimus is mentioned because he seeks to obtain the high priesthood together with lawless and godless men from Israel (cf. 2. Mace. 13.1-8; 1 Mace. 7.5-25; 9.1, 54-57). Because he is of the line of Aaron, the Hasidim support him though in vainas he betrayed their thrust and had 60 of them killed in one day (1 Mace. 7.12-16). Now a pattern begins to emerge. The ungodly and lawless rulers, leading up to the rule of the Hasmonaeans, are not Seleucids. They are faithless priests. They exploited political circumstances for personal purposes. After having killed the only pious and legally elected priest (Onias III), no high priest lived up to the requirements and expectations of the office. The accusations do not involve genealogy, but conduct. They all are Aaronides rallying around the temple in Jerusalem, but they certainly are not the 'sons of righteousness', the bene sadoq. Albeit part of the DSS belongs to a later period, we can state that this is much to the point of their ideology. As

130. 2 Mace. 14.13: 'the main sanctuary' (TOU (leyicyiov tepo-u); perhaps we are dealing with a ranking order. 131. See further below, 'Jews, Conflicts and Reputation'.

4. Samaritans in Jewish, Christian and Hellenistic Literature 169 pointed out by J. Liver,132 it was not genealogy, 'priestly lineage, but personal acts and outlook' that caused the sectarian wrath. Habakkuk pesher (IQpHab 8.9-10) certainly gives wonderful illustration of this disappointment, when it states that the wicked priest 'was called by the name of truth at the beginning of his coming. However when he ruled over Israel his heart became conceited, he deserted God and betrayed the laws for the sake of riches'.133 It must not go unnoticed that the accuser 'whom God has disclosed all the mysteries of the words of his servants, the prophets' (IQpHab 7.4) is not a priest but a teacher who is said to be righteous, pl^H miQ. What is important to remember in this connection is that neither does Josephus support any assertions of priestly conflicts in the pre-Hasmonaean and Hasmonaean period which can be related to what scholarship has brought forward of 'source material' to prove that these led to the formation of Jewish communities in either Qumran or Samaria.134 In Josephus's writings, the conflicts led to the building of the temple in Heliopolis! Ant. 20.238's vague expression, KaGiatdoiv, which in LCL is translated 'resumed the tradition', gives no certainty about whether he is referring to the office or to the lineage. Some hints may lay behind his statement that the office was vacant for seven years after Jacimus/ Alcimus until the appointment of Jonathan in 152 BCE and that Herod appoints priests who are not of 'the family of the Hasmonaens' (20.247).

132. Liver, ' "Sons of Zadok"', p. 29: 'Judean Desert writings moreover, whilst containing severe recriminations against the priests of Jerusalem headed by the wicked priest, contain no deprecatory statements on the issue of usurpation of high priestly authority.' 133. See Chapter 6 for a further discussion about a possible historical background. 134. E.g. E. Qimron, '4QMMT, DID, X, pp. 120-21, who understood the utterance in IQpHab as a reaction against the usurpation of the high priesthood. Kippenberg, Garizim und Synagoge, p. 92: 'Die samaritanische Sekte scheint im wesentlichen im 2Jh.v.Chr. konstituert zu haben. Getragen wurde sie von israelitischen Priestern, die sich als Eleasar-Sohne verstanden und Zadokiten, Eliden und Leviten die Hohepriesterwiirde absprachen. Wahrend des 3Jh.v.Chr.scheint die Rivalitat zweier Priesterschaften in Sichem und in Jerusalem noch nicht als endgiiltige antitese verstanden worden zu sein. Erst im 2Jh.v.Chr., als die Jerusalemer Hohenpriestersukzession zerbrach, entstand Streit iiber den legitimen Kult. Jetzt beim Zerbrechen des einst einigen Israels, fu'hlen sich die Samar. veranlasst, ihre Hohepriestesukzession darzulegen und ihre heilige Schrift zu kanonisieren.'


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

This may put them in conflict with the 'blood of Aaron' prereqisite for the priesthood in Ant. 20.226. Contrary to this, Josephus (in Ant 12.414) relates that Judas was given the high priesthood by the people after Alcimus's death who had had the office for four years (around 166-160 BCE).135 Antiquities 12.387 states that Alcimus is not of the high priestly lineage, but was instated in the office by Lysias, who aimed at transferring the office to another house (eic; eiepov OIKOV), and that Onias (IV), who should have inherited the office, fled to Egypt and built the temple in Heliopolis (12.388). These circumstances are denied in Ant. 20.235, where Alcimus is said to be of Aaron's line but not of the family of Onias, son of Onias, who is here said to be a nephew of Onias/Menelaus, put to death at Beroea (cf. Ant. 12.385; 2 Mace. 13.5). Indirectly, Josephus gives us reason to believe that there was no high priest before Jonathan, and that the legitimate high priest had escaped to Egypt without leaving any successor in Jerusalem. Josephus's summary of the events leading up to the Hasmonaean uprising in War 1.31-32 could support such a hypothesis. The political disagreements in regard to pro-Ptolemaic and pro-Seleucid elements are related to the inner circles in Jerusalem, personified by Onias, 'one of the high priests', who had expelled the Tobiads from the temple. These, however, fled to Antiochus and requested him to invade Judaea. With a huge army, he took the city by assault, killed a large number of Ptolemy's followers, pillaged the city and the temple and interrupted the daily sacrifices for three years and six months. Onias, fleeing to Ptolemy in Egypt, obtained a site in the nome of Heliopolis to build a temple resembling Jerusalem's. This certainly raises some questions about the 'true' temple and the succession of priests that Josephus ascribed to the Judaean-Samaritan conflict. They might more correctly be attributed to a Judaean-Egyptian conflict. Or is Heliopolis in fact Samaria? or vice versa? I will deal with this question in the next chapter.

135. This tradition must be based on 2 Mace. 14.26, which relates that Alcimus conspired against Nicanor, who had the goodwill of Judas Maccabeus, whom he had appointed as the successor of Alcimus. This tradition is not related in 1 Mace. 9.54-57, which places the death of Judas before Alcimus's decease (cf. 1 Mace. 9.17) and does not mention any high priest before the appointment of Jonathan in 153-152 BCE (cf. 1 Mace. 10.21).

4. Samaritans in Jewish, Christian and Hellenistic Literature 171

Jews, Conflicts and Reputation The first known reference to Jews ('Io\)a8dioi) in Greek literature is found in the writings of Theophrastus (372-288/7 BCE).136 He strongly disapproves of the Jewish practice of sacrificing holocausts without eating them. The sacrifice, according to his opinion, serves a mystic purpose, taking place at night and ending before dawn. The participants 'being philosophers by race converse with each other about the deity, and at night time they make observations of the stars, gazing at them and calling on God by prayer'. The Syrians, 'of whom the Jews constitute a part, also now sacrifice live victims according to their old mode of sacrifice'. It is a moot point whether Theophrastus in fact includes the Jews in this practice. If so, then we must conclude that for Theophrastus Jews did not deviate from what he asserted to be the customs of the Syrian population as a whole. The text does not mention temple, sabbath or Samaritans. While the information about Jews increases and becomes more 'correct' and in accord with biblical scholarship's estimation of Judaism based on parts of the Old Testament the closer we come to the common era, the Judaism presented in literature is a Judaism centred around Jerusalem and displaying considerable deviations in customs compared to surrounding peoples. This is just the more remarkable since references to Yahweh in the Iron Age relate to Samaria, Edom Hamat and Midian, and the first certain West Semitic reference to Yahweh is found on the Mesha stele dating to the eighth century BCE. Yahweh is here named the god of the Israelites who held Nebo, situated in northwestern Moab. Since Nebo is a border town, it has been conjectured that Yahweh was worshipped throughout Samaria as far as its outer borders. The Kuntillet Ajrud inscription's mention of Yahweh Shomron and Yahweh Teman mentions the northern Yahweh with the southern in the same text, and onomastica from greater Palestine give evidence that

136. In Herodotus, the Palestinian population is named Syrians and Phoenicians, and although he mentions the battle of Megiddo he does not use the term loudaioi. See, M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (3 vols.; Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974-84), for more details of this discussion and of Theophrastus's eventual 'sources'. The usual translation 'Jews' might not be quite fit in all instances because of its religious connotation, which does not regard its ethnic or geographic nuances.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Yahweh and El as theophoric elements in personal names are by far the most common divine names used in the region. Not only in the already mentioned areas but also in Judaea their representation in the eighth to seventh century is about 80 per cent according to Tigay.137 This does not reflect the monotheistic Yahwism of the Bible but represents a polytheistic Yahwism, mixed with other deities, which in a lot of instances is hard to separate from other forms of local deity worship.138 The same can be said of the 'Jewish' population in Elephantine in the fifth century BCE, who not only call themselves Jews but also Aramaeans and 'Sidonians', and the majority of whose names are Yah wistnames at times containing Egyptian elements, as well as names of other deities. Elephantine pap. 31-33 mention a Yahweh cult outside of Jerusalem, and although they do not seem to know how to celebrate the Pesach (cf. pap. 21), some elements known from biblical Judaism are mentioned in the letter to the governors of Judaea and Samaria concerning the rebuilding of the destroyed Yahweh temple. This temple was built 'in the days of old' and avoided destruction during Cambyses' campaign in which 'they knocked down all the temples of the gods of Egypt'. After the destruction, the Jews at Elephantine wore sackcloth, fasted and prayed to Yaho, lord of Heaven for revenge over the commander-inchief Vidarang, who had conspired with the Egyptian priests to have the Jewish temple in Elephantine destroyed. Furthermore, the Jewssince the day of the destructiondid not have sexual intercourse, anoint themselves, drink wine or offer meal-offering, incense or burnt offerings. A former letter sent to 'the high priest Yohanan and his colleagues, the priests in Jerusalem and to Ostanes, the brother of Anani and the nobles of the Jews' was not answered (pap. 31). The memorandum (pap. 32) from the Judaean governor Bagoas and the Samaritan governor Delaih, son of Sanballat, advises the Jews in Elephantine to 'say before Arsames about the house of offering of the God of Heaven' asking for the temple to be rebuilt on its site 'as it was
137. J.H. Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods: Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew Inscriptions (HSM, 31; Atlanta, CA: Scholars Press, 1986). 138. K. van der Toorn et al. (eds.), 'Yahweh', in idem, Dictionary of Deities and Demons (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995), p. 171: 'A number of texts suggests that Yahweh was worshipped in southern Edom and Midian before his cult spread to Palestine. There are two Egyptian texts that mention the name Yahweh. In these texts from the 14th and 13th centuries BCE, the name Yahweh is neither connected with Israelites, nor is his cult located in Palestine.'

4. Samaritans in Jewish, Christian and Hellenistic Literature 173 before, and the meal offering and incense to be made on its altar as it used to be'. A fragment of the request for assistance in the rebuilding of the temple (pap. 33) is usually considered to give evidence for the cult centralization and its placement in Jerusalem, because the request points out that 'n[o] sheep, goat or ox are offered there as burnt offering, but (only) incense, meal offering and [drink-offering]'.139 H.L. Ginsberg,140 in a clarifying note to this statement, argues that 'the Mazdean Arsames was likely to react more favourably if no mention was made of burnt offering, since it involved the profaning of fire by contact with dead bodies'. This, however, seems to be contradictory to the letter of complaint (pap. 31), which states that
in the month of Tammuz in the 14th year of King Darius (410 BCE), when Arsames departed and went to the king, the priests of the god Khnub, who is in the fortress of Elephantine, conspired with Vidarang, who was commander in chief here, to wipe out the temple of the god Yahu from the fortress of Elephantine.

139. Kippenberg, Garizim und Synagoge, p. 43, sees the correspondence as reflecting strives in the temple in Jerusalem, represented by Bagoas and his brother Yochanan (cf. Ant. 11.298-99): 'Bagoses habe ein Bruder des Johannes (Johanan), Jesus mit Nahmen, versprochen, ihm das Hohepriesteramt zu verschaffen. Doch bei einem Streit habe Johanan sein Bruder erschlagen (K. Galling, Bagoas 164f. Eine Genaue Analyse des Textes bei R. Marcus, Josephus VI. App. B: Josephus on the Samaritan Schism 498ff.). Dieser Johanan war zugleich der Bruder des von Nehemia vertriebene Schweigersohns von Sanballat. Die Notiz des Josephus macht also offenbar, dass es am Ende des 5Jh. im Jerusalemer Tempel weiter rivalisierende Priestergruppen gab. Wahrend die eine Gruppe schroof an der Einzigkeit des Jerusalemer Tempels festhielt und jede Koexistens mit Nicht-Juden ablehnte, scheint eine andere Gruppe auf ein Zusammenleben mit anderen Kulten und Nichtjudischen Politikern hingearbeitet zu haben.' This seems to be an over-interpretation of the material. The papyri reflect the religious situation in Palestine only indirectly. The Jews in Elephantine are not seeking permission, but support of their rebuilding of the temple. The letter presented is not sent to the priesthood in either Jerusalem or Gerizim but to Persian officials in Judaea (Bagoas) and in Samaria (Delaiah and Shelemiah). The letter sent to the priesthood is lost. We do not know its content or the reason it has not been answered. However, it is not the priests who advise about the burnt offerings, and we certainly are far better off in following Cowley's conclusion, cf. Aram. Pap., p. 124: 'Animal sacrifice was not to be offered, whether out of consideration for Persian or Egyptian feeling.' Finally we need to be aware of the material's fragmentary character and give credit for the insecurity of the reading. 140. ANET, p. 492.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

This Arsames, who was an Egyptian satrap, seems to have been responsible for the Jewish garrison there, since in 419, according to pap. 21, King Darius gives him commission to 'authorize a festival of unleavened bread for the Jewish garrison'. 141 It thus seems unlikely that Arsames would be a person who would not accept holocausts. Since we have no answer from the Jewish clergy, about whom we only know that they did not answer a former letter, it can only be conjectured that the reason should be related to cult centralization and prohibition of offerings outside of Jerusalem. The possibility that the Jewish and Samaritan governors are expressing their own dislikes is incompatible with the Persian policy of religious tolerance, which also seems to have been authoritative for the Jewish garrison in Elephantine. According to pap. 88, the Egyptians themselves offered burnt offerings, as Strabo's account about Heliopolis also clearly shows. It could hardly be the offerings as such that creates the problem. If we, however, turn to Hellenistic literature from about 300 BCE and later, we might catch some glimpses of why offerings have anything to do with the rebuilding of the temple as well as of why it was destroyed in the first place. Hecataeus of Abdera (around 300 BCE), whose works are known from Diodorus Sicculus (around 100 BCE) and from Josephus, who dates Hecataeus to be later than the war between Ptolemy and Demetrius near Gaza in the 117th Olympiad (312 BCE, see Apion 184), is describing a Judaism that in several instances is similar to what we find in the Old Testament, although Moses is identified as the one who built both Jerusalem and the temple.142 According to Hecataeus, the Jews

141. The text is fairly corrupt and the reading is construed on the basis of its content as such and the finding of two ostraca containing the word FIOD. 142. Scholars usually agree on the genuineness of the texts found in Diodorus Sicculus, Biblioteca Historica, from where this description of 'the Jews' is taken. On the contrary, the citations of Hecataeus in Josephus, Apion 1.183-204, is accepted with great reservation (see M. Stern, The Jews in Greek and Latin Literature', in S. Safrai, M. Stern et al. [eds.], The Jewish People in the First Century, II [CRINT; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1976], pp. 1101-59). The argumentation is based on the observance of a more neutral description in Diodorus against Josephus's ideological description, which on one hand agrees pretty well with the respect for Judaism presented in works contemporary with Hecataeus (e.g. Theophrastus, Clearchus and Megastenes), so that 'scholars who argue against the authencity of sections of Hecataeus in the Against Apion admit that these sections are very sober compared to the usual Pseudepigraphic works of the day', but on the other hand

4. Samaritans in Jewish, Christian and Hellenistic Literature 175 were among the foreign people who were driven out of Egypt because of a certain pestilence that the Egyptians thought had been caused by the presence of 'strangers of all sorts dwelling in their midst and practising different rites of religion and sacrifice', and in fact threatening the traditional observances of the Egyptians. Hecataeus does not mention any biblical exodus, passing over the red sea, wandering in the desert, conquest or Joshua. The area the greater number were driven into, 'which is now called Judaea', was 'at that time utterly uninhabited'. Mentioned are Temple worship, the laws, political institutions, the 12 tribes are mentioned and the prohibition against images of the gods, being of the opinion that 'God is not in human form. 'Rather the Heaven that surrounds the earth [TOV Tiepiexovia TT\V yfjv] is alone divine [Oeov], and rules the universe.' Hecataeus, like Theophrastus before him, makes mention of the sacrifices' deviation from 'those of other nations, as does their way of living'. Because of 'their own expulsion from Egypt, he [Moses] introduced an asocial and intolerant mode of life'. Organized as a theocracy in which the priests (men of most refinement and with the greatest ability) also are appointed judges, and the high priest (dpxiepea) as the supreme head of the nation, who is considered to be the mediator (dyyeXov) of god's messengers (TCOV TOIJ 6eo\) Tipooiayumcov), and with the people ranking lowest as those who totally obey the words, which are said to have been given by god to Moses. There certainly is much here that is recognizable from the 'EzraNehemiah model'. Regardless of the biblical stories' exact historicity on this matter, they have in common the authority behind the Law and the god to be worshipped. Elephantine pap. 31 asks for support in the rebuilding of the destroyed Yahu temple for Ya'u, the lord of Heaven, ^Qtf) N""IQ IIT.143 This 'representative' of Persian religious and political authority in Egypt as well, as in other conquered areas, stood under Persian protection and was supportive of the Persian occupation in

seems to be somewhat elaborated especially in its description of the destruction of heathen altars in Judaea. 143. H. Niehr, Der hochste Gott: Alttestamentliche JHWH-Glaube in Kontext syrisch-kanaanaischer Religion des l.Jahrtausend v.Chr. (BZAW, 190; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1990), pp. 43-60, about the relationship between Baalshamem and Elohe hashamayim. The discussion has no importance for this exegesis, which aims to analyse texts that employ the term and relate to Persian authority.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Egypt also.144 No wonder the Egyptians took advantage of the absence of the political representative.145 A similar political-religious demonstration of power could be underlying the Ezra-Nehemiah reform. King Cyrus's edict in Ezra 1.2 opens with the statement that 'Yahweh Elohe ha-Shamayim [TI^K mil1' D'Q&n]146 has given me all the kingdoms of the world and he has
144. G.W. Ahlstrom, The History of Ancient Palestine from the Paleolithic Period to Alexander's Conquest (JSOTSup, 146; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), pp. 842-43. Ahlstrom sees Shezbassar (pp. 837-39) and Ezra and Nehemiah (pp. 821-22) as Persian authorities, who did not belong to the local population in Judaea and Jerusalem, but were appointed by the Persian administration. J.M. Halligan, in 'Unsolved Mysteries: The Second Temple', a paper given at SBL in Dublin 1996, made similar suggestions according to the lists of people and their possibility of maintaining the building of the temple: Thus this hadru-like corporate body, the bene haggolah, was the land-holding, tax-paying, and no doubt the military-supplying group in Achemenid Yehud... Recalling the perspective that Persia engaged in the strategy of rebuilding temples for the purpose of restoring market-centers it is clear for the moment that renewing cults was not the primary target. Indeed, the prospect of rebuilding an international chain of lucrative market-centers, all under Persian command, was the most attractive prize of the Achemenid conquest.' Cf. J. Blenkinsopp, Temple Society in Achemenid Judah', inP.R. Davies, (ed.), Second Temple Studies (JSOTSup, 117; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), pp. 22-53: 'As an essential element of the establishment of a viable policy in the province, and again in keeping with the well-attested Achemenid practice, the imperial government mandated, rather than permitted, the rebuilding of the temple and financed the project out of the imperial and satrapy treasury. The result was the emergence, in the early decades of Achemenid rule, of a semi-autonomous temple-community controlled by the dominant stratum of Babylonian immigrants, the bene-haggola of Ezra-Nehemiah.' See M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, p. 15, for the existence of such a colony in Ammonitis, as representative of the Persian government. Cf. also Elephantine pap. 21 for a possible institution of the Jewish passover in Elephantine. b. Sank. 21b might refer to this tradition in its statement that 'the Law was first given to Israel in Hebrew. In the time of Ezra it was given anew and Israel chose Aramaic. Leaving it to the locals, 'am haaretz. (the idiots) to use Hebrew. R. Hisda called these locals kutim. Some of the Church Fathers knew this tradition.' Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 281 n. 25: 'Origin, ed. Migne, xii, col. 1104; Jerome, Prol. galeat., M. xxviii, 593; Epiphanius, De XII gemmis 63'. That rabbinic tradition ascribes to the Cuthaeans the genuine Law might explain their differences, if Ezra's Aramaic Law was a rewriting of the Pentateuch. 145. Diodorus Siculus 17.49-51 tells that the Egyptians hated the Persians and welcomed Alexander the Great as liberator. 146. In the following the transliteration will be used so that readers who do not read Hebrew can follow the argument.

4. Samaritans in Jewish, Christian and Hellenistic Literature 111 charged me to build him a house in Jerusalem which is in Judaea.' After having overcome the opposition's delaying of the building plans and resumed the work after the intervention of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, during which events there is no mention of >elohe haSdmayim, the connection is established again in the letter to King Darius, in Ezra 5.11-12, where the Jews call themselves 'servants of 'eld $emdyd wear'd (Aramaic) who are 'rebuilding the house that was built many years ago, which a great king of Israel built and finished. But because our fathers had angered 'eld $emdya he gave them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar'. This is the more remarkable since the chapters dealing with the delay of the building activities do not use this name or refer to the authority represented by it. The resumption of the building is supplied with royal protection and in Ezra 6.6-10 the governors Tattenaj, Shetar-Bozenaj and their associates are ordered to pay from the royal revenue
young bulls, rams or sheep for burnt offerings to 'eld $emaya: wheat, salt, wine, or oil, as the priests in Jerusalem requirelet that be given to them day by day without fail, that they may offer pleasing sacrifices to 'eld $emdya, and pray for the life of the king and his sons (Ezra 6.9-10).

The absence of >elohe ha-Sdmayim in the story about the inauguration of the temple in Ezra 6.16-22, which uses the same terminology as in the chapters dealing with the delay of the building activities: bet hd'elohim, >elohe-yisrd'el, might be understood as a substitution of >elohe ha-sdmayim for 'elohe-yisrd'el (Ezra 6.22). Another possibility is to see Ezra 6.22 as a contrast to 1.2 and a demonstration of the success of the rebellious people in Ezra 4.13, who ended up building a house to the god of Israel.147 Both possibilities are implied in the reforms of
147. Th.M. Bolin, 'The Temple of Yahu at Elephantine and Persian Religious Policy', in D.V. Edelman (ed.), The Triumph of Elohim (Kampen: Kok, 1995), pp. 127-44 (128), argued that the Jews in Elephantine used a fitting term when they addressed matters to Persian authorities and that the equalization between Yahu/ Yahweh and the supreme Persian god Ahura Mazda was the same as Elah Shamayah in official documents, and had nothing to do with theological considerations 'but like Persian policy itself, is to be attributed to matters of political expediency'. The argument conflicts with various conditions; (1) Ezra's and Nehemiah's connection with Elohe ha-Shamayim and their incorporation in the biblical material; (2) Ezra's connection with Torat Moshe in both biblical and rabbinical literature, whose god explicitly is Yahweh and who holds Elohe ha-Shamayim implicit


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Ezra. In the first case the new community would demand an education in the law of 'eld $emdyd in which the priest and the scribe Ezra is trained according to the Persian decree (Ezra 7.12-26, esp. vv. 12, 21) and that seems to be totally unknown to the people, although it is named the Law of Moses (n2JQ min) and is given by Yhwh- 'eloheyisrd'el in the introduction to this decree (Ezra 7.6). In the second case, the religious practice had to be corrected involving considerable reprisals for those who did not obey (Ezra 10.8).148 Also the god of Nehemiah is >elohe ha-Sdmayim, to whom he prays three times (Neh. 1.4, 5; 2.4), and to whom he refers in his answer to Sanballat, Tobiah and Geshem's questions of whether he had been rebelling against the king (Neh. 2.20). And he replied to them, 'Elohe ha-Shamayim will make us prosper, and we his servants will arise and build; but you have no portion or right or memorial in Jerusalem'. Notice here the echo of Ezra 4.3. These references to 'elohe ha-Mmayim must be read on the background of the few occurrences of the term in the Old Testament and the Apocrypha: Gen. 24.3, 7; Jon. 1.9, where he confesses that he is a Hebrew, fearing >elohe ha-Mmayim who created the sea and the dry land'; 2 Chron. 36.23; Ps. 136.26: 'el ha-Sdmayim; Greek equivalent in Jdt. 5.8; 6.19; 11.7; Tob. 6.18; 7.13; 8.15; 10.11.149 The occurrence of Hecataeus's mention of the strange Jewish people in Diodorus Sicculus might not be a matter of simple coincidence.150 In

in, e.g., Gen. 1.1; (3) Hecataeus of Abdera's utterance 'rather the Heaven that surrounds the earth is alone divine, and rules the universe'. It thus seems more reasonable to assume that the Yahweh worship became a part of Persian religion in a transformation of Yahweh to the inclusive monotheism of Persian religion, which is here given local expression. Elephantine could testify to such a process of development. Cf. also Th.L. Thompson, The Intellectual Matrix of Early Biblical Narrative: Inclusive Monotheism in Persian Period Palestine', in D.V. Edelman (ed.), The Triumph ofElohim (Kampen: Kok, 1995), pp. 107-26. 148. Ahlstrom, Ancient Palestine, pp. 857, 886-88. 149. H. Niehr, 'God of Heaven', in Van der Toorn et al. (eds.), Deities and Demons, pp. 702-705; Niehr, Derhochste Gott, pp. 49-51. 150. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, I, p. 20: 'It is noteworthy that there is a conspicious difference between the "Jewish chapter" in the fortieth book of Diodorus, where the Jews appear as foreigners expelled from Egypt, and the first book of Diodorus, where a voluntary emigration of Jews, who were originally Egyptians, is implied. Cf. also F. Gr. His. Ilia, p. 50.'

4. Samaritans in Jewish, Christian and Hellenistic Literature 179 Diodorus's account,151 he exposes the same animosity about the Jewish race about whom he states that Antiocus Sidetes was exhorted during the siege of Jerusalem to storm the city and 'wipe out completely the race of the Jews, since they alone of all nations avoided dealings with any other people and looked upon all men as their enemies'. It is also stated that the ancestors of the Jews ('Io\)8dioi) had been driven out from Egypt 'as men who were impious and detested by the gods'.152 That we are dealing here with propagandistic material can be seen from the continuation that relates that the Egyptians gathered all persons who had white or leprous marks on their bodies and drove them across the border.
The refugees occupied the territory round about Jerusalem and having organized the nation of the Jews had made their hatred of mankind into a tradition and on this account had introduced utterly outlandish laws (vo|iiva TtavTeXcoq e^nAAayueva): not to break bread with any other race, nor to show them any good will at all.

Adding to these accusations, Antiochus Sidetes was also reminded of how his predecessor Antiochus Epiphanes, in the innermost sanctuary of the temple, had found Moses riding on an ass,153 with that book in his hands that contained the xenophobic laws, and how Antiochus Epiphanes 'shocked by such hatred directed against all mankind, had set himself to break down their traditional practices'. Offering swine on the altar in front of the 'image of the founder,' he ordered 'that their holy books containing the xenophobic laws should be sprinkled with the broth of the meat'. Antiochus Sidetes, however, probably found it more profitable to exact a double tribute, dismantle the walls and take hostages instead of following his friends' pressure 'to make an end of the race completely'. This act, which, in Diodorus Sicculus characterized him as 'magnanimous and mild-mannered', in Josephus supplied him with the surname 'the Just' (Ant. 13.244). As mentioned above, Jews seem be centred in later texts around Jerusalem. Agatharcides of Cnidus (around 200 BCE)154 tells that
151. Bibliotheca Historica, 34-35. 1.1-5; (cf. also Josephus, Ant. 13.8.2; 1 Mace. 15-16). 152. Diodorus is here influenced by the anti-Jewish literature emanating from Manetho's history work and traceable in Egytian and Greek literature from the third century BCE (cf. Stern, 'Jews in Greek and Latin Literature', pp. 1111-16). 153. Apion 2.112-14. 154. Apion 1.205-11 with a shorter version in Ant. 12.5-7.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

the people known as Jews, who inhabit the most strongly fortified of cities, called by the natives Jerusalem, have a custom of abstaining from work every seventh day; on those occasions they neither bear arms nor take any agricultural operations in hand, nor engage in any other form of public service, but pray with outstretched hands in the temples [ev Tolq iepoic;] until the evening.

This led to Ptolemy son of Lagus's155 attack on the city on a sabbath and loss of independence. 'That lesson has taught the whole world, except that nation, the lesson not to resort to dreams and traditional fancies about the law, until the difficulties are such as to baffle human reason.' This critique of the sabbath observation also becomes a current theme and a sort of stock motif in non-Jewish literature in the Roman era. Not only Ptolemy Soter but also Antiochus IV and Pompey are said to have besieged the city on the sabbath day, taking advantage of the Jewish population's lack of defence. Nicolaus of Damascus (c. 64 BCE to the beginning of the first century CE) similarly considers the Jews to inhabit Judaea, which previously was called Canaan. Strabo of Amasia156 relates that Moses, one of the 'Aegyptian' priests, who had held a part of Lower Egypt, led not a few thoughtful men, who believed in his teaching about the Divine Being to a place 'where the settlement of Jerusalem now is'. It is noteworthy that although Strabo157 mentions Samaria together with Idumea, which after the conquest of the Idumaeans (who are said to be Nabataeans) 'joined the Judaeans and shared in the same customs with them', he does not
155. If this is correct then we here have a testimony of strict sabbath observations as early as the end of the fourth century. According to Josephus (Ant. 12.3), Ptolemy was at that time called Soter, a title he seems to have got between 308-306 BCE. However, according to Nodet (Origins of Judaism, Ch. 2), Josephus might have altered his quotation of Agatharchides to fit his purpose of demonstrating the antiquity of this sabbath observation, probably not established before the Hasmonaean period. It is noteworthy that Josephus's conclusion of the attack in Ant. 12.7 (based on Aristeas 13) was a deportation of 'many captives both from the hill country of Judaea and the district round Jerusalem and from Samaria and those on Egypt and settled there'. 156. Strabo's description of Jews is found in Geographia, Books 16 (and 17). His information mostly derives from his knowledge of diaspora Jews, and he probably never visited Palestine. In Historica Hypomnemata, Strabo described the history from Antiochus IV to the execution of Antigonus in the time of Antonius, around 37 BCE. Only fragments of this book have survived, scattered in, e.g., Josephus's Antiquities, esp. Books 13 and 14. 157. Geog., 16.2.34-46.

4. Samaritans in Jewish, Christian and Hellenistic Literature 181 reckon the inhabitants of Samaria, Galilee, Jericho or Philadelphia to belong to the Jewish stock. They consisted of mixed stocks of people from 'Aegyptian, Arabian and Phoenician tribes'. In contrast, the Judaeans living around the temple in Jerusalem, are said in most reports to be descendants of Egyptians led by Moses. In Josephus's 'citation' of Strabo in his account dealing with John Hyrcanus's campaign against Samaria, Strabo does not mention Jews in Samaria or the existence of a certain Judaism or any temple destruction. Neither does Strabo in his Geographica refer to Samaritans. The whole of the interior is called Judaea or Coele Syria and the population is Coele Syrians, Syrians and Phoenicians mixed with Judaeans, Gazaeans and Ashdodites.158 As can be seen from this brief survey, Judaism, in the eyes of its nonPalestinian neighbours, seems not to have been a widespread religious movement comprising the whole of Palestine, or to have had a continuous history as often is presumed to be presented in the Old Testament, before Josephus wrote his Antiquities and, in Against Apion, made corrections to the various erroneous perceptions about Jews and Judaism. If references should be made to a more widespread Judaism, those are related to religious practices that the Jews shared with the Syrians, probably in the fifth-fourth century BCE (Theophrastus) or to diaspora Judaism in the second-first century BCE to the first century CE, centred around Alexandria, Heliopolis, (Damascus) and Cyprus. While the early Greek authors show a good deal of respect (although mixed with astonishment) for 'Jewish' customs, the accusations of superstition, assworshipping, idleness because of the sabbath rules, and so on, increase remarkably from the second century BCE. It is notable that, while Hecataeus has knowledge of some of the Pentateuch traditions, it is not until the second century BCE that references are given to a monarchical period, and then primarily concerning Solomon, king of Jerusalem, for

158. Geog. 16.2.2. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, I, p. 287 n.: 'this view on ethnoi reflects a situation that existed before the twenties of the second century BCE, since afterwards the Idumeans merged into the Jewish nation. As to Azotus (Ashdod), it constituted an important administrative centre in the Assyrian, Persian and Hellenistic periods. It was also one of the bases for military operations against Judaea in the time of the Hasmonaean revolt. It cannot be stated positively when it was annexed by the Hasmonaeans to Judaea, but it seems that it happened under John Hyrcanus. Gaza was captured by Alexander Jannaeus around 96 BCE.'


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

example, in Menander of Ephesos, Dius, Theophilus159 and Laetus.160 Nicolaus of Damascus is the first non-Jewish writer who refers to David.161 This of course is an argument ex silentio since we only have what has come down to us and the material seems to suffer some interdependency. Lack of references to factional conflicts within Judaism, the building of a Samaritan temple and later destruction of the very same might be due to lack of literary sources about such events. This 'lack', however, is demonstrably confirmed in the writings of Josephus, which not only correct non-Jewish but certainly also Jewish misconceptions. The problems of finding evidence in support of Josephus's corrections and efforts of placing Samaritans in a heretical context has become crucial for the establishment of a history of the Samaritans. That Josephus gives voice to an anti-Samaritanism of his own day can be forcefully stated. The ambiguity, however, of second century's placement of Samaritans within Judaism (Letter of Aristeas; 2 Maccabees) and outside of Judaism (the Old Testament evidence; Ben Sira; DSS) cannot be solved on the basis of non-Jewish sources in reference to a Jerusalem-centred Judaism. The most that can be said is that this 'Nehemiah' Judaism seems to have flourished in the third-second century BCE and that other Judaisms had to submit to it. By and large this is exactly what all our sources tell us, including Josephus's various stories about Samaritans, which we now will proceed to examine.

159. Who all speak about Solomon's relationship to King Hinum of Tyre. 160. Who is the first to mention the building of a temple by Solomon. 161. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, I, p. 236.


General Introduction to Josephus's Works Flavius Josephus, or Joseph ben Matthias, his name before he was adopted into court of the Roman emperor Vespasian after the first Jewish-Roman war (66-73/74 CE), was born in 37/38 CE. He was the son of one of the old priestly families of Jerusalem and probably a descendant of the Hasmonaeans from his mother's lineage. According to Josephus's own self-description in Life of Josephus, he had made remarkable progress early in his life in the knowledge of Jewish law and Greek literature. Presenting himself as having consulted the major schools of Jewish thought (Pharisees, Essenes and Sadducees), and spending three years with the desert hermit Banus (Life 11), he decided to follow the Pharisees 'a sect having points of resemblance to that which the Greek call the Stoic school' (Life 12). In 63-64 CE, at the age of 26, he went on an embassy to Rome. From that time, he seems to have had close connections to leading circles of Rome. Back in Palestine he claims he was forced by his own countrymen to take charge of Jewish troops in southern Galilee who surrendered to the Romans in 67 CE after the conquest of Jotapata. Josephus was taken prisoner by Vespasian, whom he accompanied shortly afterwards in 69-70 CE on a trip to Alexandria. Although Josephus does not mention it, it is quite possible that he acquired some knowledge of Philo's writings in Alexandria, judging from his treatment of the temple (Ant. 3.181-82) and the Law (Apion 2.190-219).J After the fall of Jerusalem, Josephus settled in Rome,
1. E.M. Smallwood ('Philo and Josephus as Historians of the Same Events', in L.H. Feldman and G. Hata [eds.], Josephus, Judaism and Christianity [Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987], pp. 114-28 [128]), sought to judge the reliability of both authors by comparison of common material. The examination does not explain the question of dependency. Josephus's assumed dependence on Philo, argued by Thackeray (LCL, 242 [1930], p. xiii) has been rejected by H.W. Attridge


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

where he obtained Roman citizenship. He was supported by Flavius, who provided him with a pension. His income was secured through land in the coastal plain of Judaea, given to him by Titus and Vespasian. He was thus free to maintain his literary skills of which Jewish War (75-79 CE), Antiquities of the Jews (93-94 CE) and Against Apion (around 100 CE) are the most substantial products. Life, written somewhat after Antiquities, deals mainly with Josephus's behaviour in the Galilaean uprising, supplemented with biographical notes before and after. Josephus died around 100 CE. H.W. Attridge2 has given an excellent discussion of the disagreements between Josephus's accounts in Life3 and War,4 relating Josephus's role as a military leader in the Jewish-Roman war in Galilee. Being interested in defending himself against accusations from the contemporary historiographer Justus of Tiberias of having acted in a tyrannical and dishonourable manner in the Galilee, he attempts to portray himself as a trustworthy leader of the Jewish people, free of any intention to betray the Galilaeans to the Romans. The 15-20-year time span between these works fully confirms the basic methodological rule of every historiographer: namely, that we know the present, but the past changes every day. This problem also shows itself, when we compare some of Josephus's stories in War with variants from his much later work, Antiquities, from the early nineties which in 20 books describes the Jewish 'history' from creation to the year 66 CE. Josephus's intention to write another history about the war after finishing Antiquities might have just such apologetic motivation.5

'Josephus and his Works', in M. Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (CRINT, 1; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984), pp. 185-232 (211). 2. Attridge, 'Josephus and his Works', pp. 187-92. 3. Composed as an appendix to Antiquities and probably written shortly after 94 CE as a defence against the critique of Josephus's actions in the Galilee during the Jewish war presented in Justus of Tiberias's work. This work is mostly known through Life. 4. Probably written in Rome between 75 and 79 CE and with a possible Aramaic edition in 70-71 CE, cf. War 1.3, 6. See the discussion in P. Bilde, Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome (JSOTSup, 2; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988), p. 79, who refers to Attridge, Feldman, Hata and Rajak. 5. Readers who have some interest in a different view of the issue and of Josephus's assumed apology in Life may consult Bilde, Flavius Josephus, pp. 43-52, 108-12.

5. Samaritans in the Writings ofJosephus


Jewish War This work begins with Antiochus IVth's siege of Jerusalem in 170-169 BCE. After a short description of events in the Hasmonaean period, it concentrates on the Herodian period and the Roman occupation up to the end of the first Jewish-Roman war in 74 CE. The book was given a certain importance in early Christian circles, because of its handling of the destruction of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem (Books 5 and 6). Favourable to the Roman leaders, especially the emperor's court, Josephus placed blame for the war entirely on the Jewish rebels, the Zealots and the Sicarii, led by John of Gischala (a rival of Josephus in the Galilee) and Simon bar Giora. Conflicting with the Jewish aristocracy as well as with each other, they both caused a severe famine and set the temple on fire after having plundered it, leaving the Roman soldiers to finish its destruction and that of the city in order to end the Jewish rebellion.6 It is no wonder that Josephus sought affirmation of his works from the highest authorities on both sides: King Agrippa II and the Emperor Titus,7 stressing that Titus was so anxious that 'my volumes should be the sole authority from which the world should learn the facts, that he affixed his own signature to them and gave orders for their publication' (Life 363ff.-Apion l.SOff.). Although Josephus put the blame on the Jewish leaders, he also gave some afterthought to fate's disfavour, and to divine control, which, in their own chronology, make things happen according to their destiny, as it happened when the first temple had been destroyed (cf. War 6.43542; 6.268; 6.288-315). This theme is well known from, for example, 2 Mace. 5.11-20 and the New Testament. In this perspective, Josephus's work also becomes a personal reflection, and the objective history

6. Bilde, Flavins Josephus, pp. 196-203. Attridge, 'Josephus and his Works', p. 232 n. 76: 'Note the citations of Josephus in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1:1-3:10, where the Jewish historian serves as Eusebius' main source for his tendentious anti-Jewish account of the political history of the first century. Eusebius relies heavily on the lurid accounts of Jewish suffering from the Jewish War in his discussion of the fall of Jerusalem (Hist. Eccl. 3.5, 7.3-8.9) in order to illustrate "how the punishment of God followed close after them (scil. the Jews) for their crime against the Christ of God" (Hist. Eccl. 3.5, 7; cf. 3.7, 1-9).' For references to rabbinic self-criticism, see Attridge, 'Josephus and his Works', p. 197 n. 23. 7. See, the introduction to War, LCL, pp. xix-xxii, for Josephus's dependency on sources.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

writing that Josephus claimed to strive for (cf. War 1.9-12; 5.20) did not avoid tragedy's dramatic form or homily's theological reflection.8 Antiquities of the Jews Since most of the material about Samaritans and their position in Judaism is to be found in this work, I give a more detailed introduction to its content, purpose, sources and transmission. The entire work consists of 20 books covering the period from creation to the beginning of the first Jewish-Roman war in 66 CE. It was originally planned together with War, but was delayed for more than 10 years and finished in the thirteenth year of the reign of the emperor Domitian when Josephus was 56, that is, 93-94 CE (Ant. 20.267). The book's rather abrupt ending in 66 CE might be explained by Josephus's plans to 'once more compose a running account of the war up to the present day' (Ant. 20.258-59). Although the book is held in esteem by many theologians and seen as evidence for the reliability of biblical and pseudepigraphical literature's historiographies, it becomes clear that Josephus, in most parts of his work, did not have other sources than those which need verification. The use of Josephus as an authoritative voice does not meet the critique of circular argumentation.9 This problem is especially clear in Books 10-14, covering the period from the Assyrian conquest of Samaria until Herod the Great. The 'accounts' are based on the Prophets of the Old Testament (Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Daniel), 1 Esdras (Ant. 11.1-158), biblical Ezra (11.159-83, 197-303), the book of Esther with its apocryphal Greek additions (11.184-296), an unknown Alexander source (11.297-47); the Letter of Aristeas (12.11-118), 1 Mace. 1.1-9.22 (12.337-434; 13.1-61, 80-170, 174-214), an unknown Tobiad source (12.154-236), possibly an unknown John Hyrcanus source (cf. 1 Mace. 16.24)10 and a few fragments of other history works: Herodotus, Berossos, Agatharcides, Strabo, Polybius and especially Nicolaus of Damascus, whom Josephus both used and wrote against,11 together with reuse of material from Jewish War.

8. See, further, Bilde, Flavius Josephus, pp. 73-75. 9. Bilde, Flavius Josephus, pp. 123-71, for a survey of 'main trends in modern Josephus research' giving evaluation of the various positions. 10. See OTP, p. xxi. Josephus does not mention this source and W. Whiston's note to Ant. 13.229 must have another foundation 11. Cf. Attridge, 'Josephus and his Works', p. 193.

5. Samaritans in the Writings ofJosephus


In this respect, it is remarkable that while the pre-exilic history consists of Books 1-10, the postexilic Persian and Hellenistic histories, until the Roman occupation in 63 BCE and the beginning of the reign of Herod the Great, consist only of Books 11-13, leaving six books for the Roman period until 66 CE. This composition implicitly reveals the difficulty of today's historians. Neither we nor Josephus have sufficient sources for the period from the Babylonian conquest until the Maccabaean revolt. Moreover, neither Josephus nor we have sufficient sources for Josephus's pre-exilic history, and only in glimpses do we get admission to a historical reality behind Josephus's paraphrase of biblical history. As in biblical tradition the Israelites come back from exile as Jews; so also in Josephus! These crucial problems have certainly bothered many scholars, though most of them have not escaped using Josephus as a source. L.L. Grabbe probably comes close to expressing the standard pragmatic attitude towards the use ofJosephus when he declares:
If it were not for his writings (sell. Josefus), our knowledge of Jewish historyespecially in the Greek and Roman periodswould be drastically reduced. So much we know of persons and events central to Jewish history comes from Josephus and is available from no other source. Even when other sources refer to the person or event in question, it is still usually Josephus who tells us the most. This makes his writings invaluable for much of the history of the Jews over the half millennium from about 400 BCE to almost 100 CE. Nevertheless, Josephus is not necessarily a simple source to use. One of the most fundamental mistakes made by students of this period is to take Josephus's account at face value and repeat it in light paraphrase. To do so ignores the gaps, the biases, the poor quality of some of his authorities, and the fact that his accounts frequently cannot be checked. One of the main reasons Josephus is so valuable is that his works are extant.12

When Grabbe speaks of the 'value' of the text, I would prefer to speak of the 'popularity' of his text. It becomes painfully clear that Josephus provides his readers with a historical continuity and clearness and uses the Persian and Hellenistic periods to present unsubstantiated material. That this material gives us valuable information about persons and events 'central to the Jewish history' needs verification, since it is Josephus's clarity and coherence that makes us believe that they are 'central'. We must ask, for example: Is Josephus's Alexander story, so
12. Grabbe, Judaism, I, p. 4.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

widely accepted as legendary, central to Jewish history? Is the long story about the Jewish tax collector Joseph son of Tobias central to Jewish history? Are the decrees of Antioch III, of which Josephus gives three variations, but none fitting what is found on the stelae he raised,13 central to Jewish history? Are the stories about Esther, Daniel and others living at the Persian court central to Jewish history? I certainly believe that all these stories are central to Jewish self-understanding, even in Josephus's time, but not to history. Grabbe seems to have been aware of this critique inherent to his introduction to Josephus, since he, almost contradicting himself five pages later, states:
Once he had finished with the biblical material, Josephus seems to have been at a loss for good sources for a lengthy period of time. The Old Testament literature extends as far as the Persian period, and Josephus filled out his account of the Persian period with the Greek books of 1 Esdras and Esther. Concerning the next two centuries and more, he seems to have had very little information, filling up the space with a few bits and pieces of valuable material but largely with dubious, legendary works. Only when he reached the second century and was able to draw on 1 Maccabees does he seem to have had a reliable, connected source again. This means that most of his account of the Persian period, the conquest of Alexander, and the Ptolemaic rule of Palestine is of little value.14

Grabbe does not take this judgment as a principle for all of Josephus's writings, but, placing himself between Moehring's overall scepticism and Rajak's overall acceptance, takes the position of Cohen, arguing for a differentiated judgment and examination of each section of Josephus's history on its merits.15
13. Y.H. Landau, 'A Greek Inscription Found Near Hefzibah', IEJ 16 (1966), pp. 54-70. 14. Grabbe, Judaism, I, p. 9. 15. Grabbe, Judaism, I, pp. 10-11. H.R. Moehring, 'Review of Josephus in Galilee and Rome. His Vita and Development as a Historian (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1969) by S.J.D. Cohen', JJS 31 (1980), pp. 240-42, who rejects Cohen's view that it is possible to separate facts from fiction in Josephus and reconstruct the history. The same has been argued by Bilde, Flavius Josephus, pp. 98-99: 'Once Josephus's literary leanings and professional tendencies have been defined, it is not difficult to separate his editing, and so to speak, extricate the main source from these layers of "wrappings"', and T. Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and his Society (London: Gerald Duckworth, 1983): 'While there are some features which are improbable,

5. Samaritans in the Writings of Josephus


Books 1-10 follow and interpret Old Testament Scriptures, dedicating Books 1-4 to Pentateuchal material and a paraphrase of the Law in Book 3 (and 4), interestingly not avoiding the Deuteronomistic repetition (Ant. 4.196-301). Books 6-10, mainly based on the biblical historical books, fragmentary use of prophetic material, pseudepigraphical books and citations of Jewish and Greek historians, probably known through Alexander Polyhistor (Ant. 1.240) and Nicolaus of Damascus (Ant. 1.94, 108, 159) paraphrase the remainder of biblical chronology until the fall of Jerusalem in 587. Josephus did not simply translate or present the biblical texts in their Greek form(s).16 He made an interpretation, following the 'rules' for the writing of the LXX. Not limiting himself to the later canonical Scriptures, he made use of the 'historiography and political constitutions translated from the Hebrew records' (Ant. 1.5) as well as 'our Scripture records', which he promised to 'set forth, each in its place' without 'adding or omitting anything' (Ant. 1.17). This concept of 'translation' has close parallels in Ben Sira, 2 Maccabees, New Testament and Greek and Aramaic 'translations' of Hebrew Scriptures. It was only the challenge of Christanity's polemical use of the LXX that seriously questioned this greatly flexible concept and required a 'faithful translation', such as Aquila's literal translation of Hebrew biblical texts.17 Thus one might not, using our standards of source criticism, really speak of Josephus garbling his sources, which

there are none which are impossible and, as long as what Josephus tells us is possible, we have no right to correct it.' 16. Attridge, 'Josephus and his Works', p. 211, argues for a use of Greek texts only and ascribes Semitisms in Josephus's writings to derive from his native language. Thackeray (LCL, 242 [1930], p. xii) suggested a Semitic source for the Pentateuch, Joshua and Judges and a Greek source for historical books from 1 Sam. to 1 Mace. 17. Bilde, Flavins Josephus, p. 96, which made this the sixth suggestion for incompatibilities between Josephus's text and the biblical texts. Others have suggested that (1) Josephus 'was lying' in Ant. 1.5-17 (Guttmann; Hoffmann; Peter); (2) Josephus employed a well-known literary topos regardless of its content (Attridge; S.J.D. Cohen); (3) Josephus used this topos to emphasize his objectivity and impartiability (van Unnik); (4) Josephus did not distinguish between the oral and written Torah or 'Scripture' (Feldman, Goldenberg, Vermes); (5) Josephus adopted an oriental historiographical tradition, where ancient sacral texts laid the foundation for the history writing similar to Berossus, Manetho (Rajak); cf. Bilde, Flavius Josephus, pp. 95-96.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

even for the biblical texts, might well have been quite different from our MT, SP and LXX, if we are to judge from the diversity of DSS manuscripts, the writings of Eupolemus, and perhaps most illustratively Jubilees' variant reading of the Pentateuch. Josephus's writings might well be seen as a purposeful redaction (cf. Ant. 4.197), aiming at the creation of a coherent work acceptable to his audience in the RomanHellenistic world for the purpose of furthering greater acceptance of the Jewish people and its special character by references to its origin in antiquity,18 its international reputation19 and the philosophical character of its religion. Such purposes are served by Josephus's rhetorical eloquence, his novelistic sketches of figures like Joseph, Moses, David, Solomon, Herod (among others), and his inserted speeches and documents (cf. Ant. 1.15; 14.186ff., 266, 323; 16.174-78). Both explicitly and implicitly, it is demonstrated that the 'translated texts from the Hebrew Scripture' and 'our documents' are not considered to be quite fit in themselves and that they can raise interest in the Graeco-Roman world only if they speak with the same tongue and are provided with implicit guarantees from the great rulers of the world.20 Omission of reference to circumcision in several instances and to the golden calf episode in Ant. 3.99 serve these purposes as well.21 In the same manner as Vergil wrote his Roman history in an answer to Homer's Greek history, so Josephus modelled and composed his story as a response to the work of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who in the time of Augustus wrote the Roman history (Roman Antiquities} in 20 books, referring to a glorious past with the purpose of making it known in the Greek world. Surpassing Dionysius, Josephus carried his

18. Not only earlier than Greek and Roman peoples, but even earlier than the Babylonians and Egyptians, from whom Abraham learned astrology and arithmetic (Ant. 1.166-68). 19. Among others, Alexander the Great, Antiochus III, Julius Caesar and Augustus's respect and admiration for the Jews leading to guarantees of privileges. 20. Bilde, Flavins Josephus, pp. 98-101, for a detailed description; Attridge, Josephus and his Works, p. 266, for the reliability of the documents and their transmission; E.M. Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule from Pompey to Diocletians (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1981 [1976]), pp. 558-60. 21. A further study on Josephus's use of 'translation' as a term meaning 'interpretation' in various instances where he defends himself against accusations of not being correct (e.g. Ant. 2.347; 9.208 and 214which frames the 'abbreviated' Jonah story10.218; Apion 1.53-54) is needed.

5. Samaritans in the Writings of Josephus


story 'pure of that unseemly mythology current among others' (Ant. 1.15), past the mythological world of Roman origin to creation.22 Transmission Like most of the literature on which we base our understanding of antiquity, we do not find any comprehensive collections of Josephus before the ninth-eleventh century CE, and then only in few examples. Apion is based on a single manuscript from the eleventh century (Codex L), of which 2.52-113 is missing. The eleventh-fourteenth century brought a few more manuscripts. A single Greek fragment from the third century (pap. P. Graec. Vindob. 29810) comprising War 2.576-79, 582-84 has survived the ravages of time. We are thus obliged for the Greek editions to look to the use of Josephus among the writings of the early Church Fathers: Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origin and especially Eusebius, who quotes long passages of Josephus, not always quite verbatim. Hegesippus made a paraphrasing Latin edition of War in the late fourth century, which is of little value for reconstruction in comparison to Cassiodor's Latin edition from 570, comprising all of Josephus's works. Niese's edition from 1885-95, based on mediaeval manuscripts, is accepted as the most trustworthy edition,23 and is used as the basic manuscript for the Loeb Classical Library's editions from 1930 with several reprints. W. Whiston's English translation from 1736, also with several reprints, certainly has had a great impact on scholarship, although it 'is no longer accepted as the best text. Nor was Whiston the best-equipped translator for the task. The work has many deficiencies'.24 For the French-speaking audience, as well as for studies in rabbinical parallels to Josephus's exposition of the Mosaic code, the French edition from 1900, Oeuvres completes de Flavins Josephe, has been very useful.

22. Attridge, 'Josephus and his Works', p. 217. H.St.J. Thackeray, Introduction to Jewish Antiquities (LCL, 242 [1930]), p. ix. For recent discussions on Josephus's dependency on Dionysius of Halicarnassus. 23. Bilde, Flavins Josephus, pp. 63-64. Schiirer, History of the Jewish People, I, pp. 57-61. 24. From the foreword to the 1960 reprint. This study uses and quotes LCL (recent editions). Critical deviations in Whiston's text will be noted.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism Examination ofJosephus's Various Descriptions of Samaritans

As mentioned earlier, most ofJosephus's material about Samaritans is to be found in Antiquities. Even important events, such as the destruction of the Samaritan temple on Gerizim, is not given any weight in the parallel account in War. It seems reasonable to ask what urged Josephus to insert small stories about a faction of Judaism, apostate Jews or nonJews, marked as Cuthaeans, Sidonians, Shechemites, Medes or Persians in his Jewish 'history' written almost 20 years later. Does Antiquities have a rationalized historiography that not only sought to place Judaism in the Graeco-Roman world but also sought to define the correct form of Judaism similar to the discussions in the New Testament, implicitly revealing that this question was not entirely settled at the time. The consequences of cult centralization brought about by the loss of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem may well have enhanced discussions about the proper role of the Jewish temple. As we shall see, this question is raised by Josephus both before Alexander the Great and Ptolemy Philometor, securing that both the Greek and the Egyptian world had been in agreement on this matter. The aforementioned variant reading of 1 Mace. 10.25-45 (see above, Chapter 2), which in Josephus has 'it shall be in the power of the high priest to take care that no one Jew shall have any other temple for worship but only that at Jerusalem' (Ant. 13.54), could indicate that he had reason for what seems to be a deliberate change. The stress on the one temple, found also in Apion 2.193, might further indicate that cult centralization was still questioned, at least by the non-Jewish world. The different weighting of this matter in Josephus's treatment of the temples on Gerizim and in Heliopolis in War and in Antiquities, together with his use of Heliopolis for settling Samaritan matters, is revealing, as the following examination demonstrates. Antiquities 9.277-21 Josephus's portrait of the Samaritans takes its point of departure from 2 Kgs 17.24-41 concerning the people removed from Babylon, Cuthah, Ava, Hamath and Sepharvaim, who did not know how to worship the god of the land, and who, according to the Old Testament, have no intention of giving up their own gods, but had introduced a syncretistic religion, using the temple(s)25 made by the Samaritans (2 Kgs 17.29).

25. MT: sing.; LXX, Luc., Syr, Vg: pi.

5. Samaritans in the Writings ofJosephus


When asked to decide which god they will worship, they did not choose to worship Yahweh alone (as did the Israelites in Josh. 24.21-24), but to fear Yahweh and serve their own gods. It is central in the Old Testament text that they did not know how to worship the god of the land (2 Kgs 17.26-27), and that to worship Yahweh is to keep his ordinances (17.36-38). It is not said that they betrayed Yahweh in a manner similar to the Israelites, causing their removal from the country (17.7-24). The situation is the opposite. The Israelites knew how to fear Yahweh, as is clearly said in this paragraph and reiterated in the midrash of the first commandment, presented in the closing paragraph (2 Kgs 17.34-41), but they failed to do so. In contrast, the foreigners did not know and obviously were slow to learn, so these foreigners continued to 'fear Yahweh' after their own manner, thus breaking the first commandment, repeated thrice in vv. 35, 37 and 38. Indirectly, a critique is given of the priest 'carried away from Shomeron', who had settled in Bethel (2 Kgs 17.28). He must be understood to belong to the same stock as those who are claimed to be responsible for the idol worship in the opening paragraph. They did not change at all, since the foreigners continue to do so 'unto this very day', leaving the land as polluted as it was before, anticipating the contrasting fate of Judaea in the time of Nebuchadnezzar. Josephus's account of this story in 2 Kings is interpolated in his Hezekiah narrative, using the pious acts of Hezekiah as a contrasting motif to the impious acts of the Israelites, who did not accept Hezekiah's invitation to join the celebration of the Feast of Unleavened Bread in Jerusalem. They not only laughed at the king's message, as written in the biblical account of 2 Chronicles 30, but, in an elaboration of this narrative, they 'poured scorn upon them (the prophets) and finally seized them and killed them' (Ant. 9.265). This stock motif that frames Josephus's views on Samaritans is reiterated several times in his interpretation of historical events. It should not escape our notice that he made purposeful use of this motif in his judgment of Manasseh's crime, that 'imitating the lawless deeds of the Israelites' he 'killed all the righteous men among the Hebrews, nor did he spare even the prophets, some of whom he slaughtered daily' (Ant. 10.37-38). In Josephus's account, we are first surprised to notice that he has given specific status to one group of the removed people, namely the Cuthaeans (Ant. 9.279), revealing the language of his own day, but conflicting with the biblical account, which neither speaks of Cuthaeans


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

nor knows the term elsewhere.26 Probably aware of this problem, Josephus, in accordance with the biblical narrative, mentions that the Cuthaeans originally were five tribes who each worshipped their own god and came from the same Persian region and river valley called Cuthah (Xo\)0d, Ant. 9.288) In Josephus's treatment, the biblical 'lions' have become 'a pestilence' and an oracle advises that worship of the Most High God (TOV jieyioxov 0eov) brings deliverance (aomptov). These are minor changes. It is more important to notice that it was the bringing of 'their own gods' that brought the pestilence. The consequences of the oracle is thus changed, for surprisingly we read:
after being instructed in the ordinances and religion of this God, worshipped him with great zeal [<|)iAoTiu.a}<;], and were at once freed of the pestilence [A,otu.6v]. These same rites have continued in use even to this day among those who are called Chuthaioi [Xot>6aioi], Cuthim, in the Hebrew tongue, Samaritans [Zau.apeiTca] by the Greeks (Ant. 9.290).

With a single artifice, namely the omission of the mention of religious syncretism, Josephus succeeded in combining the narrative of 2 Kings 17 with the Samaritan question and avoided attacking the practice of cult and religion (which would be difficult to defend, as we have seen earlier). Questions of ethnicity and relation to the Israelite tribes become the central themes of Josephus's narrative. This is further emphasized in his introductory remark:
the ten tribes of Israel emigrated from Judea nine hundred and forty seven years after their forefathers went out of Egypt (Ant. 9.280).

which is to be understood on the assumption that the ten tribes had never returned, thus again contrasting the fate of the Judaean tribe(s), (Ant. 10.184-85). His closing remark serves the same purpose:
But they alter their attitude, according to circumstance and, when they see the Jews prospering, call them their kinsmen [ouyyeveic;], on the ground that they are descended from Joseph and are related to them through their origin from him, but when they see the Jews in trouble, they say that they have nothing whatever in common with them nor do these have any claim of friendship or race, and they declare themselves to be aliens of another race [dM-oeSveic;] (Ant. 9.291).

This problem of ethnicity forms the central core of Josephus's struggle with the Judaean-Samaritan relationship. It is repeated almost verbatim
26. See, later in this chapter, my examination of Josephus's terminology.

5. Samaritans in the Writings ofJosephus


in Ant. 11.341 and 12.257, and, with the same meaning, in a variant form in 11.85. Antiquities 11.1-119 This variant form has a parallel in Ezra 4.1-6.22. Josephus, however, does not primarily use that text, but rather the apocryphal 1 Esdras, which he interprets by means of biblical Ezra. For our purpose this is not crucial, since the textual disagreements, related to Josephus's treatment of the text, do not involve the narrative plot as such, but various designations for the involved parties. For those, there are no disagreements between the biblical Ezra, the apocryphal 1 Esdras and LXX's Ezra, which follows the MT of the Bible. For the sake of clearness, I take my point of departure from the MT text. The story concerns the building of the temple in Jerusalem after the return from the exile. The problems arise because of the opposition from 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 'the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin', p^m rmiT "H^ (Ezra 4.1); 'the people of the land', fHKrrDi?, 'am ha'ares (Ezra 4.4); 'King Artaxerxes' (Ezra 4.23-24), 'Rehum, the chancellor and Shimshay, the scribe' (Ezra 4.7, 8, 17, 23); 'and the rest of their companions/their associates, the judges, the governors, the officials, the Persians, the men of Erech, the Babylonians, the men of Susa, that is the Elamites and the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Osnappar deported and settled in the cities of Samaria and in the rest of the province Beyond the River' (Ezra 4.8-10, 17).

All of these are involved in the first attempt to stop the building activities in Ezra 4.1-24. Later, in chs. 5-6, where the building activities are resumed as a result of the encouragement of the prophets Iddo and Zechariah, the plot becomes more transparent. Now both 'the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin' and 'the people of the land' have disappeared. Left are the officials represented by 1. 'Tattenaj, the govenor of the province Beyond the River and Shethar-bozenai and their associates, the governors (Ezra 5.3, 6; 6.13) 'King Darius' (Ezra 5.6-7; 6.1, 12, 13, 15).



The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Let us now see what happens to these persons in Josephus's interpretation of the narrative, beginning in Ezra 4.1 with the reaction of the 'adversaries of Judah and Benjamin':
after hearing the sound of the trumpets, the Samaritans, who were as it happened, hostile to the tribes of Judah and Benjamin... (Ant. 11.84)

and in the same manner a few verses later:

On hearing this, the Cuthaeansit is by this name that the Samaritans are calledwere indignant and persuaded the nations in Syria to request the satraps, in the same way as they had formerly done under Cyrus and again, after his reign, under Cambyses, to stop the building of the temple and put hindrances and delays in the way of the Jews as they busied themselves about it (Ant. 11.88).

Why does Josephus mention the Cuthaeans here, since they were never mentioned in the biblical accounts of Ezra and 1 Esdras, which, together with the LXX, mention
the men of Erech, the Babylonians, the men of Susa, that is the Elamites and the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Osnappar deported and settled in the cities of Samaria and in the rest of the province Beyond the River.

and which in Ezra 4.2 are not given any specific designation, but call themselves 'we'?
Let us build with you; for we worship God as you do, and we have been sacrificing to him ever since the days of Esarhaddon king of Assyria, who brought us here.

With the exception of some confusion about the king's name, which varies in the different variations of this text and is in disagreement with biblical reports on deportations, this text has the same wording as its parallels in MT, LXX and 1 Esd. 5.66-67 (68-69). In Josephus's account, however, we find the following variations interpolated between the utterances about 'Samaritans' and 'Cuthaeans':
and asked to have a share in the building. 'For we worship God no less than they,' they asserted, 'and pray fervently to Him and have been zealous in His service from the time when Salmanasses, the king of Assyria, brought us hither from Cuthia and Media' (Ant. 11.84-85).

Josephus here, as in Ant. 11.290, employs the same method. He avoids attacking the Samaritan orthodoxy by expanding the 'biblical' text, and he connects the question with a question of ethnicity, an aspect absent in the 'biblical' texts, which make no effort to find 'the adver-

5. Samaritans in the Writings ofJosephus


saries of Judah and Benjamin' in the tradition of 2 Kings 17. First of all, they mention some other people and, secondly, they date them to a different time, namely during the reign of Esarhaddon (681-669 BE), or Osnappar, whose identity is questioned and normally is identified with Ashurbanipal (640-639 BCE), since in 640-39 he campaigned against Babylon and Susa. Ezra 4.9-10 might refer to this event.27 Other possibilities are Senaccherib and Shalmanezer whom Josephus chose. Another interesting feature to be noticed in Josephus's account is the exchange of 'sacrificing to him' for 'pray fervently to Him and have been zealous in His service', which have no support in any other text. There could be two reasons for this exchange. First, that offerings demand a temple or at least an altar, and according to Josephus's Antiquities, the Samaritan temple was not built before the time of Alexander the Great. Secondly, Josephus might not have thought it proper to testify to offerings being conducted outside of Jerusalem at a time when cult centralization is believed to have dominated. This accords well with Josephus's closing remark of the discussion in 11.87, where he states after the rejection of the Samaritan petition, that 'none but themselves had been commanded to build the temple, the first time by Cyrus and now by Darius', and continues,
'they would, however allow them to worship there', they said, 'but the only thing which they might, if they wished, have in common with them, as might all other men, was to come to the sanctuary and revere God' (Ant. 11.87).

Josephus's account continues, following the correspondence of 1 Esdras 6-7 and Ezra 5-6. We are now introduced to 'Sisines,28 the governor of Syria and Phoenicia, and Sarabazanes,29 together with certain others' (Ant. 11.89). Comparable to the biblical account (Ezra 5.34), which has a close parallel in 1 Esd. 6.3-4, they go to Jerusalem to ask for the 'building licence'. Since the reply to this request is unsatisfactory, they send a letter to King Darius for a confirmation of the explanation given by the Jews, that they build the temple after the order of King Cyrus. Also comparable to the accounts in Ezra 5.5 and 1 Esd. 6.6, the Jews are not prevented from building during the period of investigation.
27. A.K. Grayson, 'Osnappar', ABD 5, p. 50. 28. So 1 Esd. 6.3; Ezra 5.3 reads 'Tattenaj'. 29. Ezra 5.3 reads 'Shetar-bozenai'.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

In Josephus's elaboration of this story, this 'event' is framed by remarks about contemporary Samaritan activity, which seeks to stop the building activities. Utilizing former material and connecting this event with the rejection of participation in the building of the temple we are introduced to what turns out to be the 'real' troublemakers, exonerating the officials for any responsibility for delays or hindrances. We are thus told in Am. 11.88,
On hearing this, the Cuthaeansit is by this name that the Samaritans are calledwere indignant and persuaded the nations in Syria to request the satraps, in the same way as they had formerly done under Cyrus and again, after his reign, under Cambyses, to stop the building of the temple and put hindrances and delays in the way of the Jews as they busied themselves about it.

Since the activity of the officials in this account is not a result of Samaritan activity, the Samaritans independently write a letter to Darius, accusing
the Jews of fortifying the city and constructing the temple so as to resemble a fortress rather than a sanctuary, and said that what was being done would not be to his advantage and, in addition cited the letter of Cambyses in which he had forbidden them to build the temple (Ant. 11.97).

No such letter to Darius is mentioned in 1 Esdras or Ezra, and Josephus refers here to a former incident accounted for in Ant. 11.19-30, elaborating Ezra 4.5-7, 11-24 and 1 Esd. 5.63; 2.16, 25:
While they were laying the foundations of the temple and very busily engaged in building it, the surrounding nations, especially the Cuthaeans, whom the Assyrian king Salmanesses had brought from Persia and Media and settled in Samaria when he deported the Israelite people, urged the satraps and those in charge to hinder the Jews in the rebuilding of the city and the construction of the temple. And so being corrupted by their bribes, they sold their services to the Cuthaeans by showing neglect and indifference toward the Jews in their building (Ant. 11.19).

Hereafter follows the death of Cyrus, who, 'because of his preoccupation with other wars, was in ignorance of these matters' and left it unsolved to his son Cambyses. 'The people in Syria, Phoenicia, Amman, Moab and Samaria' wrote to him, calling themselves 'his servants, Rathymos, the recorder of all things that happen, Semelios, the scribe, and the judges of the council in Syria and Phoenicia' (Ant. 11.22). In 1 Esdras 18-24 and Ezra 4.12-16 this letter is designed for Artaxerxes.

5. Samaritans in the Writings ofJosephus


Interesting to notice in Josephus's rendering of the building narrative, is the developing plot line that allows him, in the first plot, to let the Cuthaeans bribe the officials, who must be considered to be related to the Persian administration, and personally having no interest in any Judaean-Samaritan conflict of religion. In the second plot the Samaritans act for themselves. No letter and no answer is presented in Josephus's story. In the third plot, however, we are given both letter and answer. If we once again return to the second plot, the enquiry from 'Sisines, the governor of Syria and Phoenicia, and Sarabazanes, together with certain others' (Ant. 11.89) is treated positively by King Darius, similar to what we find in the biblical versions. The answer, however, is notably shorter than that of Ezra 6.6-12 and 1 Esdras 27-34:
King Darius to the eparch Sisines and Sarabazanes and their companions, greeting. I have sent you a copy of the letter which I found in the archives of Cyrus, and it is my will that everything should be done as is stated therein. Farewell (Ant. 11.104).

The sharp tone of the biblical parallels is missing and no implicit objection to the king's decision is anticipated. This is similar to Ezra 6.11-12 and lEsd. 7.32-33. The building continues with the supervision and assistance of 'Sisines and those with him' (Ant. 11.105) and is finished in the ninth year of Darius.30 Here ends the 'biblical' narratives, leaving open several questions about the identity of those who oppose the building. They certainly are not the high officials of Darius's time. In the third plot of Josephus's narrative, this insecurity brings a considerable advantage. Envious of the Judaean success
the Samaritans inflicted many injuries on the Jews, for they relied on their wealth and pretended to be related to the Persians, since they had come from their country. And the sums which they had been ordered by the king to pay to the Jews out of their tribute for the sacrifices, they refused to furnish, and they had the eparchs zealously aiding them in this; and whatever else they could do to injure the Jews either by themselves or through others, they did not hesitate to try (Ant. 11.114-15).

The stereotype in Josephus's writings of the Samaritans being Cuthaeans is here exchanged with the more imprecise 'related to the
30. Ezra and 1 Esdras read 'the sixth year'.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Persians, since they had come from their country'. This is with good reason, for the letter that the envoys Zorobabelos and four other leaders, who are sent from the people of Jerusalem to King Darius to accuse the Samaritans, bring back 'to the eparchs of Syria and the council' has the following address:
King Darius to Taganas and Sambabas, the eparchs of the Samaritans, and Sandrakes and Buedon and the rest of their fellow-servants in Samaria (Ant. 11.118).

Josephus has thus encircled the 'real' adversaries, the local administration in Samaria, who is ordered to
furnish them out of the royal treasury, from the tribute of Samaria, everything which they may need for the sacrifices as the priests request (Ant. 11.119).

Faithful to his general tendency, Josephus's elaboration on Darius's letter of Ezra 6.8 and 1 Esd. 6.29 exchanges 'the province Beyond the River' and 'Coelesyria and Phoenicia' for 'Samaria' in a manner similar to what he is doing in his construct of Cyrus's edict in Ant. 11.16. He thus anticipates the conflict to follow. With minor omissions and slight alterations, Josephus once again transforms geographical designations (11.118-19) into an ethnic designation (11.114) connected with the tradition of 2 Kings 17 and placed in the rabbinical tradition of the Cuthaeans.31 This also allows him to leave out any political reasons for the conflict, presenting the Judaean-Samaritan conflict as one related entirely to the question of religious recognition: who is the true Israel, who belongs to it, and where does one pay temple taxes. Josephus's treatment of the Nehemiah narrative confirms this, since in this narrative he shows no interest in establishing a SamaritanJudaean contrast by calling the adversaries of the building of the wall Samaritans. He here employs the terms 'Ammanites, Moabites, Samaritans and all those living in Coele-Syria' (Ant. 11.174). Antiquities 11.297-347 Josephus's third story dealing with Judaean-Samaritan conflicts is placed in the time of the conquest of Palestine by Alexander the Great.
31. A technique also employed by Josephus in his dealing with the text of the books of Maccabees, e.g. Ant. 12.287, where Apollonius has become 'the general of the Samaritans' against 1 Mace. 10.69 'governor of Coele Syria' and 2 Mace. 3.5 'governor of Coele Syria and Phoenicia'.

5. Samaritans in the Writings ofJosephus


The story has the purpose of answering questions about the Samaritan temple's status in relation to Jerusalem's temple. Alexander is here used as the authoritative voice of the text. Connected with the story is the question of who built the Samaritan temple. Thus the focus of the narrative is not Alexander's victorious campaign or the change of the political situation. They only serve as a framework for the more important question: Which temple does Alexander accept as the legitimate Jewish temple? A similar question is raised in front of Ptolemy IV Philomethor, using the framework of a court hearing. Possible sources for Josephus's Alexander story are several, none of which can be taken as a basis for his narrative's content but only for its outline. The story bears a clear resemblance to Alexander's alleged visits to other important shrines.32 The introduction to Josephus's 'account' describes the strife between the high priest Joannes and his brother Jesus, who, supported by the Persian general Bagoses, sought to obtain the office of the high priesthood. This lead to a deadly quarrel between Joannes and Jesus in the temple, with fatal consequences for Jesus. As a punishment, Bagoses imposes a tribute on the Jews of 50 drachmae per lamb slaughtered for the daily offerings for seven years. After Joannes' death his son Jaddua becomes high priest. He has a brother, Manasseh, married to Sanballat's daughter Nikaso, who caused what in Josephus's views must be understood as the definitive split between Jews and Samaritans. Sanballat, 'who was sent by Darius, the last king of Persia,33 into Samaria', becomes a central figure in Josephus's story. Combining both the past and the future, he secures that, in spite of Manasseh's departure from Jerusalem followed by many of the priests and Levites, the Samaritans on Garizim do not represent a new Jewish community, but are the previously mentioned Cuthaeans from 2 Kings 17. This is done by describing Sanballat as 'a Cuthaean by birth; of which stock were the Samaritans also'. Josephus thus makes certain that he is not confused with any other Sanballat than the one mentioned in the book of Nehemiah. Echoing Ezra 4.15-16 and 1 Esd. 2.22-24, he asserts that this person can be related to the 'adversaries' mentioned there:

32. Marcus, Jewish Antiquities; Appendix C, LCL, 326; Grabbe, Judaism, pp. 181-82, 208. Ahlstrom, History of Ancient Palestine, pp. 895-96. 33. Darius III Codomanus (338-331 BCE).


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

This man knew that the city of Jerusalem was a famous city, and that their kings had given a great deal of trouble to the Assyrians and the people of Coelesyria (Ant. 11.303).

Manasseh became Sanballat's puppet, who first of all had the purpose of securing him allegiance with Jerusalem, and when this eventually failed, giving his daughter's children the dignity of the priesthood. The allegiance with Jerusalem certainly failed. The elders of Jerusalem did not consent to the marriage, and since Manasseh would rather divorce his wife than give up the office of the high priesthood, Sanballat felt obliged to promise him
that he would build a temple similar to that in Jerusalem on Mount Gerizimthis is the highest of the mountains near Samariaand undertook to do these things with the consent of King Darius (Ant. 11.310-11).

The role of Sanballat's adversary is given to Jerusalem's high priest, Jaddua. The presentation of him is as follows: When Alexander the Great went against Sidon and Tyre after he had defeated Darius, he asked for troops and supplies for his army from the Jewish high priest Jaddua:
give him the gifts which they had formerly sent as tribute to Darius, thus choosing the friendship of the Macedonians, for, he said, they would never regret this course. But the high priest replied to the bearers of the letter that he had given his oath to Darius not to take up arms against him, and said that he would never violate this oath so long as Darius remained alive. When Alexander heard this, he was roused to anger, and while deciding not to leave Tyre, which was on the point of being taken, threatened that when he had brought it to terms he would march against the high priest of the Jews and through him teach all men what people it was to whom they must keep their oaths (Ant. 11.317-19).

At stake here is allegiance, loyalty and the question of 'to whom they must keep their oaths'. The situation certainly is dangerous. Sanballat, who 'was sent by Darius', had no problems in renouncing Darius and giving his loyalty to Alexander. After he had given him his men, eight thousand subjects, for the siege of Tyre, he
felt confident about his plan and addressed him on the subject, explaining that he had a son-in-law, Manasses, who was the brother of Jaddua, the high priest of the Jews and that there were many others of his countrymen [6|ioe9voov] with him who now wished to build a temple in the territory subject to him. It was also an advantage to the king, he said, that the power of the Jews should be divided in two, in order that the nation

5. Samaritans in the Writings ofJosephus

might not, in the event of revolution, be of one mind and stand together and so give trouble to the kings as it had formerly given to the Assyrian rulers. When therefore, Alexander gave his consent, Sanballat brought all his energy to bear and built the temple, and appointed Manasses high priest, considering this to be the greatest distinction which his daughter's descendants could have (Ant. 11.322-24).


As can be seen from this, according to Josephus, Alexander had not caused any division of the power of the Jews, nor did the high priest of Jerusalem or for that matter the Levites and priests who followed Manasseh. They were not guarantees of the legitimate confession or priesthood, since the dignity of that had been bestowed on Manasseh's daughters' children. Josephus thus maintains his former statements that the Samaritans are the former Cuthaeans, even though the priests are from legitimate Jerusalem stock. Let's now see how Jaddua solves his problems with Alexander. When Jaddua heard that Alexander was on his way,
he was in an agony of fear, not knowing how he should meet the Macedonians, whose king was angered by his former disobedience. He therefore ordered the people to make supplication, and offering sacrifices to God together with them, besought Him to shield the nation and deliver them from the dangers that were hanging over them (Ant. 11.326).

Guided by God in a dream, he put on his high-priestly garments and with the people and the priests went outside the city, leaving the gates open, to meet Alexander 'at a certain place called Saphein' (Ea^eiv).34 Alexander,
when he saw the multitude in white garments, the priests at their head clothed in linen, and the high priest in a robe of hyacinth-blue and gold, wearing on his head the mitre with the golden plate on it on which was inscribed the name of God, he approached alone and prostrated himself before that Name and first greeted the high priest' (Ant. 11.331).

Everyone was astonished. What had happened to Alexander?

34. The question, whether this is nowadays Mount Scopus, or it is Kephar Saba (some 20 miles NE of Jaffa) as rabbinic tradition has it, is unimportant for the examination here, since in Josephus's version the added aetiology clearly places it in Jerusalem: 'this name, translated into the Greek tongue, means "Lookout". For, as it happened, Jerusalem and the temple could be seen from there.'


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Parmenion35 alone went up to him, and asked why indeed, when all men prostrated themselves before him, he had prostrated himself before the high priest of the Jews, whereupon he replied, 'It was not before him that I prostrated myself but the God of whom he has the honour to be high priest' (Ant. 11.333).

There follows an explanation of how Alexander had once seen the high priest in a dream in Macedonia, and that it was told him that by bringing his army under the divine conduct of 'that God' he should 'defeat Darius and destroy the power of the Persians'. This vision is further confirmed by Alexander's reading of the book of Daniel, which is shown to him in the temple,
in which he had declared that one of the Greeks would destroy the empire of the Persians, he believed himself to be the one indicated (Ant. 11.337).

Made happy by the good news, Alexander is ready to bestow upon the Jews whatever they might desire, so
the high priest asked that they might observe their country's laws [TOIC; TidTptoic; voumq], and in the seventh year be exempt from tribute, he granted all this. Then they begged that he would permit the Jews in Babylon and Media also to have their own laws [TOI<; i8ioi<; voumq], and he gladly promised to do as they asked (Ant. 11.338-39).

The danger is averted. The Jewish high priest has been able to 'surrender' to Alexander through Alexander's surrender to Jaddua's God, and this without renouncing Darius. The story is not finished yet. We now have the Samaritans and Jews sketched in contrasting polarity with each other. But the pivotal question yet remains and is still to be put: Will Alexander consider these two groups to be equal? Is the one temple as good as the other? Envy and ethnicity are key words here, as they had been in Josephus's variant treatment of the building of Jerusalem's temple of the Persian period. The story therefore continues:
And so having regulated these matters at Jerusalem, Alexander marched off against the neighbouring cities. But all those peoples to whom he came received him in a friendly spirit, whereupon the Samaritans [Eap,apeiTai], whose chief city at that time was Shechem [Zixtua], which lay beside Mount Garizein, and inhabited by apostates from the Jewish nation, seeing that Alexander had so signally honoured the Jews, decided

35. A Macedonian general, second in rank to Alexander, cf. LCL 326, p. 475.

5. Samaritans in the Writings ofJosephus

to profess themselves Jews. For such is the nature [Tf|v ^UGIV] of the Samaritans [oi Zau.apelq], as we have already shown somewhere above. When the Jews are in difficulties they deny that they have any kinship with them, thereby indeed admitting the truth, but whenever they see some splendid bit of good fortune come to them, they suddenly grasp at the connexion with them, saying, that they are related to them and tracing their line back to Ephraim and Manasseh, the descendants of Joseph (Ant. 11.340-41).


Alexander was hardly out of Jerusalem when the Shechemites approached,

bringing along the soldiers whom Sanballat had sent to him, and invited him to come to their city and honour the temple there as well. Thereupon he promised to grant this request another time when he should come back to them [from Egypt] (Ant. 11.342).

Note that in contrast to Alexander's entrance into Jerusalem there is no prostration, no adoration, no willingness to go to the temple and no priestly garments. Here are soldiers and a king who has more important matters to deal with. The Shechemites, anxious not to lose the opportunity of having the king's favour, petitioned him to remit the tribute of the seventh year, the Jubilee year, because they did not sow therein. He asked them
who they were that made this request. And when they said that they were Hebrews ['EfJpoioi], but were called the Sidonians of Shechem [oi ev ZiXi|o.oi<; Zi8(6vvoi] he again asked them whether they were Jews ['lov8oloi]. Then, as they said that they were not, he replied, 'But I have given these privileges to the Jews. However, when I return, and have more exact information from you, I shall do as I think best' (Ant. 1 1.34344).

It is here worth noticing that the question of following the laws of the fathers, which was central to Jaddua, is totally missing here. Only the motif of the economic advantage of friendship with Alexander is used. Together with the denial of being Jews, the Samaritans are portrayed here as having left Judaism entirely. Central to Josephus's presentation is that Alexander never did return from Egypt to settle these matters. The Shechemites are left with their closing statement 'they said they were not Jews', which does not escape the implication that their temple is not truly Jewish. This statement in fact coincides with Josephus's closing remark:


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

When Alexander died, his empire was partitioned among his succesors (the Diadochi); as for the temple on Mount Garizein, it remained. And, whenever anyone was accused by the people of Jerusalem of eating unclean food or violating the sabbath or committing any other such sin, he would flee to the Shechemites, saying that he had been unjustly expelled (Ant. 11.346-47).

Josephus's argumentation here concentrates on the most central themes of Jewish self-understanding, discussed in a variety of texts from the DSS's Damascus Covenant, Community Rule and Jubilees to Philo and the Gospels, all dealing with questions of Jewish halakhah. The questioning of circumcision, so central to Paul's writings, is absent in these texts, as it is in Josephus. By placing the Shechemites in this obviously Jewish context, Josephus's ambiguity about the Samaritans has been given its clearest expression. The details in the Alexander story have been dealt with extensively. Questions about Sanballat, Jaddua, Manasseh, Alexander's journeys, his troops in Samaria, Josephus's sources, etc, all are involved here. These, of course, are necessary questions and some answers may throw some light on what may have happened. They are, however, not the most important questions to ask. It is more important to examine how an author composes and presents the different questions he wants to answer, as well as to ask the purpose of his story. This story's main purpose and function is not to describe the Samaritans. They are being used as characters in a plot. Josephus's main purpose is to emphasize the story that Alexander had shown worship to Yahweh in Jerusalem, the same Alexander 'who himself was adored by all others'. One should not forget too quickly how, confronted with Vespasian, Josephus saved his life by 'prophesying' that Vespasian should become emperor and that his success was due to the providence of God (War 3.401). The Alexander story thus serves a very specific function in Josephus's Antiquities. He aims to demonstrate how the Jewish temple in Jerusalem is superior to all other temples and to show how Judaism, as it is understood by the Jews of Jerusalem, is the true religion for the whole of humankind. This is expressed in his description of Alexander, that 'when he went up into the temple, he offered sacrifice to God according to the high priest's direction' (Ant. 11.336). The implicit message to the Roman emperor of Josephus's own time should not be dismissed from the interpretation of the text. The paradigmatic theme of Jews being favoured by emperors, which is expressed in most of the texts dealing with the Persian and Ptolemaic period: 1 Esdras, Nehemiah, Esther,

5. Samaritans in the Writings ofJosephus


Daniel, Letter of Aristeas, Documents of Antioch III, and others, and which is given explicit reference in Ant. 12.115-28, forms the backbone of Josephus's writing on Alexander. Antiquities 12.237-64 Josephus's fourth composition about Samaritans is placed in the time of the Hasmonaeans and in the framework of Antiochus TV's treatment of the Jews. The story opens much like the previous one, with a description of the circumstances in the temple court of Jerusalem. Josephus is dependent on 1 and 2 Maccabees, which, like Josephus's own main perspective, emphasizes that internal quarrels among Jews were responsible for the Jewish misfortunes, and that the foreign rulers merely reacted to this situation. This aspect, however, is undermined in the account in which Antiochus attacks Jerusalem twice in the 143rd and 145th year of the Seleucid reign (169 and 167 BCE), without any attempt at rebellion, as 2 Mace. 5.1-26 has it. This rebellion is placed in Josephus before Antiochus's Egyptian campaign. It is combined with the appointment of Onias/Menelaus, who, supported by the Tobiads, introduced Greek customs (Ant. 12.237-41). Other possibilities are thus at hand for interpreting Antiochus's motifs, related to his defeat in Egypt by the Roman support to Ptolemy Physcon of Alexandria (Ant. 12.242-44) and contrasting the accounts of 1 Mace. 1.16-20. It is not clearly expressed in Josephus's story, but lack of money and fear for the Romans, for whom there seem to have been some support in Jerusalem (12.247), are hinted at (12.249). Since Josephus's composition of the story does not give any reason for Antiochus's harsh treatment of the Jews, but only for the plundering of the temple, the question remains open whether Josephus's interest is not merely bound to giving an account of Samaritan reaction to Jewish suffering than to the account of 1 Mace. 1.21-64, from where he deletes the theological point 'that they should all be of one people and everyone should give up his own customs' (id vourva cruTO'u). The account involving the Samaritans follows immediately after Josephus's description of 'the worthiest people and those of noble soul', who did not obey Antiochus' decrees but 'held their country's customs of greater account than their punishment' (Ant. 12.255). The account has this opening:
But when the Samaritans [oi ZauapelTOi] saw the Jews suffering these misfortunes, they would no longer admit they were of their kin or that


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

the temple on Garizein [ev Fapi^eiv vaov] was that of the Most Great God [TOV (leyioTOi) 6eoi3], whereby acting in accordance with their nature, as we have shown; they also said they were colonists from the Medes and Persians, and they are, in fact, colonists from these peoples (Ant. 12.257).

They send envoys (Tipeapeit;) to Antioch with a letter:

To king Antiochus Theos Epiphanes, a memorial [\m;6u.vr|u,a]36 from the Sidonians in Shechem. Our forefathers because of certain droughts [at>%uotic;] 7 in their country, and following a certain ancient superstition, made it a custom to observe the day which is called the Sabbath by the Jews, and they erected a temple without a name on the mountain called Garizein, and there offered the appropriate sacrifices (Ant. 12.258-59).

It is here noteworthy that Josephus establishes a connection with 2 Kings 17 by using the expression 'certain droughts/frequent pestilences'. Whether he means the one or the other is not important. The question is related to the rabbinic discussion of whether Samaritans can be considered to be genuine converts, or whether they are 'lion-converts', as discussed already in Chapter 4. Questions about ethnicity do not form part of the discussion here. This question was already settled in the former story and is not taken up again. The focus of this story is the question of whether those who follow Jewish practices can be called Jews. The answer is ambiguous, as can be seen from the following.
Now you have dealt with the Jews as their wickedness deserves, but the king's officers, in the belief that we follow the same practices as they through kinship with them, are involving us in similar charges, whereas we are Sidonians by origin, as is evident from our state documents (Ant. 12.260).

Josephus's point of departure is, as it was in Ant. 11.341, the hypocrisy of the Samaritans. In both accounts Josephus's statement is without consequence, since both accounts state that they are not Jews, which, in consideration of their hypocrisy, should imply that they in fact are Jews and therefore should partake in the fate of the Jews, whether good or bad. Indirectly, Josephus reveals his (and probably his contemporaries') ambivalent opinion of the Samaritans, unwillingly
36. Occurs 10-15 times in Josephus, usually as an administrative term. The meaning here is probably 'application'. See K.H. Rengstorf, A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1983). 37. Variant: 'frequentpestilences'.

5. Samaritans in the Writings ofJosephus


admitting their Jewish heritage and their legitimate temple that is dedicated to TOXJ jieyiaToi) 0eot>. It is revealing that neither here, nor in 11.343-44, do the Sidonians call themselves Samaritans or Cuthaeans. These designations are only employed by Josephus, who also found it necessary to call them 'Medes and Persians'.38 A further descriptive emphasis on how far the Sidonians are from 'the worthiest people and those of noble soul', who did not obey Antiochus's decrees but 'held their country's customs of greater account than their punishment' (Ant. 12.255), is given by their addressing Anthiochus as 'our benefactor and saviour' and by their explicit denial of any adherence to Jewish customs:
We therefore petition you as our benefactor and saviour to command Apollonius, the governor of the district [|iepi8dpxri], and Nicanor, the royal agent, not to molest us in any way by attaching to us the charges of which the Jews are guilty, since we are distinct from them both in race and in customs, and we ask that the temple without a name be known as that of Zeus Hellenics [Aioq 'EUriviov] (Ant. 12.260-61).39

With this statement, the discussion of the Alexander story is given explicit clarification, which the death of Alexander had prevented. The naming of the temple is a consequence of the previous decree given to the Jews in Antiochus's second campaign against Jerusalem (Ant. 12.248-56), in an elaboration on 1 Mace. 1.29-64 and, perhaps, also 2 Mace. 6.1-11: 'He compelled them to give up the worship of their own God, and to do reverence to the gods in whom he believed.' According to 2 Mace. 6.1-2, this is a coercive measure that emphasizes the character of apostasy in Josephus's contrasting portrayal of the Sidonians, that they petitioned (CC^IOGO) that the temple without a name (TO dvcovujiov iepov) be known (7ipoaayopet>0f|vai) 'as that of Zeus Hellenics'. The implicit reference to Menelaus and his renegades (12.24041), and 'those of the people who were impious and of bad character' (12.252) must be kept in mind, as well as the fact that Josephus does not mention the naming of the temple in Jerusalem or that the high priest Jason had asked that Jerusalem become a polls and adopt a Greek constitution in 175 BCE, a status that the city was to hold until 168 BCE. The non-naming of the temple falls within Jewish tradition. Because

38. See below for a more detailed analysis of Josephus's terminology. 39. According to 2 Mace. 6.2, a variant reading, 'Zeus Xenios', is suggested (LCL365, p. 135).


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

God has no name, a dedication of the temple would be to 'the only god, creator of heaven and earth'. The implicit contrast stressed the Sidonian relationship, since only Judaism had this practice.40 The naming of Jerusalem's temple in 2 Mace. 6.2 does not change its Jewish orientation, since Zeus Olympus is the Greek name for K'DIZ? if^N ('God of heaven').41 Could the same be argued for Zeus Hellenius, and why did Josephus choose this name instead of the 'Dios Xenios' of 2 Maccabees? Several explanations have been suggested, but I will confine myself to the summary given by Rita Egger.42
40. Bickerman, Der Gott der Makkabder, p. 94 n. 3. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, pp. 261-67, gives a detailed overview of the problems involved: 'From this discussion we may conclude that at about the time when Yahweh was identified with Olympian Zeus in Jerusalem, in Greek-educated circles of Jews in Alexandria there were reflections on the problem of the relationship between the God of Israel and the "Zeus" of the philosophers... For Josephus, as for Aristobolus and for Ps. Aristeas, the God of the philosophers is fundamentally also the God of Israel' (pp. 265-66). 41. Bickerman, Der Gott der Makkabder, pp. 96, 112-13 n. 1. 42. R. Egger, Josephus Flavins und die Samaritaner: Eine terminologische Untersuchung zur Identitdtserkldrung der Samaritaner (NTOA, 4; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), p. I l l n. 296: 'Der Unterschied des Zeus-Attributes zwischen 2 Makk 6,2 und Ant 12,261 ist nicht dermassen gravierend, dass die Menschen die die Forderung der Benennung des Garizim-Heiligtum nach Zeus stellten, nicht mit einander identifiziert werden diirftenWir nennen noch einige Deutungen der beiden Epitheta, weil diese auf das Vorverstandnis verschiedener Autoren (beziiglich der Samaritaner) Licht werfen: Geiger (in: Eckstein, Geschichte 43 Anm.2) glaubt, Zeus' Beiname "Hellenios" sei von den Samar. gewahlt worden, weil er an "Eljon" erinnereSchalit, Denkschrift, 114f., bringt dieses Attribut mit dem Wettergott Zeus in Verbindung: Zeus Hellenios sei derjenige gewesen, der auf dem Oros auf Aegina gethront und als Regenbringer gegolten habe. Die Benennung des Garizim-Tempels stehe also mit der Diirre, die in Ant 12,259 die Sabbat Observanz der "Sidonier" begrunde, "in volliger Ubereinstimmung".Zum Epitheton "Xenios" vermutet Montgomery, aao. 77 Anm.ll, es "may have been suggested by the first syllable of Gerizim, ger, i.e. 'stranger'".Kippenberg 79f betrachtet "Xenios" aufgrund des griechisch-israelitischen Mischkultes auf dem Garizim "warscheinlicher als Zeus Hellenios"Alon, Origin 355f., meint, der Name "Xenios" passe zu den Bewohnern des Ortes, da sie Fremde in Land seien.Nach Pummer, aao.240f, hat Josephus "Xenios" aus polemischen Grilnden, dh. um den synkretischen Charakter der SRG zu unterstreichen, in "Hellenios" verwandelt.' S. Zeitlin (ed.), The Second Book of Maccabees (New York: Harper, 1954): 'The Surname Xenios, given to the temple on Mount Gerizim which was dedicated to

5. Samaritans in the Writings ofJosephus


The explanation possibly has to be based on the character applied to 'Dios Xenios'. This god is normally associated with 'Zeus Hekesios' or Thilios', god of mercy for the poor, foreigners, and those seeking protection. This was exactly what the Jews expelled from Jerusalem did (cf. Ant. 11.346-47). 2 Maccabees 6.2's additional explanation KaGooc; 8T\)y%avov oi TOY TOTCOV oiKOWTec; (which can mean either that the name fitted the people living there, or that the people used to call it such) might be alluded to in Josephus's account. A direct reference, however, would have weakened Josephus's description of the Sidonians of Alexander's time, and raised questions about the authenticity of the present account among those readers familiar with 2 Maccabees. Josephus therefore chose a neutral form 'Dios Hellenics', which cannot be related to any particular god. 'The Greek Zeus' could, in a manner similar to 'Zeus Olympos', be the god Yahweh, already 'residing' in the temple. The ambiguity of the naming, with implicit reference to accusations of Greek orientation and renegade activities is explicitly spelled out in Antiochus's reply. The naming, not the name, is essential to Josephus's account. If the Jews were forced to accept the naming, it was an inevitable fate, but if the Samaritans themselves had asked for the naming and its protection, it was treachery! This point is inherent in Antiochus's reply, which gives the Sidonians more than they asked for:
King Antiochus to Nicanor. The Sidonians in Shechem have submitted a memorial which has been filed. Now since the men sent by them have represented to us sitting in council with our friends that they are in no way concerned in the complaints brought against the Jews, but choose to live in accordance with Greek customs, we acquit them of these charges, and permit their temple to be known as that of Zeus Hellenics, as they have petitioned [iV;i(flKacn.] (Ant. 12.262-63).

The letter of the Sidonians did not contain any petition regarding living 'in accordance with Greek customs', but only of being free of 'charges of which the Jews are guilty'. The reply bases itself on a tradition that contrasts Jewish and Greek and expects that the non-Jewish be equivalent to Greek. Josephus has hereby expanded the Samaritan apostasy as both religious and political.

Zeus, was for the purpose of showing that the Samaritans had the right to be protected by Zeus, and they would not be molested.'


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

A copy of the letter was sent to Apollonius, 'the district governor, in the hundred and forty-sixth year, on the eighteenth of the month Hekatombaion Hyrcanios', which is the month of July 166 BCE.43 It still remains to decide whether these Sidonians can be equated with 'later' Samaritans/Shechemites as Josephus does, or whether Josephus, intentionally using a text that speaks of Sidonians living at Shechem, intends to deprive the Samaritans of Jewish adherence, both ethnic and confessional on the grounds that they had declared themselves to be 'distinct from them in both race [yevoq] and custom [eGoc;]' (12.261). As with Josephus's use of biblical material, it is not a question of Josephus's sources, but a question of how he used these sources. The interpolation of the story between Josephus's revision of 1 Maccabees 1 and 2 (the account of Mattathias and his sons [cf. Ant. 12.265]) could be seen as an attempt to interpret 2 Mace. 5.23 and 6.1-2, solving both the problem of 2 Maccabees's lack of reference to internal Jewish conflicts and answering the implicit question about whether Samaritans properly shared a destiny with the Jews. In contrast to Josephus's perspective, both 1 and 2 Maccabees understand everyone who did not agree to the Hasmonaean revolt as enemies of true Judaism, whether they belonged to priestly or to popular circles. The division is cast between 'those who had continued in the Jewish faith' (2 Mace. 8.3) and those who did not. Some justification of Josephus's view can be found in 1 Mace. 3.8-10. This contrasts Judaea with Samaria, and probably implies that the army Apollonius gathered from Samaria consisted of 'Samaritans' and Gentiles. What, however, might be expected, if Josephus had had a clear understanding of this text's possible reference to 'his' Samaritans, is a consistent use of it in his further elaboration of Judas's activities (Ant. 12.285-86). In this text, however, he does not contrast Judaeans to Samaritans, but only gives weight to Samaritan animosity implicitly by making Apollonius the governor of Samaria. The 'feebleness' of Josephus's 'Samaritans' in all of his stories hardly fits a picture of a forceful army. Miserable and feckless betrayal seem to be his underlying perspective. The forcefulness of this view finds expression in Josephus's terminology, which is hardly accidental and draws heavily on biblical traditions' explicit accusations of apostasy and deceit.

43. See the commentary on the dating in LCL 365, p. 137.

5. Samaritans in the Writings ofJosephus


Antiquities 13.74-79 Josephus's fifth story about the Samaritans is set in the Alexandrian diaspora during the reign of Ptolemy Philometor (181-146 BCE). It is combined with his account of the building of Onias's temple in Heliopolis (Ant. 13.62-73). The account is anticipated by a summary of what happened to the descendants of the exiled Jews in Egypt who had been taken captive from Judaea, Jerusalem, Samaria and Garizein during the reign of Ptolemy I Soter (323-285 BCE; cf. Ant. 12.7, 10). Josephus emphasizes that the Jews 'were determined to keep alive their fathers' way of life and customs'. This created quarrels and fights with the Samaritans (auapEiia<;)/Sriechemites (ZiKi^uaJv). Josephus's accounts of the Oniad temple in War and in Antiquities do not agree about whether it was Onias III (War 7.423) or IV (Ant. 12.388) who built the temple. In War, the account opens with a reference to the destruction of a Jewish temple in the district of Onias during the reign of Caesar, who, 'suspicious of the interminable tendency of the Jews to revolution', had ordered it to be demolished. Antiquities has no such reference. Similar to the Alexander story, the anticipating account in Ant. 12.387-88 connects the building of the temple with irregularities in Jerusalem's temple court that were caused by politically appointed high priests. This story is placed in the time of Antiochus IV and leading to Onias's flight to the Egyptian King Ptolemy for protection. In Egypt, he erected a temple in Heliopolis 'similar to that in Jerusalem'. War 7.427 (correcting a previous statement in War 1.33) stresses that the temple 'is not like [o\)% ojioiov] that at Jerusalem, but such as resembled a tower'. None of these accounts focus on the Samaritan question. However, the expanded account of the Oniad temple in Ant. 13.62-74 does. One can of course argue that it is only the redactional composition that encourages one to believe that these matters are related, since Josephus ends the Oniad account before bringing up the question about the legitimate temple. The following arguments support dependency: 1. The issue of cult centralization is not explicitly discussed in the accounts of the Oniad temple. It is given implicit reference in Onias's application, that the variety of temples lead to disagreements and improper cult practices (Ant. 13.60). Implicit reference is also given in Josephus's commentary to the reply of Ptolemy Philometor and Cleopatra, that 'they placed the


The Samaritans and Early Judaism blame for the sin and transgression against the Law on the head of Onias' (Ant. 13.69). That this should relate only to the site's former pagan status, as assumed in the note in LCL 355, p. 261, does fit well the cited letter, but we should not forget that in Josephus's biblical tradition, only Jerusalem was left clean after the Josianic reform. The disputes between the Samaritans and Jews are held 'in the presence of Ptolemy Philometor', who is given the status of authoritative voice. Onias justifies his building of the temple by a reference to the prophet Isaiah, who foretold that '[T]here shall be an altar [in Egypt to the Lord God [ecrcai 0\)oiaair|piov ev AiytmTcp Kvpico TOO 6eep]' (Ant. 13.68). Parallel to this, the Jewish spokesman Andronicus demonstrates the sovereignty of Jerusalem's temple with 'proofs from the Law [EK to\) vouoi)] and by the succession of the high priests [icov 8ia8o%oJv tcav dp%iepecov]' (Ant. 13.78).



The story opens:

Now there arose a quarrel between the Jews in Alexandria and the Samaritans who worshipped at the temple on mount Garizein which had been built in the time of Alexander, and they disputed about their respective temples in the presence of Ptolemy himself, the Jews asserting that it was the temple at Jerusalem which had been built in accordance with the laws of Moses, and the Samaritans that it was the temple on Garizein (Ant. 13.74).

Josephus employs only the term Zauxxpeiq in this account, which, along with the reference to Alexander, bears all the connotations of previous accounts. From the context, it must be assumed that the discussion relates to the reading of the Law. Whether both groups refer to the same 'codex' is not debated. The suggested 'proofs in accordance with the Law' are never spelled out by the Samaritan negotiators Sabbaeus and Theodosius, who gave 'Andronicus, the son of Messalamus' permission to speak first (13.78). Since he successfully persuaded the king to decide 'that the temple at Jerusalem had been built in accordance with the Laws of Moses', the debate is over. Sabbaeus and Theodosius and their party are put to death.44 We are deprived of any justification for
44. Which, according to W. Whiston, The Complete Works of Flavins Josephus (Edinburgh, 1737; repr. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1960-81; Peabody, MA: Hendrick-

5. Samaritans in the Writings ofJosephus


the Samaritan claim. In giving us Andronicus's eloquent denial of the importance of the Samaritan temple, Josephus is not of much help here:
he began with proofs from the Law and the succession of the high priests, showing how each had become head of the temple by receiving that office from his father, and that all the kings of Asia had honoured the temple with dedicatory-offerings and most splendid gifts, while none had shown any respect or regard for that on Garizein, as though it were not in existence (Ant. 13.78).

It is noteworthy that Andronicus's argumentation 'needs' additional support in a reference to the honourable status of the temple, when, chronologically speaking in Josephus's account, the 'Asian' Antiochus IV had just pillaged it. No explicit proofs from the Law are given in Josephus's account: no text reference, no quotations. This makes the proof a question of reputation rather than legality and implicitly confirms what we know from the discussions of Josephus's own time, that the Law cannot prove the case. Antiquities 13.254-78 Josephus's final account about the Samaritans relates to the destruction of the Samaritan temple during John Hyrcanus' campaign against the Syrian cities. After the death of Antiochus VII Sidetes, he considered it to be easy to conquer these cities. So after conquering the Nabataean cities of Medaba and Samoga, he attacked
Shechem and Garizein, and the Cuthean nation, which lives near the temple built after the model of the sanctuary at Jerusalem, which Alexander permitted his governor Sanaballetes to build for the sake of his son-in-law Manasses, the brother of the high priest Jaddua, as we have related before. Now it was two hundred years later that this temple was laid waste (Ant. 13.255-56).

With this short text, Josephus 'collects' most of his accounts related to the Samaritans and removes any possible doubt about which temple John Hyrcanus had 'laid waste'.45 The description is in itself neutral.
son, 1987) should be normal practice in this type of court case. 45. Josephus's language is ambiguous here, since the expression: oi)ve|3r| 8e TOV vaov TOVTOV epr||aov can mean that the temple 'was deserted', as Whiston's translation has it. This ambiguity of language reflects well Josephus's biblical tradition, which, for instance, in Isa. 24.10, 12 makes the city of emptiness a desert, with broken walls and cries in the streets. In contrast, Josephus's language is crystal clear when he relates the order to destruct the Oniad temple, using the verb KaSetpeoo


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Should it imply a hidden controversy, or attempt to justify John Hyrcanus's action, that must be sought in the attached story of the subduing of the Idumeans, who are only permitted to 'remain in their country so long as they had themselves circumcised and were willing to observe the laws [v6|iioic/voui|iOic;] of the Jews' (Ant. 13.257).46 They accepted these conditions 'out of attachment to the land of their fathers', and 'they have from that time on continued to be Jews'. In Josephus's view, the Idumaeans were ethnically and confessionally Jews, because they accepted the terms made by the Jews. Placed in this context, we should not be too confident in Josephus's intentions. Anticipating the destruction in his account of the hearing in Ptolemy Philometor's court, Josephus stated that 'the Jews, who were then in Alexandria, were in great anxiety...for they were resentful that any should seek to destroy [KorcaX\)co]47 this temple which was so ancient and the most celebrated of all those in the world' (Ant. 13.77). Josephus 's Terminology From the examination of Josephus's texts, a certain pattern appears. This is probably related to either the perspective or the sources of the account. The term 'Cuthaeans' appears frequently in texts dealing with the building or the destruction of the temple and is missing in texts dealing with questions concerning the 'legitimate temple' or with purely political circumstances. It is noteworthy that the term is employed eight times in Antiquities. Only one of these unrelated, namely Ant. 11.20, referring to the related form of 11.19. A remarkable interrelated form is found in the above-cited text about John Hyrcanus's temple destruction. Instead of the usual combination ZajiapeiTai/XouGaioi, we find the
(cf. War 7.421). However, according to War 7.433-36, the Oniad temple was not destroyed but stripped of its treasures and closed (cmoKXeito)! That Josephus does not relate any temple destruction in his parallel account in War 1.63 must also be taken into consideration. Could it be that the temple was not destroyed, thus agreeing with Samaritan tradition, as I shall relate in the next chapter? 46. This account has no parallel in War. 47. %aXe7t(6c; yap e<j>epov el Tomo tivet; Kmcd'uao'uaiv. Whiston's translation has 'for they took it very ill that any should take away the reputation of that temple'; both translations can be defended. Cf. Rengstorf, Concordance: xaA,eJtoo<; (j>epeiv, ' to be (become) displeased (indignant)'; Kaialijco, 'destroy, dethrone', etc. No specific reference to this text is given.

5. Samaritans in the Writings ofJosephus


expression %o\)0cdcov yevoq (13.256), which relates to the historical description of Sanballat's building of the temple, but only implicitly combines this with the Samaritans. The other six uses of the term Xo\)9aioi have an addition that has either a geographical (Ant. 9.288; 10.184; 11.19) or ethnic/religious connotation (Ant. 9.290), or both (Ant. 11.88; 11.302). These differences, however, should not be overstressed, if we consider Josephus's use of the term in 9.288 and 290 as typical and interchangeable. By and large, the Cuthaeans in Josephus's writings are people who were brought to Samaria by Shalmanezer, adopted the name of the area as well as its religion in their own form, and considered themselves to be Jews. The term is employed only in texts drawn from the Bible or from biblical related texts (2 Kgs 17; Ezra 4-6; Neh. 13.28; 1 Esd. 2.16-30; 5.66-7.3). It is noticeably absent in accounts related to Alexander the Great (with the exception of the description of Sanballat), Ptolemy I Soter, Ptolemy Philometor and Antiochus IV. This is most clearly expressed in this description of the Samaritans:
Now there arose a quarrel between the Jews in Alexandria and the Samaritans who worshipped at the temple on mount Garizein, which had been built in the time of Alexander, and they disputed about their respective temples in the presence of Ptolemy himself, the Jews asserting that it was the temple at Jerusalem which had been built in accordance with the laws of Moses, and the Samaritans that it was the temple on Garizein (Ant. 13.74).

No reference is made to 'Cuthaeans' or 'Sanballat', which contrasts strikingly with the account of the temple destruction. Etymologically, the term does not seem to have any other background than that of the geographical name Chuthah,48 which in Old Testament Scripture is found in 2 Kings 17 only. It is totally absent in pseudepigraphic literature and is not to be found in any ancient Near Eastern texts before its occurence in Josephus and rabbinic literature.49 Thus it is not possible to discuss other reasons for the term's application
48. W. Gesenius, Hebraisches und aramaisches Handwdrterbuch iiber das Alte Testament (Berlin: Springer Verlag, 17th edn, 1962); M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Babli, Yerushalmi and Midrashic Literature (New York: Jastrow, 1967); J. Levy, Worterbuch iiber die Talmudim und die Midrashim (4 vols.; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1963). 49. Cf. Chapter 4 above.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

to Samaritans. A later judgment of the Samaritans apparently caused 'Cuthaeans' in b. Hul. 6a to be used synonomously with 'pagans', and, in censored text editions, to replace goy, acuiim and ram.50 Targ. Ps.-J.'s use of kutaniim for Sidon in Gen. 10.19 falls within the range of Josephus's use. The SP or Sam. Targum do not have this variant. We have no reason to think that it is a Samaritan self-designation or that Josephus's usage in War 1.63 is due to any Samaritan source. Nor have we any reason to believe that the Cuthaean nation, comparable to the Sidonians are some non-Samaritans living near Gerizim and sharing temple and confession with the Samaritans, as has been suggested by Rita Egger.51 Sidonians and Samaritans The combination of these designations are found in two text corpora, Ant. 11.340-47 and 12.257-64, without a concomitant use of Cuthaeans. Josephus uses the Greek forms Zaiiapeiiac; and Eau,apeic; in these texts interchangeably. A similar use in Ant. 9.290 reflects the arbitrariness with which they are used.52 Both terms refer to the inhabitants of the city of Samaria as well as to the province Samaria. The inhabitants of Samaria/Sebaste, however, are always termed au,apei<;. It is context that indicates whether the term is to be understood geographically or ethno-religiously. In the present texts, there is no doubt that Josephus had an ethno-religious meaning in mind, and, as is clear in the text, he exploited it successfully. Josephus not only called the Sidonians Samaritans but also Shechemites, a designation the 'Sidonians' themselves did not employ when they are presented as saying that they live in Shechem. Moreover, Josephus also calls them Medes and Persians in Ant. 12.257.53

50. Jastrow, Dictionary, ad loci. 51. Egger, Josephus Flavins, pp. 294, 301-302, 315-16. 52. Concluded also by Rita Egger, Josephus Flavius, p. 172, on the background of a much larger body of material. 53. Which is in itself interesting, compared to the Jewish petition that Alexander 'permit the Jews in Babylon and Media also to have their own laws' (Ant. 11.338). In this story, however, the Samaritans are said to claim that they are descendents of Joseph (Ant. 11.341) and Hebrews called Sidonians of Shechem (Ant. 11.343).

5. Samaritans in the Writings of Josephus


Attempts at a historicizing reading of the two text corpora have proved unsuccessful. It has not been possible to decide who these Sidonians are or whether they, as in Josephus's accounts, were equivalent to Samaritans.54 Knowledge of a Sidonian colony in Marissa in the second century BCE55 has encouraged proposals of a similar colony in Shechem, one which did not belong to the Samaritans themselves but which made use of their temple.56 Confirmation of this proposal certainly would be interesting. It would demand a further examination of who these Samaritans are who have the temple. They certainly could not be any of those groups presented in Josephus! Most probably, they would belong to the 'lost tribes of Israel', which Josephus has cast out for good (cf. Ant. 10.183; 11.133). This problem, however, is not important here, since it is Josephus's metaphorical use of his 'sources' that interests us. Josephus's progressive narrowing down of the Samaritans as the population of, first, the whole of the northern kingdom in the time of Shalmanezer and Ezra, to the mixed population of renegade Jews in the time of Alexander, to a 'Sidonian colony' and finally to 'those living around Mt Gerizim' in Maccabaean time hardly reflects reality. Apart from being controversial in Josephus's own account about the quarrel in front of Ptolemy, it contradicts what we otherwise know of the Samaritan diaspora of Josephus's own time. Based on a reading of Homer, E.J. Bickerman considered, the designation to mean Phoenician, which in the geographical list
54. Egger, Josephus Flavins, pp. 266-81, probably offers the clearest example of the impossibility of such a reading and of the difficulties in establishing any authenticity for the document. Unaware of the caveat she implicitly brings into her interpretation of the document, she reached the following conclusion on p. 278: 'die Sidonier hatten von nun an nicht mehr oder nicht mehr ausschliesslich JHWH verehrt: Der Garizin-Tempel ist einige Jahrzehnte spater (129/128) zerstort worden. Der Grund dieser Zerstorung durch Johannes Hyrcanus ist uE. bei den Sidoniern bzw. ihrer Herrschafft iiber diesen Tempel zu zuchen.' 55. Schurer, History of the Jewish People, II (rev. edn 1979), pp. 4-5. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, p. 453 n. 128: 'The large number of Edomite names confronts the scholar with the question whether the Sidonians at Marisa were really from the neighborhood of Tyre and Sidon, or whether they were "Canaanites" in the broad sense of the term.' 56. M. Delcor, 'Vom Sichem der hellenistische Epoche zum Sychar des Neuen Testamentes', ZDPV 78 (1962), pp. 35-38; Kippenberg, Garizim und Synagoge, p. 79; R. Pummer,'Genesis 34 in Jewish Writings of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods', HTR 75 (1982), pp. 177-88.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

of Gen. 10.15 is Canaanite, 'since Sidon is Canaan's firstborn and Shechem originally a Canaanite town' (sic).51 This explanation fits Josephus's intentions in Ant. 11.340-41, which combines Sidonians, Shechemites and apostate Jews. It might also explain interpretations of Genesis 34 in pseudepigraphic and Hellenistic literature. That the Samaritans themselves should have used the name 'Sidonian', and thus have distinguished themselves from the Jews of Jerusalem by asserting a relationship to Melchizedek (who allegedly should have 'belonged to the race of Sidon and Canaan'), is an interesting but unsupported idea put forward by Bickerman.58 However, if such were the case, I think we might expect a more favourable presentation of Canaan than Genesis 9's in the SP.
57. E. Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek Age (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988). This hypothesis is put forward by A. Alt (1937^40), see Egger, Josephus Flavins, p. 266. Strabo, Geog. 16.2.22. See, further, V.A. Tcherikover and A. Fuks (eds.), Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum (3 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957-64), I, p. 120 n. 5: 'In Palestine the Phoenicians were known either as Sidonians or as Canaanites (Hebrew D^WD); inLXX: (|>oiviKri is used sometimes for Canaan (e.g. Exod. 16.35), sometimes for Sidon (e.g. Isa. 23.2).' Cf. for other numerous instances R. Abel, La geographie de Palestine (2 vols.; Paris: J. Gabalda, 1933-38), I, pp. 254-55 (Exod. 6.15; Josh. 5.1; Mk 7.26): 'En effet, non seulement Homere, mais encore la Bible designeret les Pheniciens sous le nom de Sidoniens pour marquer peut-etre qu'ils n'etaient pas tout Canaan. Ne en des temps recules, 1'usage se maintenent apres meme que Tyr et conquis 1'hegemonic. Itoba'al, roi de Tyr, est appele roi des Sidoniens; Astarte, divinite phenicienne a travailler le bois est attribute aux Sidoniens'; N.P. Lemche, The Canaanites and their Land (JSOTSup, 110; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), p. 156: 'In Hos. 12.8 Canaan is on one hand an Ephraimite and on the other a tradesman. Now this is the only evidence in the Old Testament of the identity between Ephraimites and Canaanites. It was therefore proposed above that Hosea in this place makes use of a foreign ethnic designation to disclose the true character of Ephraim, while at the same time imparting a sociological connotation to this ethnic term.' 58. Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek Age, p. 11: 'By styling themselves "Sidonians", that is "Canaanites", and therefore autochthonous, the descendants of the Assyrian settlers appropriated the ancient glory of Shechem and trumped both the Jews in Jerusalem, the older arrivals in Canaan, as well as the Greeks at Samaria, the more recent arrivals. The Shechemites now asserted, for instance, that Melchizedek, king of Salem (in the vicinity of Shechem) and priest of the most high God, who according to the Torah had blessed Abraham and received tithes from that Patriarch, was one of their people, since he belonged to "the race of Sidon and Canaan". Moreover, proclaiming that Melchizedek had officiated at Gerizim, they claimed for their temple an antiquity far surpassing that of Zion.'

5. Samaritans in the Writings of Josephus


Sidonians in biblical tradition are identical with the worst of idol worship that caused the partition of the kingdom, resulting from Yahweh's punishment of Solomon's worship of 'Ashtoret the goddess of the Sidonians, Kemosh the god of Moab and Milkom the god of the children of Ammon' (1 Kgs 11.5, 33; 2 Kgs 23.13). In the centre of this narrative cycle, thematically designed as 'he walked in all the way of Jeroboam the son of Nebat and in the sins which he made Israel to sin, provoking the Lord the god of Israel to anger by their idols', is the narrative about Ahab the son of Omri, who sinned even more by marrying the daughter of the Sidonian King Etbaal and raising an altar for Baal in Samaria (1 Kgs 16.30-32). The reiteration of this theme in 1 Kgs 15.34; 16.2, 19, 26, 31; 22.53 and 2 Kgs 3.3; 10.29; 13.2, 11; 14.24; 15.9, 18, 24, 28 relates the narratives to each other and forwards the fate of the northern kingdom. It is contrasted to the reforms of Josiah, which, in a final reiteration of both Solomon's and Jeroboam's sins and the defilement of their cult places (2 Kgs 23.13-20), marks every place outside of the walls of Jerusalem as unclean. Reiterating the passover of the time of the judges, Israel's and Judaea's royal pasts are made parenthetical. The intention of the reform is not only the purification of the people, but unification in a pre-monarchic past's hope for a new beginning. The thematic elements of this cycle are the king's apostasy, erection of cult places for foreign gods (further aggravated by the king's marriage into the families of these foreign gods), the people's deceit when it preferred Jeroboam to Rehoboam and the partition of the kingdom. This is not brought to an end before the foreign gods are thrown out and their cult places destroyed, that there be only one temple and one ruler. Josephus's thematic accord with this narration in his first 'Sidonian' account in Ant. 11.297-347 is striking. Josephus's story also deals with the question of the people's deceit. Sanballat and his son-in-law did not hesitate to break their oath to Darius. They created a mixed race by marriage with foreign women. They made a cult place outside of Jerusalem attributed to a god without a name, who becomes a Greek god in Josephus's second 'Sidonian' account. Finally, they caused a division of 'the strength of the Jews'. It seems reasonable to ask whether Josephus had the biblical tradition in mind. Whether, purposely exploiting the most dominant metaphor of the narrative, the Sidonians, who in tradition had become synonomous with ever-hated 'Canaanites', he sought to place the Samaritans in a context of Gentiles. Such an assumption finds support in his concomi-


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

tant use of 'Shechem'. In the biblical tradition Shechem not only bears the burden of guilt for the rape of Jacob's daughter Dinah, and the resulting rejection in spite of their circumcision, but also the burden of the people's deceit in the time of Abimelech, which 'increased idolatry' (Judg. 8.33-9.57). Judges 9 is the only passage in the Hebrew Bible mentioning the 'Shechemites', expressed by DDE? '"'PID in Judg. 9.2, 3, 6, 7, 18, 20, 23, 24, 26, 39 and DD& {?] in 9.57. The closing statement in 9.57 about the evil deeds of the Shechemites (DDE? '{83K nm'^D) may have had a forceful effect in Josephus's own time, comparable to what we find in a Talmudic commentary on the Testament ofLevi.59 The narrative opens (Judg. 8.33) and ends (Judg. 10.6) with remarks about apostasy: that the people worshipped D^in (Baals) and Ashtarot (rrnntBU), which, with the exception of this account, only appear together in Judg. 2.13, the beginning of the apostasy at the time of the Judges, and in 1 Sam. 7.4 and 12.10, the restoration during Samuel, where the removal of these gods brings peace. Apart from this, mHDS) is only mentioned in the already mentioned cycle, namely 1 Kings 112 Kings 23 and in the account of the death of Saul (1 Sam. 31.10). It seems reasonable to assume that Josephus consciously used the terms Sidonians and Shechemites in his discussion about the Samaritans. After the destruction of the temple, they are termed EctjiapeiTai/ EajLiapeiq (cf.Ant. 13.275; 15.292; 17.20, 69, 319, 342; 18.30, 85-89, 167; 20.118-36). In none of these accounts do ethnicity and confession play an independent role. Most of these accounts are related to hostility and fraud. Josephus between Jewish War and Antiquities Parallel accounts in Antiquities to some of the accounts in War display a tendency of concern that cannot be explained on the possibility that Josephus had more exact information at hand when he wrote Antiquities. By text expansion and conscious use of terminology, Josephus's apologetic interest in contrasting Jew and Samaritan is given greater

59. b. Sank. 102.1: There was a time destined to be calamitous. At that time Tamar was nearly burned, and Judah's two sons died. The place was also productive of calamities; for in Shechem Dinah was disgraced, in Shechem Joseph was sold, and in Shechem also was the kingdom of David divided' (cf. P.I. Hershon, The Pentateuch According to the Talmud: Genesis with a Talmudic Commentary [London: S. Baxter & Sons, 1883], p. 420).

5. Samaritans in the Writings ofJosephus


emphasis in Antiquities than in War, He thus seems to have felt it necessaryin an expansion of War 1.64-65to justify John Hyrcanus's campaign against Samaria by adding that 'he hated the Samaritans [TOI<; Eauxxpeijaw] as scoundrels because of the injuries which, in obedience to the kings of Syria, they had done to the people of Marisa, who were colonists [arcoiKO'uc;] and allies [cru|u,u.dxoi)<;] of the Jews' (Ant. 13.27576).60 War 2.232-44 //Antiquities 20.118-36 In these stories, Josephus tells about Samaritans fighting with Galilaeans in Ginea, Jewish intervention in the fight and a trial that judges the Samaritans responsible for the fight. An analysis of Josephus's terminology in the two accounts is enlightening.
War 2.232: Next came a conflict [0i>|j,po?if|] between the Galilaeans [FaXiXaicov] and the Samaritans [Zajiapecov]61. Ant. 20.118: hatred [e%9pa] arose between the Samaritans [Za|iapeiTCu<;] and the Jews [rcpoc; louScdoix;].62 War 2.233: Cumanus did not interfere because he had more important affairs on his hands. Ant. 20.119: Cumanus, 'having been bribed by the Samaritans, neglected to avenge them' . War 2.235-36: Cumanus, after the Jewish brigands and rioters had fallen 'upon the borderers of the toparchy of Acrabatene', massacred the inhabitants and burned down the villages, took with him from Caesarea a troop of cavalry known as Sebastenians and set off to the assistance of the victims of these ravages. Ant. 20.122: Cumanus, after the Jews had taken action and had burned and plundered many 'villages of the Samaritans', went out with soldiers from Sebaste and after arming the Samaritans, marched out against the Jews. War 2.239: 'the leading Samaritans... urged Ummidius Quadratus to punish the authors of these depredations'. 60. The Greek term designates that the league was related to war and politics. If for some reason the people of Marisa (cov Mapior|vo\)<;) is a 'misspelling' of the district of Samaria, as suggested by Ralph Marcus, LCL 365, p. 366, we certainly have an interesting mixture of, on the one hand 'Samaritans' being allied to the Jews, though they were colonists, and Samaritans (probably of a non-Cuthaean stock) not being allied to the Jews, but probably being kinsfolk. 61. Notice the equality between the involved parties in this text. 62. Josephus' s text more correctly should have been translated that 'Samaritans had hatred against the Jews'.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Ant. 20.125-27: the 'leaders of the Samaritans met with Ummidius Quadratus, the governor of Syria, who at that time was in Tyre, and accused the Jews of firing and sacking their villages', and what was even worse of 'the contempt that the Jews had shown for the Romans' by not appealing the case to the Romans, 'as though they did not have the Romans as their governors'.63 War 2.240: the Samaritans had originated the disturbance, and that Cumanus should carry the whole responsibility for 'refusing to take proceedings against the assassins'. Ant. 20.127: the Jews accused the Samaritans for being responsible for the strife, and Cumanus for having been bribed by them. War 2.241: Quadratus 'crucified all the prisoners taken by Cumanus'.64 Ant. 20.129: Quadratus, after his first hearing in Samaria, 'crucified those of the Samaritans and of the Jews who had taken part in the rebellion and whom Cumanus had taken prisoner'. War 2.242-44: 'he [Quadratus] gave another hearing to the Samaritans', whereafter 'he sent for 18 Jews, who, as he was informed, had taken part in the combat, and had them beheaded'. Ant. 20.130-33: a certain Samaritan informed Quadratus, that the Jews' real intentions was to revolt against Rome. Quadratus, after having put to death some of the Jewish leaders, hastened to Jerusalem, fearing a fresh revolution, but found the city 'at peace and observing one of the traditional religious festivals'. War 2.245-46: At the trial Agrippa defended the Jews, while many eminent persons supported Cumanus. The result of the hearing is similar to that in Antiquities. Ant. 20.135: Cumanus and the Samaritans were met with considerable support by Caesar's freedmen and friends, and that they would have won the case if not the emperor's wife Agrippina, urged by Agrippa the Younger, had persuaded Caesar Claudius to make a hearing and 'punish the instigators of the revolt'. This hearing convinced Claudius 'that the Samaritans were the first to move in stirring up trouble'. They were accordingly put to death, and the officals Cumanus and Celer disgraced.

This rather neutral way of describing the Samaritan-Jewish relationship is reflective of Josephus's other accounts in War. This does not
63. This accusation of the Jews for opportunism in Ant. 20.127 is a free interpretation of War 2.237 mentioning the Jewish fear of bringing down the wrath of the Romans on Jerusalem. 64. Tacitus, Ann. 12.54, relating of the quarrels between Samaritans and Jews, says that Cumanus crucified the Jews, since they had dared to slay Roman soldiers.

5. Samaritans in the Writings ofJosephus


mean, however, that Jews and Samaritans typically were on friendly terms with each other. They were not, but the overtones that colour most of Josephus's stories in Antiquities are missing in War. Thus Ant. 17.342, concordant with War 2.111, parallels Samaritans and Jews in their common accusation of Archelaus for brutality and cruelty. War 3.307-15 relates the sufferings of the Samaritans (Zajiapeic;) during the Roman siege of 'their sacred Mountain called Garizein'. This account is similar to Josephus's account of the suffering of the Galilaeans, and forms part of his account of the siege of Jotapata. Josephus mentions the rashness of the Samaritans, that 'the success of the Romans made them ridiculously conceited of their own feebleness, and they were eagerly contemplating the prospect of revolt'. This led Vespasian to capture the mountain and kill those who had not fled or surrendered to the number of 11,600. The Samaritans had been offered safe conduct, but refused. At a first glance, it could look as if Josephus criticizes the Samaritans' actions, using this story as a contrast story. However, reading the whole account and taking into consideration his description of the sufferings of the Galilaeans, it is clear that, if any contrast were intended, it relates to the Samaritans' ability to withstand the Romans. It seems proper to assume that Josephus brought these three accounts together in order to demonstrate the severeness of the resistance that threatened Vespasian, describing how every group did what they could to hamstring Roman power. The closing remark that 'such was the catastrophe which overtook the Samaritans' is the only place in War (with the exception of 1.562 and 592, which are unimporant here) where the term Eaiiapeliai is employed. A consequent use of Zajiapeiq is found in the remaining texts. Parallel to this, only few occurrences of au.apeiiai are found in the later chapters of Antiquities,65 all of which have polemical overtones (e.g. Ant. 17.69; 18.30; 20.118). The importance of this, however, should not be overstressed since a certain harmonization seems to have developed through the transmission of Josephus's texts. The lack of an Urtext prohibits us from establishing any certainity about the issue.66 The term Eajaapecov eOvoc; is employed only in Ant. 17.20 and 18.85, and relates to the 'Samaritan nation', to those who believe Mt Garizein to be the most sacred mountain.

65. Egger, Josephus Flavins, pp. 247-48. 66. Egger, Josephus Flavins, p. 250.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Concluding Remarks to Josephus's Presentation of Samaritans As a Jew trained in Jewish thought and living for some months (Oct. 66-July 67) in Galilee, Josephus shows surprisingly little knowledge of Judaean-Samaritan controversies over cult and temple in his accounts in War. The picture is not far from that given in 2 Maccabees, where Jews and Samaritans had fought together against the Seleucid oppression and had suffered equally. In general, the terminology is neutral and the only occurrence of the term %o\)0aicov yevoq (War 1.63) does not have the sectarian overtones that characterize the use of the term in Antiquities. As related earlier in War's account of John Hyrcanus's campaign, Josephus does not tell of any temple destruction, but only of the defeat of the Cuthaeans. It is perhaps correct to assume that the temple was not destroyed but deserted. While in Rome, Josephus, much later, wrote Antiquities, his stories about Samaritan connection with central events in Judaism testify to a greater interest in what subsequently became known as the JewishSamaritan schism. Is this due to a better opportunity of using relevant sources in handling a problem that 'later' became so well known that the New Testament, Church Fathers and rabbinic literature all take measures to handle co-existent problems between Samaritans and Jews? Josephus did have access to Epaphroditus's huge library, and age had probably also supplied him with greater knowledge in general. However, Josephus's perspective, which is more interesting to detect than any possible source, is given its most adequate expression in Apion 1.1 when he states,
In my history of our Antiquities, most excellent Epaphroditus, I have, I think, made sufficiently clear to any who may peruse that work the extreme antiquity of our Jewish race, the purity of the original stock, and the manner in which it established itself in the country which we occupy today. That history embraces a period of five thousand years and was written by me in Greek on the basis of our sacred books.

In this perspective, Josephus's treatment of the Samaritans is of midrashic character, employing available material in a conscious presentation that argues that the Samaritans are, at best, 'apostates of the Judaean nation' and, at worst, nothing but heathens, whom he out of politeness calls Xoi>6aioi, instead of the D*1"]} employed in some rabbinic writings. The emphasis on the Jewish race's 'extreme antiquity' and 'purity of the original stock' contrasts with his description of the

5. Samaritans in the Writings ofJosephus


Samaritans as latecomers and as impure, a mixture of five different peoples who had later intermarried with various other peoples. In War, Josephus, as an historian, presented his version of recent Jewish history. In Antiquities, serving both the role of a historian and a 'rabbi',67 he composed his history on Jewish antiquity in order to demonstrate that legitimate Judaism belongs to Jerusalem. This message was forcefully given to the Roman leaders, not only to defend the sovereignty of the Jewish temple, but also to demonstrate the loyalty of the Jewish leaders to the Romans. Every time such loyalty was questioned, they stood the test, as they had also done in the time of Persian and Greek leadership. After the loss of the Jewish temple in Roman times, the pivotal questions related to 'where' and 'how' the temple kept alive the hopes of Jewish survival in a world that did not look upon Judaism with favour. Josephus's treatments of the Samaritan question makes it implicitly clear that Samaritanism and other 'Judaisms' especially the Jews of Heliopoliswere a threat to Josephus's presentation of a Jerusalem-centred Judaism. The diaspora belonging to such groups were not fewer than those of the Jewish diaspora.68 Their theology could not be argued to be significantly different from that of the Jews, with the one exception that they offered their worship to Garizim. As a historian, Josephus could not refuse to mention these communities and their temples. They were part of the historical discussion. However, like a rabbi, he could compose his material in a way that would prove to the reader that these groups were dissidents from what he saw as true Judaism. He argues implicitly that during the Hellenistic period they had left their Jewish foundation and, with it, the laws of their ancestors. He argues that they practise a Judaism that was alien to that of Jerusalem, even though their faith had originally come from Jerusalem. Josephus's sectarianism resembles parts of the Jewish tradition that had asserted Jerusalem's chronological and ideological priority over its competitors. The temple in Jerusalem he claims to be older than other competing temples. Although Jerusalem had not avoided being influenced by Hellenistic culture, few dissidents supported such a culture: one Manasseh and one Onias, and theyand here Josephus's argument achieves wholeness and eloquent balancewere eventually transferred
67. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 75, speaks of a 'Pharisaic profile' in Antiquities. 68. A.D. Crown, 'The Samaritan Diaspora', in idem (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 195-217 (201).


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

to the competing temples, which now are implicitly claimed to be both younger than that of Jerusalem and politically based on Greek and Ptolemaic authority. It is a wonder that Josephus in War shows no interest in mentioning the Samaritan temple. Does it form part of his strategy? Is the repeated information about the temple in Heliopolis (War. 1.31, 33; 7.422-32) part of the same strategy? Lack of documentation characterizes all of Josephus's descriptions. Who built the temple in Heliopolis? Was it Onias III during the reign of Ptolemy VI (cf. War 1.33; 7.423) or Onias's son, Onias IV, who did not obtain the office of the high priest in Jerusalem after the death of Menelaus (162-60 BCE), but rather had fled to Egypt (cf. Ant. 12.387; 13.62-73, 285)? Or could it possibly have been Onias's nephew Onias, surnamed Menelaus (Ant. 20.236)? How long did it stand, if, in accordance with Josephus's dating in War 7.436, it was demolished after the Sicarii's flight to Egypt in the aftermath of the fall of Masada, 343 years after its erection. This would date its erection to around 270 BCE, a date conflicting with Josephus's own chronology. Scholarly consensus maintains that it was Onias IV who built the temple in Tell el-Yehudieh east of the Nile delta, 180 stadies or 24 Roman miles north of Memphis.69 The colony was probably a military camp serving the Egyptian defence (War 1.190). Findings of Jewish names on tombstones confirm Jewish presence in the area. Chronologically, most of these are dated about a hundred years later, and are of no help for an a quo dating in the third or second century BCE.70 Jewish camps in Egypt were not unusual. Some might have been similar to Elephantine with their own temples, even before Onias was to have built his temple. Egyptian papyri dating to the third century BCE mention a village named Samareia in the Fayum near Arsinoe.71 Josephus mentions that Alexander placed Sanballat's troops in Thebes (Ant. 11.345) and that Ptolemy I Lagos took captives from Judaea and Jerusalem together with captives from the Samaritan and the Gerizim area and settled them in Egypt (Ant. 12.7). However, exact figures of how many Jews actually lived in Egypt can be doubted. Philo's mention of a
69. Schtirer, History of the Jewish People, III, pp. 145 n. 33 (32), 146 n. 33. 70. CPJ, III, pp. 1451-1530. Neither in inscriptions or in administrative documents are there found any secure references to Onias and his sons. A doubtful reference is found in the inscriptions CPJ, I-II, 1450, 1455, and in pap. CPJ, I, 132. Most of the datable inscriptions date from 50 BCE to around 50 CE. 71. Schtirer, History of the Jewish People, III, p. 59.

5. Samaritans in the Writings ofJosephus


million Jews 'from Kathabathmos near Libya to the Egyptian frontier' is probably a rhetorical exaggeration.72 Strabo does not mention a Jewish presence in his description of the temple of Heliopolis north of Bubastus.73 His description of the animal sacrifice in the temples of the area74 seems to be the background for Josephus's polemical description of the temple in Ant. 13.66-67, 70-71, since it is only in this story that he mistakes Heliopolis for Leontopolis. Josephus's placement of the Judaean-Samaritan discussion in Alexandria in connection with this story is thus even more striking, and it is reasonable to ask whether Josephus composed his material in a way that would miscredit both the Samaritan and the Oniad temple at the same time. 1. Both temples have their background in high priests excluded from Jerusalem. Their questionable characters are made explicit. Manasseh, betraying the security of his country, chose the marriage and the relationship with the 'Cuthaeans'. Onias IV wanted to create a name for himself, which was not possible because of circumstances in Jerusalem. War 7.431 tells us that Onias's dishonest motive was to rival the Jews at Jerusalem and attract the multitude away from them. Both narratives' legendary traits point to functions of folklore and slander, whose main purposes are to entertain, create continuation and pronounce judgment. The use of 'Leontopolis', city of lions, is a message to the educated reader, and especially to the Jewish reader who knew the Jewish tradition about the Samaritans' doubtful Jewish adherence based on the fear of lions. Josephus's use of this name in his reference to Heliopolis is no matter of chance, since Strabo's mention of the neighbouring cities could well have led to a different choice. Moreover, Leontopolis is far from being close to Heliopolis. It is not probable that the place name should refer to an unknown spot nearby, as has been suggested by Schiirer.75 It is much more probable that the Phoenician Leontopolis's closeness to Sidon76 creates the connection in Josephus's metaphorical use of the name.
Schiirer, History of the Jewish People, III, p. 44. Geog. 17. 1.27-30. Geog. 17.1.19,22,40. SchUrer, History of the Jewish People, III, p. 146 n. 33. Strabo, Geog. 16.2.22.


72. 73. 74. 75. 76.

230 3.

The Samaritans and Early Judaism The building of the temple in Heliopolis on the heap of ruins of a former pagan temple is improbable. The problem is not solved by cleansing the place, as expressed in Onias's application. The answer of the king most probably reflects the author's attitude. War 7.420-32 does not contain this correspondence; the polemic against the building limits itself to the critique of Onias's motive in v. 431, thus 'correcting' vv. 423-25, which have Antiochus IV s intolerable religious persecutions as its motive. The trial before Ptolemy Philometor deals with the temples in Jerusalem and on Gerizim. Placed here, Josephus demonstrates that the temple in Heliopolis/Leontopolis had no significance. This is probably correct, judging from its absence in JewishAlexandrian literature.77 Onias probably did not attract many Jews nor weaken the power of the Jews, but he certainly raised for himself a namein literature! When the judgment denied the Samaritan claim, Josephus was able to demonstrate Jerusalem's sovereignty, and, with his reference to the succession of high priests, he removed any question of the legitimate high priest in fact being in Heliopolis.


With this, we are thrown back into the question of the function of the temple in Heliopolis in Josephus's writing. Nobody seems to know such a temple or need it, and it is puzzling why he mentions it at all. Did it exist outside of Josephus's fantasy? The answer can be both yes and no. That temples existed outside of Jerusalem has been proved sufficiently in M. Smith's work from 1971.78 M. Hengel furthermore considers it probable that 'competitive' temples were erected in Palestine as late as the second century BCE.79 It is surprising that none of these
77. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, p. 278. The assumption that it is mentioned in the Sib. Or. 5.501, 507 has been rejected by J. Geffcken, Komposition u. Entstehungszeit d. Oracula Sibyllina (Leipzig: n. pub., 1902), p. 26. 78. Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics, p. 93: 'So the cult of Yahweh was disseminated from a number of centers known to usHaran, Elephantine, Babylonia, Lachish, Samaria, Gerizim, Tabor, Carmel, Hermon, Hebron, Mamre, Deir 'Alia, Tell es-Sa'idiyeh, Araq el-Emir, Leontopolisand probably from others of which we have no record.' 79. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism (rev. edn, 1996), p. 274: 'Probably at the same time as the foundation of Leontopolis, the synagogue at Antioch also took on temple-like functions to which "the successors of Antiochus IV"presumably

5. Samaritans in the Writings ofJosephus


are mentioned in Josephus's works. Similarly, it is surprising that nonJewish authors of the second and first century BCE do not mention that the Jews only accept one temple in a world that is elsewhere characterized by having several. Thus, Onias's temple in Egypt creates no special attention as long as the temple in Jerusalem is still standing and considered to stand at the centre of Judaism. Therefore, the critique of Onias in War does not relate to cult but to policy, and the placement of Onias is more important than any possible question of cult centralization. By this we might have arrived to the crux interpretum of the Heliopolis stories. Let us therefore put forward another hypothesis. The legitimate high priest did not go to Gerizim or form a competitive community in Judaea. He was much too busy in Egypt, where the placement followed because of the similarity of the names Onias and On and tradition's testimony of Jewish settlement in the area.80 It is, however, not Onias who gives the area its name. This was established centuries earlier. The mention of Onias's land in Ant. 14.131 cannot be identified with Onias's temple activities.81 Unfortunately, Josephus did not take into consideration the traditions of 2 Maccabees when he wrote War. It is not improbable that he mistook Onias for Jason, who, according to 2 Mace. 5.8-10, was shipwrecked on his way to the Lacedaemonians and cast ashore in Egypt. Josephus does not mention Jason's fate, but only his rebellion in Ant. 12.237-40, and he seems to have forgotten him in Ant. 20.235-37. When Josephus later became familiar with Onias's fate (2 Mace. 4.34), he had to transfer the event to his son
Demetrius I Soter, 162-150 BCbequeathed the bronze vessels taken by Antiochus from the temple. Later kings also bequeathed valuable gifts to the growing community, with which "the sanctuary was adorned" (TO iepov e^eXduTip-uvav). Presumably the Ptolemies, like the Seleucids, sought to make 'central sanctuaries' in their sphere of rule independent of "apostate" Jerusalem, for the use of the Jews. Of course these efforts remained without real success.' 80. Cf. Jer. 43.13: Dn^Q p3 "ICDK 2JQ2J mi, LXX*: tout; ev Qv; The Hebrew here clearly echoes the Gk form Heliopolis, "city of Helios" so called from the worship of solar deities peculiar to the city. In Egyptian, the town was called Iwnw "pillar town" a form reflected in Akk. Ana, Coptic On, and Hebrew 'on/'awen (JIN) (Ezek. 30.17), which LXX renders Helioupoleus' (D.B. Redford, 'Heliopolis', ABD, III, pp. 122-23). Joseph's marriage to Aseneth, daughter of the priest in On, with whom he begot the sons Ephraim and Manasseh (cf. Gen. 41.45, 50; 46.20) and the LXX reading of Exod. 1.11's Helioupoleus for Ramses, could have led tradition to connect Onias with the place. 81. Schtirer, History of the Jewish People, III, p. 48. Josephus, LCL 365 p. 517.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Onias IV, but now there was no return. Literarily, Onias had built his temple in Heliopolis as a consequence of Antiochus IV's oppression of the Jews in Jerusalem. The only thing to do was to deny its importance and its relationship to true Judaism. When, at the same time, a Judaism that had lost its centre demanded a clear statement of where this centre needed to be, Josephus took the opportunity to prove that no centres outside of Jerusalem could claim legitimacyeven if this had been placed in the famous On, which not only testified to the favour of Egyptian kings for centuries, but also was the place where famous Greek philosophers like Solon, Pythagoras and Plato had sought wisdom, and where Moses had been priest.82 Josephus's implicit argument accords with rabbinic literature, which places Onias's temple in a subordinate position to the temple cult in Jerusalem and denies recognition of its sacrificial rites and its priests, who are given the status of the priests mentioned in 2 Kgs 23.9: 'Nevertheless the priests of the high places came not up to the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem, but they did eat unleavened bread among their brethren', thus they were like them that have a blemish: they may share and they may eat (of the Holy things) but they may not offer sacrifice.'83 The same judgment was given of the Samaritan priests in Masseket Kutim 23 and 27. It now seems possible to propose some conclusions about Josephus's historiography. The most important events are at best undocumented and at worst contradicted in other works. Alexander probably never was in Jerusalem, if we are to believe Diodoros Sicculus, Strabo, Arrian, Curtius Rufus, and others, and the narrative's focus on Jewish-Samaritan controversies, similar to what we find in the first century CE Megillat Ta'anit makes it more than doubtful that the story has any original core of truth regarding events of the fourth century BCE.84 The

82. D.B. Redford, 'Heliopolis', pp. 122-23; D.B. Redford, Pharaonic King Lists, Annals, and Daybooks (Publication No. 4; Ontario: SSEA, 1986); Strabo, Geog. 17.1.29. Heliopolis's connection with Moses in Egyptian history-writing (esp. Manetho, see Apion, 1.250, 260-87) and this historiography's consequent claim that the Jews should be of Egyptian origin is strongly rejected by Josephus (Apion 2.8-32). Josephus's interest in answering such 'accusation' might have been a second reason for his Heliopolis story. Similar to his Alexander story of the Samaritan temple, it establishes an origin tradition for the cult and removes any questionable connections with such a 'troublesome' past. 83. m.Men. 13.10. 84. See the discussion of Simon the Just in Chapter 4 above.

5. Samaritans in the Writings ofJosephus


documents regarding John Hyrcanus seem to have been lost when 1 Maccabees was written. The brusque closure of this book after the summary of his exploits is similar to the often-used phraseology of Old Testament 'historical books', which in like manner refers variously to chronicles that are not employed further. Archaeological finds are inconclusive. Samaria seems to have been destroyed by Alexander on his return from Egypt in 331 because of rebellious activities, and a Macedonian garrison was placed there.85 Some of the survivors possibly moved to Shechem, which seems to have been re-established as a Macedonian city at this time, only to be destroyed again in the late third or early second century BCE during the Ptolemaic-Seleucid wars.86 Samaria's 300 years' position as provincial capital in the Assyrian87 and Babylonian Periods, which in the Persian period also included Jerusalem until the fifth century, might have inspired the writing of stories of rivalry in the 'narratives of return', Josephus's Alexander story and the discussion before Ptolemy. The Assyrian siege, however, did not lead to a complete destruction of the city. The city walls remained. It was not until the Greek destruction that the city lost its governmental importance for a period of about 130 years, to be regained in the Seleucid period. Again destroyed in the Maccabaean interim, it regained its status in Roman times. Hellenistic and pagan influence is apparent from the finds of imported pottery and statues of Hercules, Dionysus, Apollon and Kore. The latter's temple was built partly of remains of an earlier temple from the third century BCE, dedicated to Serapis-Isis and attributed to the Dioscuri.88

85. According to Curtius Rufus 4.8, 9-11. 86. Re-evaluating the results of G.E. Wright, both E.F. Campbell and I. Magen have asked for a further consideration of Shechem's relationship to the Hellenistic city of Lozeh on Gerizim's summit. It might not be quite so certain that Shechem replaced Samaria's political importance. Cf. E.F. Campbell, 'Shechem', in E. Stern (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (4 vols.; New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993), IV, pp. 1345-54. 87. Rebuilt 'better than it was before' and populated with 'people from countries which I myself had conquered. I placed an officer of mine as governor'. According to the Sargon II inscription in Khorsabad (cf. ANET, pp. 284-86). 88. N. Avigad, 'Samaria', in Stern (ed.), New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, IV, pp. 1306-10.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Mount Gerizim, Tell er-Ras The possible remains of temple constructions under the so-called Hadrian temple built on Gerizim may date to the fourth-third century BCE. No final conclusions have been established and the latest report of I. Magen has not confirmed the earlier hypothesis that the structures from earlier excavations were in fact a temple, or that it could be dated to the fourth century. Remains of a wall, enclosing a sacred precinct covering the entire summit, with two large gates on the eastern side and a large number of sheep bones inside, might suggest a temple similar to that assumed to be in Jerusalem, but no certain remains have been uncovered so far.89 Discussions of whether Samaritans had a temple at all or perhaps only an altar in front of the tabernacle, which 'disappeared' after the betrayal of Eli, have not yet been resolved.90 Finds of coins in the city on top of Gerizim (Khirbet Louza = biblical Luzah) date from the time of Antiochus III (around 200) to the time of John Hyrcanus. These also give evidence of destruction, as they were hidden in thick layers of ashes and burned debris. The city thus seems to have been built and strengthened under Antiochus III, an event not mentioned by Josephus, who, supporting his account with reference to Polybius of Megalopolis, addresses all of Antiochus's 'documents' to the restoration of the temple and temple cult in Jerusalem (Ant. 12.133-46). The 'genuineness' of this so-called 'charter of Jerusalem' must still be questioned, in spite of E. Bickerman's analysis, which established its authenticity for the majority of scholars.91 As rightly pointed out by Biichler, Josephus's quotation of Polybius preceding Antiochus's letter to Ptolemy does not give any reason to believe the letter has anything to do with circumstances in Jerusalem. The lack of any specific names allows reference to any place, and it is only 12.141's remark that the timber is to be brought from 'Judaea itself and from other nations' that provides a likely reference to Jerusalem. Biichler's problem with the identification of city and temple, which would not fit the assumption of the fortress placed in Samaria and the temple on Gerizim collapses with

89. I. Magen, 'Gerizim, Mount', in Stern (ed.), New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, II, pp. 484-92. 90. R. Pummer, 'Samaritan Material Remains', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck] 1989), pp. 135-77 (172-73). 91. See the outlines of the discussion as presented in LCL, 365, Appendix D; E. Bickerman, 'La charte seleucide de Jerusalem', pp. 4-35.

5. Samaritans in the Writings ofJosephus


I. Magen's latest report on Gerizim. It is not necessary, however, to claim the letter to be a Samaritan forgery of Herodian times, which ascribed to Antiochus III certain grants given to the Samaritan temple on Mt Gerizim. The letter's resemblance to other decrees given by Persian, Hellenistic and Roman rulers can be used either to support or to reject its authenticity. Josephus's quotation of Polybius that 'those Jews who live near the temple of Jerusalem, as it is called', came over to him (Antiochus III), together with Josephus's remark in 12.156 that the 'Samaritans [Eauapeiq], who were flourishing, did much mischief to the Jews by laying waste their land and carrying off slaves' seems to point to a period of hard conditions for the Judaean Jews (218-198 BCE). Whatever role Khirbet Luzah may have played before its destruction, it never found its way into Josephus's narrative. The city never gained importance afterwards and it was not rebuilt after the Roman occupation in 63 BCE. Samaria-Sebaste was restored by Gabinius in 57 BCE (Ant. 14.87-88; War 1.166). Neapolis, on the northern slope of Mt Gerizim, replaced ancient Shechem in the time of Herod the Great. The site is connected to the summit by a staircase dating to the first century BCE, and it still remains to decide whether temple structures dating to the third century CE can be called 'Samaritan'.92 None of these findings, however, can tell us anything about whether 'Samaritans' lived in Gerizim, in Shechem, in Samaria or in its vicinity who can be separated from the Samaritan population as a whole, or whether these people maintained a temple cult that in antiquity competed with the one in Jerusalem and with other temples in or outside of Palestine. Specific Samaritan features in architecture, art and burial practice are rare and difficult to demonstrate before the common era.93 Offerings made to Mt Gerizim on the Delos inscriptions from 250 and 150-50 BCE, accordingly, only testify to a religious cult centred on Gerizim, whose diaspora members call themselves 'Israelites'. Similarly, the papyri from Wadi Daliyeh does not give proof of being specifically Samaritan. They only tell us that at a certain time some people from Samaria, using a variety of names containing not only a Yahwistic theophoric element, but also Edomite, Moabite, Canaanite, Babylonian and Aramaic divine elements, hid in the cave and were attacked there.94
92. Magen, 'Gerizim, Mount', p. 490. 93. See Pummer, 'Samaritan Material Remains'. 94. For a discussion of a connection between this event and the destruction of Samaria, see, Ahlstrom, History of Ancient Palestine, pp. 898-901.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

There is no evidence that they were part of Josephus's 'Samaritans' in the Alexander story or of any specific religious group contrasting to the Jews of Jerusalem. They might, however, be those who were claimed to be of mixed stock in the later literary tradition, and who were contrasted to the pure stock of Jews who had returned from Babylon. That argument, however, belongs to ideology and propaganda, not to history. It therefore is still reasonable to consider whether Josephus created the traditions about the Samaritans or whether he refers to already established popular descriptions even though these are not known to have been written earlier. Giving uncritical credit to a variety of stories, he might have tried to compose a chronological framework for opinions of Samaritans that would include most of this material. Redactional notes would establish sufficient coherence and make the stories plausible. However, if Josephus had had exact sources, he probably would have mentioned them, given the controversial character of the theme. Moreover, it should then be possible to confirm at least some of his 'information' in earlier or contemporary writings rather than in later rabbinical sources. The influence of diaspora Judaism, and possible discussions there about relationships between Jews and Samaritans, could have led to a greater actuality in Josephus's Antiquities than had been the case with War. This could explain that some of his references to Samaritans are connected with conditions in Leontopolis and Alexandria. Some confusion and transference of material cannot be excluded. The necessity of pointing out that biblical related texts are talking about Cuthaeans who are consistently called Samaritans seems to be an improvised solution for antedating a problem that is still current. Similarly, cult centralization is given greater weight in Antiquities than in War. Josephus's revealing revision of Demetrius's letter to Jonathan (1 Mace. 10.25-46) in Ant. 13.54, states that those living in the three Samaritan border areas added to Judaea shall be subject to the ancestral laws, and 'that it shall be the concern of the high priest that not a single Jew shall have any temple for worship other than that at Jerusalem'. However, 1 Mace. 10.38 states that the areas should be 'so annexed to Judaea that they are considered to be under one ruler and obey no other authority but the high priest'. 1 Maccabees shows us that this question was unimportant. It might be too far-reaching to assume that the question gained importance only after the destruction of Jerusalem's temple. On the other hand, one cannot convincingly argue for a thorough-going cult centralization on the basis of Deut. 12.4's ambiguous reference to

5. Samaritans in the Writings ofJosephus


'the place Yahweh will choose'. Deuteronomy's primary goal was not to centralize the cult in Jerusalem, but to further cult control under the authority of the temple and the priesthood. Deut. 12.4-9 clearly expresses this in its prohibition of Yahweh worship like the custom of the foreigners. Yahweh worship should not be upon the high mountains and upon the hills and under every green tree, but it should be in the place Yahweh names as his, that is, in the temple (vv. 5, 11, 26), which is the place to bring offerings and tithes. This corresponds to Hezekiah's store chambers in 2 Chron. 31.11, which secured the maintenance of the priests and the Levites. In Deuteronomy, it is not Yahweh's altars that should be destroyed, but altars of foreigners (12.2-3). Sennacherib's mockery of Hezekiah and the Jews in Jerusalem relates to the same problem. Can one tear down Yahweh's altars and still have Yahweh's protection (2 Kgs 18.22; 2 Chron. 32.12)? Only cult places in Judaea and Jerusalem are spoken of, and the text does not involve cult places outside of these areas. We might be dealing with a postexilic reform instituted by the Persians, as, according to, for example, the Elephantine papyri, offerings had ended there because of the destruction of the temple. Ezra 3 explicitly states that the burnt offering is instituted only after the setting of the altar in its place (Ezra 3.3-4). The cult reform is given two purposes: 1. It regulates cult practice, as can be seen from the Nehemiah model and Hezekiah's reform in 2 Chron. 31.18-20, which relates that most of the people from Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar and Zebulon had not been cleansed properly, wherefore they did not fulfil the demands of holiness. (As was seen also from Onias's application to Ptolemy, Ant. 13.66). It secures taxation for the temples, which before the Hasmonaean expansion of Judaean borders, were regional, that is, Jerusalem's temple for (Judaea and) Jerusalem, Samaria's temple for Samaria, Lachish and Beersheba's temples for Edomite areas, Antioch's temple for its area, etc. This partition raised no problems as long as the temples were governed by Ptolemaic and Seleucid rulers. The change of borders and authority created competition and led to the destruction of temples. It was only later that this became a theological and national problem, when the neighbouring peoples refused to give up their own cult places and submit to Jerusalem. The question's relation to political issues is implicit in Demetrius's



The Samaritans and Early Judaism offer to Jonathan that the Samaritan areas should shift their allegiance to the Jewish high priest. This clearly implies that they formerly stood under another authority. Who this authority is we are not told, but Samaritan tradition refers to both secular and priestly authority. Josephus's remark makes it obvious that other authorities than the Jewish high priest were possible, and also that there were other cult places outside of Jerusalem for Jews. Before drawing a final conclusion, we have yet another issue to consider. In spite of some problems of anachronism, Samaritan historiography needs to be given its voice in a closer examination.


The presentation and interpretation of Samaritan historiography is based on the Samaritan Chronicle II, Sepher Ha-Yamin in J. Macdonald's edition and on the Kitab al-Tarikh from Abul'Fath in P. Stenhouse's edition.1 The Samaritan history has close parallels to the similar Jewish history in the Pentateuch traditions up to the conquest of Palestine after the wandering in the desert. The disagreements between the Samaritan and the Masoretic Pentateuchs are not related to the history as such, but to specific features regarding the importance of Shechem and the placement of the cult place on Gerizim, as has been demonstrated in Chapter 3. This fundamental disagreement forms the core of the following story in a manner similar to the importance of Jerusalem in Jewish history. The few questions concerning legal affairs raised in the material are subordinate to this main question, as is also true of rabbinic discussions about Jewish-Samaritan relationship. Belonging to the discussion about cult place is the question of the legitimate high priest. In the material we find references to mutual accusations that the high priest may not belong to the correct lineage. Characteristic of both theology and historiography is the absence of Heilsgeschichte. The Samaritans did not consider themselves to be an elected people, who in isolation should
1. See Chapter 3 above for an introduction to these works. Macdonald's Hebrew text is not vocalized The peculiarity of references are due to Macdonald's verse system for non-MT (letters with an asterisk) and Stenhouse's pagination (p. x) of the translated texts, which does not follow the pagination of the book. Chronicle II is paginated in accordance with Old Testament parallels, which is misleading because the material is in several instances interrupted by independent material. The overall impression of the chronicle as a rewritten Old Testament text is exaggerated, making it difficult to read the chronicle on its own terms.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

seek their own salvation. They rather considered themselves to be the 'light and salt' of the world, obliged to make Moses' ordinances known to everyone in order to save the world.2 The Samaritan Joshua disagrees considerably with the Masoretic Joshua. It parallels MT Joshua in chs. 1-11; 13.7b-14.5;; 22.1-6; 24.1-27, 32. Added are references to the celebration of the Pesach after the first conquest, the building of the temple, an independent account of the division of the land,3 the election of the king and several references to the importance of Shechem and Gerizim:4 Joshua 8.30 reads Gerizim for Ebal.5 The placement between the conquest of Aj and the army's overnight in Gilgal, which in MT shows some confusion about the placement of Ebal and Gerizim (cf. also Deut. 11.29-32), is hereas in SP Deut. 11.30supplied with the clarifying note that this is close to the 'town of Shechem' fysb jmo }*bxi DD> TU). In the Samaritan Chronicle, the high priest Eleazar is given the leading role of the writing on the stone and the reading of the Law. Following the commandment given in Deut. 27.12-14, the people gathers on Mt Gerizim and Mt Ebal, where the words of blessing and cursing are recited. The ark of the covenant carried by the Levites is placed on Mt Gerizim, and 'the glory of the Lord appeared above the
2. Macdonald, Theology, p. 448. 3. Which made Crown, 'Date and Authenticity', suggest a dating for the independent Samaritan book of Joshua not later than the end of the second century CE. J. Strange's article from 1993, The Book of Joshua, a Hasmonaean Manifesto?', in A. Lemaire and B. Otzen (eds.), History and Tradition in Israel (VTSup, 50; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1993), pp. 136-41, touches upon the same problem related to the conquest in MT Joshua, which includes Transjordan, Galilee and Judah/Benjamin, but not the central hill country of Ephraim and Manasseh. Strange's conclusion that the Masoretic book of Joshua is superfluous, when we have the narratives about the conquests in the first chapter of MT Judges, is indirectly supported by the Samaritan tradition of Judges. In this tradition the conquests end with the death of Joshua. The book opens with Nethanael's victory over Kushan-Risj'atajim (cf. MT Judg. 3.910). Gaster, Samaritans, pp. 138-39 argued for the authenticity of the land division in the Samaritan tradition, since this division is in accordance with Josephus, Ant. 5.80ff. and Ezek. 47.15ff., all of which 'take precisely the same boundaries for Palestineon the east the Jordan, on the west the sea' and divide the land into portions from south to north (ST Jos. S A*-L*; Josephus, Ant.) or from north to south (Ezekiel). 4. har garizimlhargarizim: both forms are used in Macdonald's text. 5. Macdonald's remark that this variant reading is found in the LXX also is not confirmed in the standard version of the LXX, which all read Gaibal.

6. Samaritan Historiography


ark of testimony'. Contrasting this is the absence of the high priest in MT Josh. 8.33-35. The uncertain placement of the ark (between the mountain peaks?) and the formal reading of the Law, which avoids the context of a cult practice or service are striking, yet fully in agreement with the overall impression of MT Joshua and Judges that they reflect an interim between Moses (Aaron) and the House of Eli of 1 Samuel. The glossary presence of 'Eleazar the priest' together with 'Joshua, son of Nun' in MT Josh. 14.1; 17.4; 19.51; 21.1 (the allotment of land narrative) confirms this impression, since Eleazar is not given any role. All acts are carried out by Joshua. Joshua 9.27 adds 'the chosen place Mt Gerizim and the congregation living in the cities, which are close to the chosen place Mt Gerizim'. Joshua 10.9, 15 Gilgal and Bethel become close to or similar to Gerizim. Joshua 10.43 tells about the return of the army after the conquest of southern Canaan. This is also mentioned in the MT and LXX, but only ST continues to tell about the Pesach offering (nODH pip) on the chosen place Hargerizim, before the arrival at 'the chosen place in Gilgal', and before the continuation of the campaign against the northern Canaan (MT Josh. 11.1-23), which in both versions form the conclusion of the conquests. The building of the temple in ST Jos. Q on the top of Mt Gerizim (DT~inn >N~l ^) follows immediately after the ending of the conquest. Two different versions recount that a cult place (p>Q) containing the holiest (B*-D*) and that a temple (^DH) with the tent of meeting (~lUin ^HN) with the ark (mii?n "pIK), the propitiary and the screen ("]DQH fD~l2), as well as all the altars (mrntQn ^D) and all the accoutrements of the sanctuary (ID ^ D1KQ ^D pCBDn '^D) (G*) were erected. AF p. 32 tells that Joshua built a fortress on the mountain to the north of the illustrious peak. The stone altar on Mt Gerizim is already erected after the conquest of Huta (Aj) (cf. p. 14). The references to the cities of refuge in ST S M* (MT Josh. 20.7-8) declares Shechem to be holy. Joshua 24.1, the setting up of the covenant in Shechem has the addition 'at Mt Gerizim', while 24.25-26 adds 'at the foot of Mt Gerizim'. In ST, the death of Joshua does not end with an Israel left alone without any ruler and with a high priest (Phinehas), as does the Masoretic tradition, where Phinehas's narrative role is absent in most parts and episodes of MT Judges. ST recounts that Joshua casts lots between the


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

12 princes of Israel. The lot fell on Nethanael, son of Caleb, from the tribe of Judah, who became king over the Israelites. In the same manner, there is a formal transfer of the office of the high priest Eleazar to his son Phinehas four years after the death of Joshua. This event is opened with a cutting of the covenant in Shechem, followed by a wandering to Gibea, where Phinehas is clothed in the high priestly garments, and where Eleazar is buried 'in Gibea the town of his son Phinehas, which is opposite the holy mountain, the place the lord has chosen, Mt Gerizim, Bethel'.6 MT Judges' patronage versus chaos narrative 'that in these days there was no king in Israel and everyone did, what was right in his own eyes' aiming to prepare the reader for the blessings of the kingship, the establishing of order, the joining of the tribes around a central shrine and a central government has no parallel in ST Judges. Here the good conditions established during Joshua and Eleazar continue. Kings elected by the people in Shechem under the conduct of the high priest do their royal duties and are succeeded by other kings similarly elected. High priests are all unproblematic successors of their fathers. We find no apostasy, no punishment and no deceitful kings similar to MT's Abimelech. The language is more neutral than MT Judges, and without the Deuteronomistic categories, 'the Israelites did what was evil in the sight of the Lord', 'the Israelites cried to the Lord', 'the Lord raised up a deliverer', that form the central theme of MT Judges. Statements such as 'whenever the judge died, they turned back and behaved worse than their fathers' (Judg. 2.19) are totally absent in the first part of ST Judges. It is not until the very end of the book, when, after the death of Samson, Eli's usurpation of the high priesthood leads to the apostasy of the people and the cessation of God's favour, that these categories are employed. ST Judges follows the chronology of MT Judges, however, in a more summarised version and with some deletions, and it is only MT Judg. 3.12-13, 20-30; 4.2-3, 12-24; 11.12-33 that are presented verbatim or in a close variant that leave out the most legendary traits of the stories. Added are chronological insertions of the high priests, Phinehas, Abisha,
6. This last paragraph, ST Jos. U-W, whose central core is the biblical Josh. 23.1 and parts of Josh. 24 and 14, is in ST Chron. II separated from the former chapters of MT Joshua by an insertion of the Shobach Legend. This legend, dealing with Joshua's war with King Shobach, is judged manifestly late, because of its many Arabisms; see Macdonald, The Samaritan Chronicle No. II, p. 73.

6. Samaritan Historiography


Shishai, Baghi and Uzzi and their priestly duties and cultic services.7 The wars within Israel are finished after Joshua's conquests, and ST Judges opens with Nethanael's victory over Cushan-Rishathaim, king of Mesopotamia (cf. MT Judg. 3.9-10). With the absence of MT Judges 17-21 the account of Samson functions as the bridge to the books of Samuel. This composition is in accord with Josephus, who placed his version of Judges 19-21 after the conquests in MT judges (Ant. 5.136), made Eli the successor of Samson and placed the story of Ruth during his reign (Ant. 5.318). The problem with the assumption of ST's dependency on MT is thus given a broader perspective, and questions of variant texts gain significant importance in judging the material. The Samaritan text is not an abbreviated, rewritten MT version. The dominant theme and message in ST pronounce that Israel prospered as long as the cult was in place on Gerizim and the administration was in Shechem. The counter-message in MT argues that there was no proper cult and no central administration. The problem with this kind of polemic, however, is that the reverse should bring order and prosperity. This does not happen. The movement of ark and cult under David's reign does not solve the problems raised in MT Judges, that it was the lack of a king that allowed the people to do 'everyone what was right in his own eyes'. MT Judges does not provide the contrast story it intended to be and we are probably far better off if we understand MT Judges as a negative anticipation of the traditions of the monarchic period, such as has been suggested by Graham Auld.8 Such an interpretation, however, still carries the reverse of the coin as an unsolved problem. Why is it necessary to denounce the
7. This list is paralleled in Josephus, Ant. 5.361-62; MT 1 Chron. 5.30-31; Ezra 7.4-5; 1 Esd. 8.2. Josephus, however, is the only informant, who explicitly confirms the Samaritan tradition that Eli, being of the Ithamar line, usurped the high priesthood and accordingly broke the Eleazar line until the reign of Solomon. Indirectly, however, the rejection of the house of Eli (1 Kgs 2.27, 35) is given reference in the various lists of high priest in the Old Testament, all of which leaves out Eli and form a continuation from Aron to Seraiah using the names of the Eleazar family members, Meraioth, Amariah, Ahitub, who, according to Josephus (Ant. 8.11-12), lived as private persons during the interim. Josephus's various references to high priests 'confirm' the split, which is furthermore testified in his enumeration of high priests in Ant. 20.229 that the first thirteen high priests until Solomon were descendants of Aaron's two sons. 8. The Deuteronomists between History and Theology', International Organization for the Study of Old Testament congress, Oslo, 1998, forthcoming.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

past in order to capture the future? The question whether MT Judges is a polemic story against Shechem and against an early Shechem tradition remains. To avoid this context the biblical version made the period as chaotic as possible. The judges fight in vain to keep the people from worshipping idols. Proper cult places and priests are nearly entirely absent. MT Judges 9 and MT 1 Kings 12, the people's election of Abimelech, and Rehabeam(!) and Jeroboam in Shechem, may implicitly testify to this tradition, since these kings bear the markers in MT tradition of deceitful kings emanating from Shechem. This is all the more remarkable as no other stories of the Old Testament relate to appointments of kings in Shechem, given the people the privilege of election (cf. Judg. 9.6; !Kgsl2.1,20). As mentioned above, the turning point against the good conditions in ST comes with Eli's and his supporter's move from Shechem to establish a rival cult in Shiloh. The young Eli, son of Jefunneh, of the lineage of Itamar (ST JP; KS*), is given the honorary office of chancellor of the temple treasures under the leadership of the high priest Uzzi, whose authority he challenges. The quarrel results in Eli's departure from Shechem and his erection of a temple and cult in Shiloh. A variant tradition involves exclusion, and in a paradigmatic use of Genesis 4, it gives the role of Cain to Eli, as the unsuccessful priest, whose offer God rejects because it has not been properly salted (cf. Lev. 2.13; ST LK*, U*). Eli in MT is not given any genealogy, while Jefunneh's son Caleb is of the tribe of Judah in Num. 13.6. Only in 2 Esdras from the end of the first century CE do Eli and his son Phinehas occur in the Aaron-Eleazar genealogy of Ezra, the scribe. Eli's departure turns the fate of all Israel, which looses its coherence and splits into three separate groups (ST Judg. LO*-T*; ST 1 Sam. BA*-F*: AFp. 42): 1. 2. The Jews, who followed Eli. The Josephites, counting Epraim and Manasseh with some few adherents from other tribes, who followed Uzzi and remained faithful to Gerizim. The rest of the people who later deserted Eli because of the apostasy of his sons, and became idol worshippers.


It is noteworthy that all groups suffer God's anger and that Israel's apostasy is caused by this schism, which, according to Samaritan theology, has not ended yet. The divine favour, Radwan, which began with the patriarchs, reached its climax with the entry into the promised land

6. Samaritan Historiography


during the time of Joshua and ended with the last judge. The priestly quarrels caused a replacement of this period with a period of God's wrath, Phanutah.9 This period is initiated by an increasing darkness that makes the daily services impossible and ends up enveloping the whole house. Finally a big cave appears. The high priest Uzzi collects the sacred vestments, gold and silver vessels and places them in the cave. After having sealed up the cave, he marks its place, only to find out the next day that it has disappeared without any trace. The grief and selfreproach is endless and the prehistory is re-evaluated in the closing elegy (ST 1 Sam. BG*-CGG*; AF pp. 42-45). Not before the return of the Radwan will the hidden objects appear again. The biblical account of the inauguration of Solomon's temple seems to build on a similar tradition. The time of grace has appeared. Yahweh has left the darkness and accepted the temple for his name and spirit (2 Chron. 5.13-6.2; 7.1-2). It is not possible to decide whether this text has a conscious anti-Samaritan bias or whether both texts are using similar themes. It is, however, possible to decide that placement (Mt Mori ah) and acceptance are important to the author of MT Chronicles, thus revealing conflicts of interest.10 Samaritan self-understanding as a minority group from the descendants of Joseph is further testified to in the Samaritan 'books of Samuel and Kings'. The Josephites do not participate in Samuel's trial in Mizpa (cf. 1 Sam. 7.6; ST 1 Sam. GE*). Nor do they follow Jeroboam's cult but remain faithful to the Law (ST 1 Kgs EN*-S*). They are not ruled by the kings of northern Israel (who rule over eight tribes of Israel only, cf. ST 1 Kgs GC*, JA*) and their chronology is the chronology of the Samaritan high priests, who also continue to perform after Saul's destruction of city and temple.

9. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, p. 118: 'It is noteworthy that such a view of world history as being divided into distinctive epochs is characteristic of much Jewish apocalyptic writing (cf. the four world empires of Daniel) and also of Qumran scrolls and the New Testament. Such links may provide a further pointer to the date of the formative period of Samaritanism.' I would say that this world view, although not explicitly expressed in the Old Testament material, is inherent to all our texts, which speak of God's periods of anger and mercy. 10. The placement of Mt Moriah in Jerusalem (2 Chron. 3.1) and Yahweh's acceptance of the temple in 2 Chron. 7.12 reveals that the question of legality had not yet been settled at the redaction of the book.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

The Chronicles dealing with Saul's war with the Josephites in ST 1 Sam. IB* and AF p. 47 is interesting:
Samuel, King Saul, Jesse, of the tribe of Judah, gathered together and gave orders for battle to be made against the tribe of Ephraim and the tribe of Manasseh and all their congregationsnamely the congregation of the Samaritan Israelites [Dnown ^Rier ^np],11at Elon Moreh, for they had refused to have the tribe of Saul the son of Kish over them, and because they had not forsaken Mount Gerizim Bethel or gone over to Shiloh under Samuel's jurisdiction to sacrifice at Shiloh, as Eli the son of Jefunneh had commanded' (ST 1 Sam. IB*).

The premises for the declaration of war are both political and religious. The balance of power has shifted radically. It is now the former secessionist group who set up the terms. And although the Josephites refer to kinship: 'Why will you make war on us, when we are brothers' and to cooperation in earlier wars against the Philistines, the attack is inevitable. Two different traditions are brought together in this text of ST 2 Chronicles, but this does not affect the outline of the story that the war at Elon Moreh, by Shechem, is inevitable in both versions. The second version opens with a discussion between Saul and the Samaritan Israelites, who refuse to obey Saul because the 'place where Yahweh chose to make his name to dwell is Mount Gerizim Bethel', which is superior to Shiloh. The war, which takes place during the pilgrimage of tabernacles, results in a destruction of the stone altar on Gerizim, the killing of the high priest Shishai, son of Uzzi, the slaughtering of the Samaritan community in Elon Moreh, Shechem, Bethel and the town of Luzah, and a destruction of the houses in the town, which is said to be large. The parallel story in MT Samuel is Saul's victory over the Ammonites (1 Sam. 11.1-11), which, placed as an inclusio between the two electionsin 1 Sam. 10.17-27 in Mispa, and in 11.12-15 in Gilgal implicitly seeks to answer the question about Saul's authority and strength (1 Sam. 10.27). The MT of 1 Sam. 11.12-13 does not tell clearly who they are who challenge Saul. This information has to be
11. 'those Israelites who keep the Law', DHQ27, which should not be confused with D^inQE?, which is believed to be a gentilicum derived from Shomer/Shomron. D"HQC0 is a Samaritan self-designation after the rejection of Saul and the schisms among the Israelites (ST 1 Sam. H E*). Macdonald translates the term 'Samaritan Israelites'. Gaster, Samaritans, p. 5, variant form: flQNn ^ D'HQtO (keepers of the truth).

6. Samaritan Historiography


found in Josephus's Ant. 6.82, where they are called 'Saul's countrymen (6ux)<|)\)^CGv) and men of their own race (eic Tamou yevoix; amoic;). In both these versions Saul spares the men because of his victory over the Philistines. AF p. 48 tells that 'they (Saul and his men) sowed it like all (the other) fields'. This addition corresponds to Megillat Ta'anifs ending of Alexander's, Antiochus's or Hyrcanus's destruction of the Samaritan temple and must therefore be taken into consideration in judging the material. After the war, the Samaritan community is prohibited from entering Mt Gerizim for 22 years, during which the remaining Samaritans are more or less outlawed, their cities are occupied by Saul's men and they end up fleeing to Bashan (ST 1 Sam. JR*-V*), where, according to another tradition, they stayed for 48 years. Bashan as homeland for half of Menasseh's tribe (cf. MT Num. 32.29-32 paralleled in MT Josh. 13.29-32) probably implies such a connection. These traditions seem to have given voice to MT Amos 4.1's prophetic attack on the cows of Bashan, who are in the mountain of Samaria. The feminine plural, based on mD's feminine form, should not lead us to any simple interpretation that this text concerns the upper-class women of Samaria.12 Such an interpretation is both misleading and discriminating, and not reflective of the text's continuation, which, from v. 4 on, employs the masculine plural, further testified by the masculine plural DiT]~[N and the masculine plural 1I2Q2? in 4.1.13 The metaphorical use of the expression is thus the more striking, since the admonition of 5.15 gives hope for salvation of the remnant of Joseph, rpV rv~lN&. Psalm 68's rejection of the Mount of Bashan and its inhabitants (vv. 14-23) for the sake of Jerusalem's temple (vv. 25-36) reflects a similarly metaphorical use and intertextual play on the mount of "pQ1?^ (v. 15),14 which was the mountain Abimelech entered when he needed firewood for the killing of the people in Shechem (Judg. 9.46-49), and brings us right to the centre of the voice of conflict. When }2D "in is rejected, its high peaks (D"]]^)

12. As understood by the translators of both the Danish 1992 authorized Bible and the English RSV of 1952. 13. The expression's metaphorical implications addressing the whole population were suggested already in 1975 by Hans Barstad, 'Die Basankuhe in Amos IV 1', VT 25 (1975), pp. 286-307. 14. Its root means darkness, obscurity, gloom, imagery, idolatrous.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

look with envy (1^1) at the mountain that Elohim desired for his abode (vv. 16-17). The text's play on Genii's closeness to p215 (being hunchbacked), which in Lev. 21.20 is said to be a disease that disqualifies one from serving as an Aaronite priest, should be a warning of the tendentiousness of the text and that D1"]]^ might form a contrast to D1~)Q in v. 19. In the Samaritan tradition, Saul's attack on the Samaritan Israelites is the sin as a result of which he was killed in the battle with the Philistines (ST 1 Sam. KA*; MT 1 Sam. 31). In the Jewish tradition of the Chronicler, the reason for Saul's death is his unfaithfulness towards Yahweh, 'that he did not keep the command of Yahweh and furthermore consulted a medium, seeking guidance' (MT 1 Chron. 10.13-14), which has no parallel in 1 Samuel 31 or 2 Samuel 1. This medium, however, in the LXX version of the same paragraph, is understood to be Samuel the prophet, referring to Saul's visit to the witch of Endor (cf. MT 1 Sam. 28.4-25), who calls up Samuel. He confronts Saul with his former sin, that he did not 'carry out his fierce wrath against Am'alek'. Therefore he and Israel are given into the hand of the Philistines on the following day. This episode and the accusations against Saul, are missing in the Samaritan Chronicle. Nevertheless, Samuel's role as Saul's master, is fully spelled out: 'he did not do anything except at the command of Samuel' (ST 1 Sam IA*; JE*; KA*).16 Josephus, agreeing with rabbinic tradition, gives another variant of the accusations that Saul died 'because he disobeyed God's commandments touching the Amalekites, and because he had destroyed the family of Abimelech the high priest, and Abimelech himself and the city of the high priests' (Ant. 6.378). Josephus's rendering of this story, based on 1 Samuel 2122 and missing entirely in the Samaritan Chronicle II, has a sermon-like addition (Ant. 6.262-68), which condemns Saul's act that he not only
slaughtered a whole family of high-priestly rank, but furthermore demolished the city, which the Deity himself had chosen as the home and nurse of priests and prophet [6. 262]... and strove to leave what was virtually

15. The three words are all hapax legomena in the Old Testament. 16. The negative presentation of Samuel that he was a descendant of Korah who had rebelled against Moses (ST 1 Sam. DA*), based on the same lineage as presented in MT 1 Chron. 6.21-24 (cf. ST 1 Sam. DF*), implicitly also brings Saul into discredit. Josephus gives a clue to this lineage, which is missing in MT 1 Samuel by stating that Samuel was a Levite (Ant. 5.342).

6. Samaritan Historiography
their temple [vctov] destitute [eprmov Kaidaifiaai] of priests and prophets (6.268).17


The story's closeness to Saul's destruction of the Samaritan community in the Samaritan. Chronicle II, with no parallel in the biblical material, suggests that both stories have the same event in mind. ST 1 Sam. MA*-F*'s summaric note on Saul's hatred for David, David's gathering of four hundred men whom 'he led everywhereplundering and taking booty in order that he might provide them with bread to eat' and that 'he was the object of admiration to all king Saul's enemies and foes' suggests furthermore a common source. The statement that 'our congregations too, the community of Samaritan Israelites on Mount Gerizim Bethel liked David very much', implicitly testifies to the aggravation of Saul's animosity against the Samaritan Israelites. The reason for the election of David by the people, supported also by the Samaritan Israelites, is not that the kingship is taken away from Saul, but that the death of Saul left the 'men of Samuel' without governor (ST 1 Sam. KD*-E*), 'the men of Israel were left without a king' (ST 2 Sam. AA*). Here the Samaritan 'historiography' tends to become more incoherent. It is said about David that he used to send his offerings and tithes to Gerizim and that it is the cessation of this and his subsequent plans of building the temple at Jerusalem that caused the rise of anger among the Samaritan Israelites, leading to a final break with David. The Samaritan high priest at that time, Jair, refers to the common law and the placement of the temple at Gerizim. Here, as in the Saul story, it is stressed that all tribes of Israel still (sic) had the same holy Law (iwnpn mmn) without additions or abbreviations (ST 2 Sam. BJ*; 1 Sam. JC*). Out of fear for the high priest, David stops his building activities with the excuse to the leaders of the people that 'I have shed too much blood'.18 Therefore the assignment to build the temple should be given to Solomon (cf. also MT 1 Chron. 22.8-10). The anointment of David is traditionally performed at holy Shechem (ST 2 Sam. AB*)as is the anointment of Saul (ST 1 Sam. HA*), of
17. Scripture does not mention prophets. Neither does Josephus in his citations of the biblical material (6.242, 254-61), where the city is called DTron TB (2 Sam. 22.19), which is the only occurrence in the Old Testament, paralleled in the LXX and Ant. 6.260. 18. Same wording as in MT, with the exception that in ST the verb is 1st pers. sing.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Solomon (ST 1 Kgs AB*) and of Rehobeam (ST 1 Kgs BA*)and it is not before the partition of the kingdom that the Judaean kings are anointed at other places in the Samaritan tradition. The mention of David's escapades, his liaison with Bathsheba, his eating of the showbreads and his disregard of the Law in the story of Tamar and Ammon are not essentially different from what we find in MT, which do not judge David mildly in these instances. A sharp comment on David's Moabitic origin as paradigmatic for Eli's supporters' lack of keeping the Law of Deut. 7.3 against mixed marriages might be seen as a polemic against the accusations in MT 2 Kings 17 of Samaritans being of mixed stock (cf. ST 2 Sam. DL*-O*). Finally, David's hatred for his son Absalom and the Israelites who followed him is seen as a repetition of Saul's hatred for David (ST 2 Sam. EL*-O*), and the accusations of David's transgression of the commandment of love for one's brother and neighbour (cf. Lev 19.17-18) refers to these events (ST 1 Kgs BE*-I*). It is noteworthy that Solomon is treated relatively gently in the Samaritan Chronicle, and the building of the temple is given a detailed account in concordance with MT 2 Chronicles 3-4. The temple does not rival the Samaritan temple on Gerizim to any extent, and the Samaritan Israelites are allowed to continue their worship there (cf. ST 1 Kgs I-XI FD*). After Solomon's death, the Samaritan Israelites join with the Israelites who elect Jeroboam, but when Jeroboam deserts the cult in Shechem (ST 1 Kgs XII-XXII EL*, which reads Gerizim and JebisJerusalem) and places the golden calves in the towns of Samaria and Dan (cf. MT 1 Kgs 12.25-29), the Samaritan Israelites remain faithful to Gerizim and form their own community.19 We now have four factions in the Israelite people (ST 1 Kgs XII-XXII EA*-J*): 1. Joseph's and Phinehas's house on Gerizim, together with some few adherents from other tribes, especially the tribe of Ben-

19. Hos. 8.5-6 about 'Samaria's calf seems to refer to the same tradition, which seems not to have any other parallel (cf. N. Wyatt, 'Calf, in van der Toorn (ed.), Dictionary of Deities and Demons, pp. 344-45). However, Amos 9.14's mocking reference to the confidence in the 'cult places' of Samaria, Dan and Beersheba might fall within the same context. Jeroboam's two centres of worship as a replacement of the one in Jerusalem might in fact indirectly confirm the Samaritan tradition, that there were two centres, and that the book of Kings sought to avoid mentioning Gerizim.

6. Samaritan Historiography

25 1

jamin (EP*), forming the Samaritan Israelites,DFSADFD

rmn ^ anDen.
2. 3. The tribe of Judah in Jerusalem20 together with a large number of adherents from other tribes. A group in Pir'aton (nni)"l2, cf. Judg. 12.15), who worshipped foreign gods, deviated from the Law and were called 'the sect of forsakers' (DsmT^n). The rest of the people who followed Jeroboam son of Nebat, called 'the rebellious' (D~mon).


The unbroken list of Samaritan high priests forms the chronological backbone of the biblical chronology in Kings and Chronicles, with which the Samaritan story shares many features. Omri belongs to the Samaritan Israelites and he is responsible for the Josephites' settling on the mount of Samaria, which got its name from Shemer, the name that was successively adopted by the population, Shomronim (1 Kgs XIIXXII IA*-F*). Jehu abolishes idol worship after the Samaritan high priest Hilkija had criticized it. We find no relapse in ST 2 Kings2 Chronicles CA*-E* as in MT 2 Kgs 10.29ff. As mentioned earlier (in Chapter 4), the ST Chronicle II's parallel text to 2 Chron. 28.1-27 is remarkable, partly because the story is told almost verbatim and partly because we find that the Samaritan community joins the eight tribes governed by Pekah son of Remalja in the war with Ahaz and the Jews. MT 2 Chron. 28.7-8 tells that the Ephraimite Zichri slew Ma-asei'ah the king's son, Azri'kam the commander of the palace and Elka'nah the next in authority to the king, and that the Israelites took a great number of captives and brought them to Samaria. ST 2 Chron. ID* tells that Zichri is from the tribe of Ephraim, that he belongs to the community of the Samaritan Israelites and that it is the leaders of this community that order the prisoners to be sent back, without any mention of Oded, who, in Josephus, is made prophet of Samaria. King Ahaz is not only at war with the Israelites in both texts, but also with the Edomites and Philistines. The chronology in ST follows the chronology of MT 2 Chronicles and places the story before the Hezekiah story as in MT 2 Chron. 29.1-32.33, but after the fall of the northern kingdom (ST 2 Kgs-2 Chron. H), which MT 2 Chronicles does not

20. Often called bet makteS (the house of shame) in a corrupted form of bet miqdaS (cf. AF p. 47: Caster, Samaritan, p. 11).


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

mention. The chronology in this Samaritan chronicle, however, is so confused and repetitive that it is difficult to create any certain coherence. Hezekiah's invitation to the people of the towns of Samaria and to the leaders in Shechem is met with contempt and scorn from the eight tribes, and a theological rebuke from the Samaritan Israelites (ST 2 Kgs-2 Chron. JD*). During the reign of Josiah, the prophet Jeremiah is stoned by the people in Judah when he elevates himself as a prophet. Josiah himself is killed in the following battle with Pharaoh Necho (ST 2 Kgs-2 Chron. NE*-H*). That is all we hear about the reform kings in this Samaritan chronicle. In MT 2 Kgs, two parallel accounts in 17.5-6 and 18.9-12, which are also in the Samaritan Chronicle, tells about the deportation of the people, but using the material differently. The first account is the traditional one about the deportation during Shalmanezzar, but only counting eight tribes of Israel, who like Judah and Benjamin, had sinned against Yahweh by erecting cult places everywhere, worshipping foreign gods and forsaking the house and mountain of Yahweh's inheritance, the chosen place Mt Gerizim (Bethel) in contrast to the Samaritan Israelites, who remained steadfast in their worship of Yahweh on Gerizim (ST 2 Kgs-2 Chron. HA-B*, D*-K*). The second account finds the rest of the eight tribes and the tribe of Judah carried off to Babylon, while the Samaritan Israelites from Shechem are deported to Haran during the period of the high priest Abkiah (LE*-MO*). A mixture of different traditions results in a single comprehensive deportation of all Israel and subsequent single comprehensive return of each to his own place during the time of high priest Serayah (ML*-N*).21 The hiding of the holy vessels on Gerizim, the note in the annals about the hiding place and the handing over of the Abisha Scroll to the Levite priests to guard it because they are expected soon to return to their lands, are interesting details from this story (LK*-N*), and seem to have become stock motifs in both

21. The Samaritan tradition here seems reflected in MT Gen. 11.26-12.4's account of patriarchal origins, which reworks Gen. 17.5's tradition that Abraham has come from Ur of the Chaldees (Th.L. Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives [Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1974], pp. 298-314) in order to include the tradition that Abraham comes to Shechem and the Land of Moreh from Haran, offering a mirroris refraction of the Samaritan story of exile. Similarly, when Jacob returns from Haran, he goes to Shechem (Gen. 33).

6. Samaritan Historiography


Jewish and Samaritan tradition.22 This narrative of deportation does not exclude a mention of the deportation during Nebuchadnezzar, which broadly follows the outline of MT 2 Kings 24-25. While ST Joshua and Judges have a very independent tone and seem to tell the story from a Samaritan perspective, it is remarkable that according to the tradition, the independence of the Samaritan Israelites not only ceased 'historically' with Saul's destruction of the altar on Gerizim and the people's exodus to Bashan, but that 'historiographically' the Samaritans seem to have no independent story to tell about the period of the monarchies, and that the two tribes of Joseph play only minor roles in their historiography.23 This is true also of the biblical 'historiography', unless the Samaritan Israelites are understood here to belong to the northern kingdom as such. The Old Testament terminology is not at all clear, and it can not be stated with conviction whether the Old Testament texts are referring to separate groups when they mention Ephraim and Israel, or whether the simultaneous occurrences of the two names are due to synonymous parallelism, for example, in Hos. 11.8: 'How can I give you up Ephraim, how can I hand you over Yisrael'; 2 Chron. 25.7: 'Yahweh is not with Yisrael, (not with) all of the sons of Ephraim.' Nor do we know whether the occurrences of Israel, Ephraim and Judah in various combinations (as in Hos. 4.15-17; 5.5; 6.10-11; 12.1) are due to the same grammatical device, or whether Jer. 7.12-15's comparison of Judah with Israel and the fate of the cult in Shiloh, including both Israel's people and the seed of Ephraim, is referring to the whole of the northern kingdom. Some few texts, however,
22. 2 Mace. 1.19-23; 2.4-7; Eupolemus Frg. 4 according to Eusebius, Praep. Ev. 9.39.1-5; Josephus, Ant. 18.85-86; 2 Bar. 6.7-9; 4 Bar. 3.10-11; m. Seq. 6.1-2; b. Yom. 53b-54a; cf. I. Kalimi and J.D. Purvis, 'The Hiding of the Temple Vessels in Jewish and Samaritan Literature', CBQ 56.4 (1994), pp. 679-85. The hiding stories contrast the biblical stories that the vessels were preserved in Babylon and brought back to Jerusalem (cf. Jer. 21.19-22; 28.1-9; Ezra 1.7-11; 5.13-15; 6.5; 2 Chron. 36.9-10; 2 Kgs 24.8-17). The literature mentioned deals with the hiding of the temple vessels of Jerusalem's temple only, making it thus the more striking that only Josephus gives witness to the Samaritan tradition! The Samaritan use of the motif might therefore not be quite as secondary as suggested by the authors of this article. 23. This might be the reason for AF's lack of any history writing from the reign of Jeroboam to Nebuchadnezzar's siege of Jerusalem, when all Israel is exiled and foreign people settled in the country. Critique of the prophets (p. 58) and a list of the high priest (p. 59) 'covers' the entire period.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

support the Samaritan tradition. The text in Isa. 7.5 (parallel to 2 Chron. 28.7-8), mentioning 'Ephraim and the son of Remaliah' as Ezek. 37.1619 does, where the joining of the people involves Judah and their associates the Israelites on one hand and Joseph (Ephraim) and their associates the Israelites on the other hand, or as 2 Chron. 34.9 does, separating Ephraim and Menasseh from the remnant of Israel as well as from Judah and Benjamin and those living in Jerusalem. In the biblical chronology, this text dates to the time of Josiah and parallels Hezekiah's invitation in 2 Chron. 30.1 to all Israel and Judah as well as Ephraim and Menasseh to come to Jerusalem to keep the Passover. These texts, together with the stories about the election of kings in Shechem (MT Judg. 9; 1 Kgs 12), confirm a tradition that separates Ephraim (and Menasseh) from the ten tribes, confirming both the Samaritan and Josephus's tradition. The interdependency of these traditions, however, is not that easily solved. Josephus's narrowing of the Samaritan community, which has its parallel in the Samaritan pre-exilic history, might also give expression to the Samaritan tradition. The necessity of being true descendants of Jacob/Israel and not have been mixed with foreign people or to have fallen in apostasy as the rest of Israel had may have played a role in Samaritan historiography comparable to Josephus's claim for the origin and purity of the Jewish people. The Samaritan Israelites' concentration around Gerizim and Shechem could similarly be part of the same ideology, and might in fact relate to a much later period. Prophets in Samaritan Tradition Prophets are either ignored24 or held in contempt in the Samaritan literature. Since Moses is the sole and only prophet and the Pentateuch is the only authoritative scripture, there is no need for other prophets. Those prophets who are mentionedElijah (ST 1 Kgs XII-XXII JB*), Elijah and Elisha (MP*Q*), Elisha (ST 2Kgs-2 Chron. AA*E*), Hosea, Joel, Amos (ST 2 Kgs-2 Chron. FB*) and Jeremiah (ST 2 Kgs-2 Chron. NE*)are all called sorcerers and are accused of using magic and astrology: 'They called themselves prophets. They addressed words among the whole congregation of Israel [^np ^D
24. G. Fohrer, 'Die israelitischen Propheten in der samaritanischen Chronik IF, in M. Black and G. Fohrer (eds.), In Memorandum P. Kahle (BZAW, 103; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1968), pp. 127-37 (131-32), offers a list of the 'omissions'.

6. Samaritan Historiography


^"lET] on the authority of Yahwehwhich Yahweh did not in fact command, nor did he speak with them at all' (MP*Q*). They have no messages from God but speak their own words and lead the people astray.25 Elijah is accused of having eaten the bread out of the mouth of the widow and her son with his empty words: 'I shall eat and so will you two', whereafter the widow's son starved to death. Thereafter Elijah, also called Khananiah, flees from King Ahab the son of Omri and his people to hide himself at the eastern side of the Jordan, but falls into the water and drowns (ST 1 Kgs XII-XXII JE*-G*). The intertextual play on the similarly empty prophesies of Jeremiah's competitor Hananiahsharing the name of the prophet Jehu's father, Hanani (MT 1 Kgs 16.7)who is sentenced to death because of his lies, probably underlies this tradition (cf. MT Jer. 28). AF p. 58 brings a summary of the biblical account and calls it a lie when the Jews claim that Elijah raised the son. This harsh condemnation of Elijah could be a reaction to rabbinical and New Testament veneration of Elijah as a new Moses.26 The way the problem presents itself, however, is not quite so limited if we can judge from the few allusions to both a prohibition against prophecy and a condemnation of Elisha in his own literary world. 2 Kgs 3.13-14, Elisha's mocking words to Israel's king: 'What have I to do with you? Go to the prophets of your father and your mother', which in Josephus has become even more ironic with the addition 'since they are the true prophets' (cf. Ant. 10.34), and even further twisted with Josephus's continuation that 'the king begged [edeiio] him to prophesy and save them'. 27 This is not reflective of the answer in the king's mouth of 2 Kings, which holds Yahweh responsible for the war and requires Yahweh's prophet to prophesy the outcome. This he only does for the sake of Judah's king Jehoshaphat, who has joined the league against Moab. Israel's king he 'would not look toward, nor see'. This whole incident goes unmentioned in the Samaritan Chronicle, which interrupts 2 Kgs 3.4-10, 26-27 with the following remark: 'On the eighth day
25. The view on Moses' role as God's messenger, God's Logos, who gave the unchanging Law, lies behind the severeness of the Samaritan critique of the prophets (cf. Macdonald, Theology, pp. 204-11). 26. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, p. 124, based on Fohrer, 'Israelitischen Propheten'. 27. There does not seem to be any textual reason for this change, since the text is not in Chronicles and LXX has the same version as 2 Kgs.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

there was very heavy rain and all the men and their beasts drank. Then the Israelites smote Moab' (ST 2 Kgs-2 Chron. AA*). The 'omission' in the Samaritan Chronicle is the more striking when compared to the story about Elisha's role in the Aramean war (MT 2 Kgs 8-23), which follows right after the former story, leaving out the Elisha stories in 2 Kgs 4.1-6.7.28 The positive role of Elisha in the biblical story is turned into a negative in the Samaritan version. He 'is a soothsayer, a sorcerer, a medium and a wizard'. No mention is made of Elisha's wondrous acts for the salvation of Israel (cf. 2 Kgs 6.15-22), which, in the Samaritan version, is due to the Israelites' military skills as 'they smote the men of Syria' (AC*). Josephus's unscriptural praise of the prophet that 'Adados was amazed at the marvel and at the manifestation of the God of the Israelites and his power, and also at the prophet with whom the deity was so evidently present' (Ant. 9.60) cannot safely be said to form part of the north-south conflict. It might rather be seen as being representative of Josephus's own aims at recognition. Paralleling this story is the shortened Samaritan version of Elisha's role during Ben-Hadad's siege of Samaria (cf. MT 2 Kgs 6.14-7.20). ST 2 Kgs-2 Chron. A 24-G* puts the blame for the siege entirely on Elisha, 'the soothsayer', who 'with his disciples [VTQ^n]29 flees from the king and settles in another land', again leaving out Elisha's acts of salvation. In a reference to 'the salvation on the second day' by Yahweh (ST AG*) it seems to show its dependency on the biblical narrative (2 Kgs 7.1). The manner of dependency, however, might not be quite so easy to establish. The question still remains: Why does the biblical version raise the problem of a critique of the prophet and give an answer to it? Both versions narrate that the king went to Elisha to hold him responsible for the famine. This seems to be an unnecessary accusation in the biblical version, if circumstances outside of the narrative had not already raised the question and expressed doubts formulated by the king's captain in MT 2 Kgs 7.2, 17-20. MT 2 Kings 5.1-8's story about Na'aman's leprosy opens with the Israelite maidservant's advice to Na'aman to go to the prophet in Samaria to get cured. The king of Aram therefore sends Na'aman with a letter to Israel's king, who sees a hidden pretext for conflict behind the
28. Josephus neither has these stories, with the exception of the story about the widow's jar of oil (Anr. 10.47-50). 29. Ant. 9.68, TOiq |ia6r|Tca<;; MT2 Kgs. 6.32, D'DTn.

6. Samaritan Historiography


request. The conflict, however, is between the prophet and the king, who has no confidence in the prophet's abilities. The prophet Elisha, man of God, takes up the challenge: 'Let him come to me, and he shall know that there is a prophet in Israel.' Also MT Amos 7.12 refers to the prophet's rejection from Israel after his prophecies against Jerobo'am: 'Amazi'ah [the priest of Bethel] said to "Amos, seer, go flee away to the land of Judah, and eat bread there, and prophesy there; but never again prophesy at Bethel, for this is the king's sanctuary [~[^Q~^~IpQ], and it is a temple of the kingdom

MT Ezekiel 12.22-25 adds to the critique:
Son of man, what is this proverb that you have about the land of Israel, saying 'The days grow long, and every vision comes to nought'? Therefore tell them, Thus says the Lord Yahweh: I will put an end to this proverb, and they shall no more use it as a proverb in Israel. But say to them, The days are at hand, and the fulfilment of every vision. For there shall no longer be any false vision or flattering divination within the house of Israel.'

As a consequence of this, Ezekiel is ordered to speak against Israel's prophets (cf. Ezek. 13.1-23) who prophesy out of their own thoughts, who follow their own spirit, but have seen nothing (!) (cf. 13.1-3), who see delusive visions and who give lying divinations (v. 9), who say 'Peace' when there is no peace (v. 10), and who have prevented the people from building up a wall for the house of Israel, that it may stand in battle in the day of the Lord. Note the character of the accusations, which are similar to the court hearing in Micah, especially ch. 3's condemnation of the false prophets, who are held responsible for the destruction of Jerusalem, for which the only salvation is to listen to the prophet, who is 'filled with the spirit of Yahweh' (Mic. 3.8: also paralleled in Lam. 2.14). The critique of the prophets in Samaritan tradition answers a similar critique in the Jewish tradition, but is oriented against those prophets whom Jewish tradition claims are true prophets. The only prophet who is mentioned by name but not commented on, and who is not called 'prophet', is Jonah son of Amittai (ST 2 Kgs-2 Chron. FC), who in 2 Kgs 14.25-27 bears the responsibility for Jeroboam's expansion of Israel's border to Hamath and Arabah, and who does not prophesy against Israel to its doom, but for its salvation (cf. the role of Jonah in the book of Jonah). Finally, attention should be given to the Damascus


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

covenant CD 7.18 and to its parallel text in 4Q267 frg. 3, 4.6-7, 'are the books of the prophets, whose words Israel despised', as a testimony to a well-known tradition of the second-first century BCE. The Historiography of the Postexilic Period These narratives are not included in Macdonald's edition of Chronicle II, and has to be sought in Chronicle IV, Kitab al-Tarikh from ch. 18 onwards.30 Drought in Canaan offers an occasion for the Persian King Surdi31 to command the Samaritan Israelites to go home and worship the god of the land. They want to bring home all their brethen and send letters to everyone to come to Haran for a united return. Since the Israelites do not wish to be under the leadership of anyone who is not 'a prophet like Moses', the Samaritan high priest is given cause in a second letter to give a sermon. This explains why Moses is the only prophet:
Open up the Law and read it and you will understand that there will never again be a prophet after Moses. For were there a [hypothetical] prophet who might come after him to do what Moses did, there would be no need for him. For it is said in the Law, 'I have bestowed upon you a perfect law. Neither add to it, nor take away from it, throughout all your generations' (Deut. 4.2).

Not everyone accepted this letter, and a great number remained in exile and never returned. When the Jews arrive at Haran, the disagreement of where to go to worship begins. The request brought by the Jewish representative Zerubbabel is not unimportant: 'You and your assembly must do as we tell you: that is, we must go up to Jerusalem, and be all of us, one nation' (p. 70). The Samaritan answer similarly reflects the everlasting hope, that if the people return to the chosen place of the forefathers, then god might 'be content and take pity on us, and ratify for us the covenant of our fathers' (p. 71). The discussion clearly places itself in an implicitly much broader discussion about the new and the old Israel, with the Samaritans opting for continuity and the Jews for a new beginning. This beginning, however, according to Samaritan
30. As mentioned above in Chapter 3: P. Stenhouse's English translation from Arabic. 31. Usually identified with Darius I (522-486) whose length of reign is said to be 36 years (AFp. 80): the name probably is spelled backwards, cf. Stenhouse, nn. 306, 375a.

6. Samaritan Historiography


understanding, took place in the time of Eli and proved false. The court hearing in front of King Surdi falls within this discussion. By reference to the Torah scroll, which had been kept in custody in Niniveh during the exile, the Samaritans 'read out the verses', showing that Mt Gerizim is the Qibla. Zerubbabel then produced a scroll that he maintained was the scroll of David, and which (he claimed) showed that the threshing floor in Jerusalem was the Qibla (p. 71). As is typical for this chronicle, a theological reflection answers the question why the chosen place has to be Gerizim, and why Joshua had erected the altar on Gerizim and not on Ebal (Josh. 8.30), which would have conflicted with the tradition of curses from Mt Ebal (cf. Deut. 11.29 and 27.12, pp. 71-76). When Zerubbabel and his companions are afterwards given permission to speak, they do not refer to the Law of Moses but rather to their tradition, which says that 'David and Solomon both said that the Qibla is Jerusalem'. Thereupon, the Levite Sanballat accuses the Jews of accepting only parts of the Law and, with reference to Deut. 15.19-20,32 of ignoring the question of where the priests should bring their offerings before the temple was built in the time of David and Solomon. When Zerubbabel, in response to this accusation, refers to his Scriptures, which prophesy that Jerusalem should be that place, Sanballat claims that the Jewish books are forgeries, deceits and lies, and he asks permission to throw them into the fire. The ordeal by fire reveals the truth. The scroll of the Jews burns immediately, while the scroll of the Samaritans is thrown into the fire three times from whence it returns undamaged three times. Before this, Zerubbabel, however, had first tried hard to escape the test. He took the scroll of the Samaritans
opened it, looked in it and then said, 'I cannot throw it. For my book was mine alone', but this Book is mine and his, because the one who wrote it is the lord, the Messenger (of God) Moses, upon whom be perfect peace.'33 (p. 77: my italics)

This wonderful play on a well-known literary motif is given a different perspective here that places the weight of the narrative on the behaviour of the combatants rather than on the outcome of the test. The explicit reference to the common tradition, which should be given priority over the particular tradition, gives voice to this underlying theological theme
32. Imperfect clause ace. to SP Deut. 15.20. 33. 'Upon whom be perfect peace' follows every time Moses is mentioned.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

and to a reversal of Jewish accusations against the Samaritans for having forged the Pentateuch. The king's anger leads to the execution of 36 of the Jews' chiefs and wise men and to the great exaltation of Sanballat, who is not only honoured by the king with gifts, garments, etc. but also by the tribes. After having paid the ransom for the Torah scroll and sacred vestments, 'they all set out in joy and good spirits and with them went people from the sons of Benjamin, and the sons of Kohath and Gershon and Merari, who had been with Eli in Shiloh' (p. 78). Note the return of the 'apostates' both to their tradition and to their home. On Gerizim they constructed the altar, '10 cubits long and 10 cubits wide, and 5 cubits high. The temple building was 35 cubits square. They made a candlestick of one gold quintar, and made a table and put the showbread upon it' (p. 79). We meet Sanballat again in the narrative about the Jewish return and their attempt to rebuild the city and the temple. The event takes place during the reign of Anusharwan, 'who ruled the land and put the Hellenes to the torch, exacting tribute from such of them as survived'.34 The short narrative is not essentially different from the biblical narrative of Ezra-Nehemiah where Sanballat also stops the building activities (Ezra 4.2), and destroys the constructions raised. This much aggravated Jewish-Samaritan relationships. Ezra and Zerubbabel are accused of having forged the holy writ, introduced a new alphabet, removed the references to Gerizim and given this new edition to the people, declaring, 'This is the Book of God, the authentic truth. Put your faith in it and make copies of this alone' (p. 81). Later on, King Darius II (423-404) takes care to finish the building of the temple and kill a great number of Samaritans (p. 85). No 'biblical' text gives this information. They rather relate that the Samaritans are ordered to bring revenues to the Jews. Presumably during the time of the same King Darius, Simon is appointed as king of the Jews (p. 87).35 After the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, the cult becomes centralized. King Simon prevents the Samaritans from going to Mt Gerizim, where he destroys the altar and the temple 'which the high priest Abdal had built' after the return
34. Stenhouse, Kitab al Tarikh, n. 376 considers this to have been Cyrus I (537/8-29). 35. Stenhouse, Kitab al Tarikh, nn. 406-407 suggests this to be Simon the Just (142-135 BCE) the Jewish high priest praised by ben Sira. The king would then subsequently be Ptolemy Physcon (146-116).

6. Samaritan Historiography


from exile. The Jews stayed on the mountain for 40 days to devastate it and pollute it. In the wake of the following pogroms, the Samaritans set out to avenge themselves by killing a great number of Jews and demolishing the Jewish temple and the city walls. However, with aid from King Darius the Jews win the battle, the Samaritans are severely beaten and those who survive become dispersed throughout the world: some to the valley of Kutha, wherefore 'the Jews call them Kuthians, so that the name Samaritan and the name Israelite would fall into disuse' (p. 88). The account in many ways reflects the account of Saul's destruction of the Samaritan temple. King Simon is followed by 'Arqia (Hyrcanus?). During this king's reign, a peculiar discussion takes place.
At this time a dispute broke out between the sons of Ithamar and the sons of Manasseh, because the sons of Manasseh had said to the sons of Ithamar, 'Give us a share in the Beautiful Meadow'. He came to a decision in this matter, thinking that this would satisfy them but he met with no success. He said to them, 'Mount Gerizim is for you, and for them and for all Israel; Nablus is exclusively for the house of Ephraim; the beautiful Meadow is for all the tribes; and the scroll of the law is for all Israel' (pp. 88-89).

Later Jewish fortune turns, and the nations who had become 'alarmed at their oppression and deceit' gather against them, destroy city and temple and scatter the Jews among the larger cities. This gives occasion for a Samaritan return and a re-erection of the 12 stones in their places on the mountain (p. 89), which now is in place for the reception of Alexander the Great.36 The Samaritan Alexander narrative contains some of the themes known from Josephus's Alexander legend and Megillat Ta'anit, but with a somewhat different casting. In the Samaritan narrative, it is the Samaritan high priest Hezekiah and the Samaritan community who meet Alexander outside Nablus when he plans to wipe out the Samaritans because of their support of Tyre during his siege of the town. As in the comparable Jewish material, Alexander becomes convinced that the Samaritan high priest is a representative of God's will and that Alexander's fortune has been predicted by him (not by way of the book of
36. The placement of the previous narratives related to Simon and 'Arqia seems to be a chronological error, and if we consider the John mentioned later in p. 112 to be Alexander Jannai, the following narratives pp. 92-111 form an independent insertion.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Daniel, of course). Hezekiah brings 'the illustrious Book and the Torah' (p. 92).37 When Alexander wants to build a temple after he had founded the Egyptian city of Alexandria, and to make representations of himself in Nablus and in all other places, the Samaritans are in a dilemma. Through divine advice, however, they solve the problem by naming all new born children after Alexander. When Alexander returns from Egypt38 he is so satisfied with the arrangement that Hezekiah, the high priest, is given opportunity to give a theological discourse about the impossibility of having the emperor's picture or statue set up for adoration and to explain why Alexander cannot build a temple on Mt Gerizim (pp. 94-95).39 The Samaritan narrative is not less legendary than Josephus's story. Lack of direct anti-Jewish propaganda might, however, suggest another source. It would probably be safer to consider the Megillat Ta 'anit traditions as forming the backbone of this as well as the stories about temple destruction. The attached discussion about the temple, however, may suggest an answer to the Jewish claim that Alexander had built a temple on Gerizim. The Samaritan community's attachment to Shechem seems to be a fact throughout the Samaritan historiography, both before and after Alexander (cf. pp. 79. 89. 92. 100. 102V The lack of Samaritan apology in Josephus's narrative of the discussion before the court of Ptolemy II Philadelphus is given full compensation in this Samaritan Chronicle. The story is combined with the Greek translation of the Pentateuch. The Samaritan deputation is led by Aaron and the Jewish by Eleazer. Jews and Samaritans each produce their own version and the argument seeks to convince the king that the Jewish version, which is without any clear reference to the cult place, is illogical, since the Israelites could not have been left without such a

37. Unknown, might be the Abisha Scroll and the Torah Scroll (Stenhouse, Kitab al Tarikh n. 434). 38. In accord with Greek historiography, see Chapter 5. 39. The Samaritan temple might in fact have been the one in Shechem, while Gerizim might have been a cult place without a temple. According to I. Magen's preliminary reports on the excavation, this seems to be a possibility (see Chapter 5). AF pp. 77. 88 and 89 suggest that there was a temple on Gerizim in Persian times until the destruction by the Jewish King Simon. The Samaritan Chronicle, which, according to Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, p. 129, confirms Alexander's building of a Samaritan temple on Gerizim, must be one other than Chronicle II and VI.

6. Samaritan Historiography


decision for so many years after the exodus. The argumentation follows the lines of the argument given in the court of Darius and adds nothing new to the Samaritan position. The outcome of the hearing is an order to make pilgrimage to the place and a curse on everyone who does not submit to this, followed by the clarifying remark that the 'Jews had forbidden pilgrimage to the Mount of Blessing' (pp. 103-11). Chronologically, this prohibition is combined with the split of the Jews into three separate groups, Pharisees, Sadducees and Hasidim. This seems to have taken place shortly before or in the beginning of the reign of John Hyrcanus. The Samaritan Chronicle does not mention Essenes, which are given such extended comment in Josephus, who (agreeing with Samaritans on the number of sects), for his part, does not mention Hasidim whom we know of from 1 and 2 Maccabees and who seem to be important supporters of the Hasmonaean revolt.40 The Hasidim's attachment to Samaritans dwelling in the villages near the Mount of Blessings with the intention of devoting themselves to worship and following the Samaritan school of thought (AF p. I l l ) certainly would have been in conflict with Josephus's negative attitude towards the Samaritans, if this statement were correct. Contrary to Josephus's harsh treatment of Sadducees (War 2.166; Ant. 18.16-17), AF states that they got the name because 'they abhorred burdening themselves with any type of injustice'. It is furthermore stated that 'they admitted only the authority of the Torah, and what the writings point out by way of analogy with it', leading to a rejection of the books 'which the sect of the Pharisees promote, preferring to follow in the tradition of their ancestors'. On this matter, Josephus is in full agreement, when, in connection with John Hyrcanus's prohibition against Pharisaic regulations, he states that
the Pharisees had passed on to the people certain regulations handed down by former generations and not recorded in the Laws of Moses, for which reason they are rejected by the Sadducean group who hold that only those regulations should be considered valid which were written down (in Scripture), and that those which had been handed down by former generations41 need not be observed (Ant. 13.297).

The Sadducees are said to live in the villages around Jerusalem.

40. 1 Mace. 2.42; 7.13; 2 Mace. 14.6. Josephus's rewriting of the text of 1 Mace, is the more striking since he follows this text closely and has made replacements for omissions (cf. Ant. 13.278; 34.396). 41. Lit. 'the fathers' tradition' (EK rcapaSooecoc; TCOV Ticrcepcov).


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

In this Samaritan chronicle, John Hyrcanus did not cause any temple destruction, and the story about the conquest of Samaria and Shechem resembles Josephus's account in War.
The king had previously attacked Sebastia, a Samaritan city, and inflicted terrible hardship upon it; and after capturing it he had killed a great number of Samaritans. He then came to Nablus and waged a fierce war against it, killing a great number of people from the two sects. But he was not able to capture it as he had captured Sebastia (AF p. 113).

After John Hyrcanus's fierce discussion with the Pharisees about the high priestly office, the rupture and his subsequently attachment to the Sadducees, he seeks to restore the Samaritans' rights and the resumption of pilgrimages to Shechem. The Samaritans, however, do not wish to see John Hyrcanus on Gerizim:
After John had gone over to the Sadducees and had done what he did to the Separatistsburnt their books and forbidden the young to receive instruction from themhe restored the practice of going on pilgrimage to Nablus to the Mount of Blessing, and firmly held that it was the house of God. Nevertheless the Samaritans would not consent to his making the pilgrimage to it, and were vigilant in preventing him. They held out, by the might of their Lord, against his insistence. When he had abandoned all hope of having his way, he proceeded to dispatch sacrifice and tithes, votive offerings and pious donations and gifts for it (AF p. 113).42

What lies behind this story? Josephus War 1.67-69 and Ant. 13.288300 give no information about John Hyrcanus's relation with the Samaritans. Neither do his stories about Alexander Jannai. The break with the Pharisees could have led to abominable circumstances in Jerusalem, and Hyrcanus could have intended to seek support from the Samaritans and perhaps from the Hasidim, who, according to this Samaritan chronicle 'rallied around the Samaritans all without exception' (p. 111). Any Samaritan reception of John Hyrcanus on Gerizim would, however, have been an acclamation of his high priestly status. On this point, Samaritans did not disagree with the Pharisees, though they had other reasons.
42. The rabbinical parallel in b. Qid. 66a ascribes this event to Yannai (Alexander Yannai, 103-76 BCE). So does Stenhouse, who thinks that the successor of the Jewish King Simon named 'Arqiah must be John Hyrcanus, and therefore the king spoken of here, named John, must be Alexander Jannai (see note n. 563). Josephus's parallel stories, ascribed to each of the kings, supports the confusion, but only the John Hyrcanus story explicitly 'dates' the break.

6. Samaritan Historiography


Consideration must be given the function of the story. Typologically, we are dealing with the same sort of story as the one about Antiochus IV's deathbed repentance and conversion to Judaism in 2 Maccabees 9. Similar motifs are presented: a former enemy becomes 'a friend and ally', and 'he who laughs last, laughs longest'. The balance of power is resettled. The Samaritans do not live off the mercy of John Hyrcanus, and it is not 'the greatest Jewish hero' who causes the most unhappy event in Samaritan history. The connection between John Hyrcanus's attachment to the Sadducees (who in many ways resemble the Samaritan opinion of the written tradition) and his treatment of the Samaritans, is interesting, and could be due to the Pharisaic outbreak, which might in fact have been a true civil war between the supporters and the enemies of John Hyrcanus and later of his son Alexander Jannai, if we are to believe Josephus.43 If this be correct, we are implicitly told that the opposition to the Samaritans is to be found mainly among the Pharisees at this time, and that it was the religious and political concept of the Pharisaic party that gave inspiration to the campaign against the Samaritans. Implicitly, it is also said that this concept, among others, was to be found in the books of the Pharisees, which John Hyrcanus had banned. Whatever history lies behind this story, the long-standing conflict between John Hyrcanus, Alexander Jannai and the Pharisees, which, according to Josephus, has not been brought to an end before the rule of Queen Alexandra in 76 BCE (Ant. 13.400-406), certainly could have influenced the ruling royal party's attitude towards the Samaritans. If we include this Samaritan story in the list of stories dealing with the question of the destruction of the Samaritan temple, we find that we have a number of possible variant narratives: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Stories related to Genesis 34. Megillat Ta (anit. Josephus's two stories. The stories in the Samaritan Chronicles about King Saul, King Simon, John Hyrcanus and perhaps Alexander Jannai. The Old Testament stories of Judges 9; 1 Samuel 22; 2 Kings 23. Ben Sira 50's praise of Simeon ben Jochanan and 'the foolish people in Shechem'.

43. War 1.67, 88-98; Ant. 13.299, 372-83.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Common to all these stories are attempts at completion of or the destruction of Shechem, Gerizim, Bethel and Khirbet Luzah. When this took place and with what motivation cannot be safely decided from these stories. That it happened on behalf of and with direct actions of Jews in Jerusalem is shared by all of the stories. The Samaritan Chronicle does not hide the fact that there existed a long-termed and farreaching hostility between Jews and Samaritans, and that both groups mutually exploited this in their fights with the surrounding 'nations'. We find in both Samaritan and Jewish sources indications of an intensification of hostility after the return from the Babylonian exile, and, in some of the sources, this is closely combined with temple-building activities in Jerusalem. Interestingly, no stories argue against templebuilding activities in Shechem or on Gerizim, although this is said to have been destroyed a couple of times. Three stories talk about attempts to destroy Jerusalem's temple (Megillat Ta'anit; AF p. 81. p. 89). Thematically, we once again find ourselves dealing with the problematic presence of past traditions over against present innovations, and two groups who claim authority for each of their own. This might be an example of the never-ending story. It might, however, also be a single story spelled out in many variations to give credence to its antiquity and consequent historicity. Repeated remarks in AF about disagreements in the Christian era is not necessarily authentic throughout the period. On the other hand, it can be stated that no Samaritan stories tell about any cooperation between Samaritans and Jews. The cessation of mutual persecutions are always due to the interference of foreign rulers. The following examples can be seen as paradigmatic for this tendency: AF p. 115 probably said about Cleopatra, the wife of Ptolemy VII, 'She was also favourably disposed to the Samaritans. Her son helped them in their struggle against the Jews'. AF p. 124: during Hadrian's siege of Jerusalem, two Samaritan brothers, called Ephraim and Manasseh (sic), who are Jewish prisoners, reveal for him the tunnel entrances to Jericho and Lydda, and he succeeds in conquering the city. Hadrian rewards the Samaritans, entrusts them with the affairs of the country and puts them over the Jews. On Gerizim, he erected an imposing temple for himself, called Safis. He killed an incalculable number of Jews and put the city to the torch. When the Samaritans later make sedition and burn down Hadrian's pagan temple on Gerizim, the Jews declare to Hadrian,

6. Samaritan Historiography
See how the Samaritans return your trust: how they pay you back! You had us put to death on their account, and you put them over us; you spared their land and treated them with every kindness; and yet after your departure, they burnt down your temple together with all who were inside it.


This of course leads to Hadrian's campaign against the Samaritans, who neither abstain from dishonest methods in accusing the Jews of the burning of the temple and of its inhabitants. A reference to the longstanding hostility between Samaritans and Jews, who certainly have produced a false charge, easily convinces Hadrian to turn his attack on the Jews. With the exception of Josephus and the Samaritan Chronicles, the sources are remarkably silent about these conditions, or only speak of them indirectly, as does the biblical literature. 1 and 2 Maccabees speak about godless men and enemies of the Jewish nation. Are these Samaritans or are they (as is usually assumed) unfaithful priests and pagans from among foreigners? Several texts from the DSS collection speak about wicked men from Ephraim (e.g. Pesher Nahum, 4Q163 frg. 3-4, 5.5, which bases its interpretation of Demetrius's[?] attack on Jerusalem on the book of Nahum, and 4QpPsa = 4Q171, 2.18, which is a pesher on Ps. 37). Both of these texts, however, also speak about the wicked men of Judah, who seem to be 'those who seek easy interpretations'. If they be not the Pharisees, as the standard scholarly opinion maintains, the texts could in fact be reflective of a Pharisaic view and be addressed rather against Sadducees and Samaritans. This could, for example, fit well with the situation during the reign of John Hyrcanus after his break with the Pharisees or with the reign of Alexander Jannai, which would explain why Ephraim, Manasseh and Judah are all spoken against in a similar manner.44 Josephus's statement that the Sadducees 'reckon it a
44. 4Q44g's praise of Alexander Jannai does not conflict with the possibility that other DSS texts express severe hostility against this king. According to Josephus the Pharisee conflict was a twofold conflict beginning with John Hyrcanus and ending with Alexander Jannai's deathbed repentance. Securing the power for his wife Alexandra, Alexander Jannai advised her to 'yield a certain amount of power to the Pharisees'. They in turn 'recounted the deeds of Alexander, and said that in him they had lost a just king, and by their eulogies they so greatly moved the people [so] to mourn and lament that they gave him a more splendid burial than had been given to any of the kings before him' (Ant. 13.400-406). The substance of this historical setting is due to Josephus's argument and does not conflict with any 'scholarly constructions imposed upon the texts' that argue for an anti-Jannaeus


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

virtue to dispute with the teachers of the path of wisdom,45 that they pursue' (Ant. 18.16), might be descriptive of the animosity against 'those seeking easy interpretations'. Although they follow the regulations set up in the Pentateuch, they are not bound by tradition. They may in fact have had much greater freedom in making ad hoc interpretations without demonstrating any deviation from the written biblical text. The hermeneutic principle for interpretation of both legal and prophetic material in the DSS, however, exposes several changes of the biblical texts with the purpose of making it fit.46 It seems possible that the accusation of making 'easy interpretations' could well be applied to either group. L.H. Schiffman's excellent book,47 in which he strives hard to demonstrate a Sadducean origin for the scrolls, in fact is much more successful in denoting a Pharisaic or early rabbinic tradition underlying most of the legal material in the scrolls.48 The few exceptions showing a possible Sadducean association49 might better be seen as a corrective to our excessively dichotomous distinctions between Sadducees and Pharisees. Supporting a view of Pharisaic origin is the fact that the scrolls are hardly descriptive of how matters are, they describe rather how they shall be when an idealized future has become the present. The righteous priests of the scrolls are not in the 'lineage of Zadokites' from David's time, whom we and Josephus understand to be the heirs of the high priestly office in the second century BCE Judaism and called Sadducees. They are the new priesthood, sprouting from the righteous priesthood of the biblical 'David's house of Zadok', and their origin is in the lay movement, probably the Levites. This, however is a construed: that is a literary 'genealogy' that seeks to legitimate this
bias in the text, such as argued by Greg Doudna, 'Redating the Dead Sea Scrolls Fund at Qumran: the Case for 63 BCE' (PhD thesis, University of Copenhagen). 45. TOtx; SiSaoKdloiK; oo<j)ia<;. 46. Cf. P.R. Davies, Scribes and Schools (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1998), pp. 157-63. 47. L.H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1994). 48. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, pp. 7, 77, 103, 105, 118-26, 371-74. Schiffman's comparative examination on fate and predestination in the scrolls related to Josephus's descriptions of the Jewish sects (pp. 145-57) does not prove his case, since the views of the scrolls certainly are most reflective of Josephus's description of the Pharisaic movement and only with great difficulties can be applied to either Sadducees or Essenes. 49. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, pp. 75, 87.

6. Samaritan Historiography


priesthood. Purification rules and rites make the transformation from lay to sacred, as shown also in the preparations for Hezekiah's celebration of the pesach (2 Chron. 29.34; 30.17, 22). Pesher Habakkuk's rejection of the 'wicked priest', who failed to stand in the way of truth and betrayed the laws for the sake of riches (8.9-10) and his accusers self-identification as the faithful teacher, the p~l^ mQ (7.4) must be taken into consideration here. Another factor to be taken into consideration is scroll production as such. Several Jewish groups might have produced various texts, but we only have limited knowledge of such practices.50 The only group who is explicitly said to have produced 'writings' in fact is the Pharisees. The writings they produced have been described as interpretative writings on the Tradition of the Fathers' (cf. Ant. 13.292, 296-97; 18.14-15; Life 191; AF pp. 111. 113; Mk 7-9, 13). These factors, together with what we otherwise know about the understanding of Judaism as Pharisaism, must be given consideration in our judgment of the origin of the DSS material. The harsh treatment of the Sadducees and accusations against them of having amassed wealth and riches at the expense of the poor in collusion with the Hasmonaeans, the civil war that both led to the killing of a great number of Jews, as well as to the exile for some eight thousand people as discussed above, however polemically and exaggeratedly in Josephus's writings, all have their counterpart in the scrolls. Although we cannot use Josephus as a proper source, we cannot totally dismiss the implications of his storytelling. The anachronistic problem of identifying any Jewish group on the basis of descriptions made 100 to 200 years later, depending on the dating of the DSS material, is a stumbling block of considerable dimensions. Conclusions can be drawn only with great caution. The representation of several views and hands in the texts may

50. The purported abundance of book production by Essenes is not given any verification by Josephus's various presentations, and we can only guess that 'the books of the sect' (War 2.142) is a reference to DSS manuscripts. Philo's statement about the Essenes gives no information about literary activities (cf. Omn. Prob. Lib. 75-91; ref. to Philo in Eusebius, Praep. Ev. 8.6.1-9; 7.1-20; 11.1-18). His contemplative Therapeuts, on the contrary, whom he presents in contrast to the physically active Essenes, are fully occupied with studies and interpretation, which also seem to have been preserved in writing (cf. Vit. Cont. 1-90 [1, 28-31, 75-80, 88]). These Therapeuts seem to be far from any group we can identify on the background of DSS material.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

be reflective of more than one coherent group, and the hypothesis of librarian activities in the scrolls must be considered seriously. The book of Hosea and Pesher Hosea speaks in the same manner against Ephraim and Judah in 4Q167 frg. 2: the interpretation to Hos. 5.14 'For I will be like a lion (to Ephr)aim (and like a lion cub to the house of) Judah. Its interpretation (concerns) the last priest who will stretch out his hand to strike Ephraim (...his ha)nd. Blank [...] Hos. 5.15. It is not clear who 'the last priest is', but the extremely difficult interpretation that considers him to be Alexander Jannai does not fit the perspective of the text. This is clearly written by one who identifies himself with those who are oppressed and looking for revenge. This authorial perspective could be reflective of the self-understanding of the Pharisee, opposed by both Sadducees and Samaritans who are portrayed as those subject to Yahweh's disappointment. Isaiah 9.20-21 and Pesher Isaiah 4Q163 frg. 4-6.1, which quote Isa. 9.20-21, both express a contrast between Ephraim-Manasseh and Judah. The texts do not differ from each other:
No one [forgives] his brother, [he destroys to the right and remains hungry, he consumes] to the left and is not replete; [a man eats the flesh of his arm. Manasseh against] Ephraim and Ephraim against [Manajsseh; [the two] together [against Judah. And with all this] his wrath is not mollified.

The reconstruction of the text seems reasonable, since the previous verses closely resemble the text of the Old Testament. Unfortunately, the interpretation is missing. The all-over impression of the texts from the DSS is that those spoken against and considered to be apostates are either 'those looking for easy interpretations', associates of foreign nations or the foreign nations themselves, and that a proper north-south polarity is not the focus of the texts. Similar to what we find in a variety of psalms and prophetic texts of the Old Testament, the 'war' implied is either intrinsic and thus splitting apart the tribes of Israel, or it is extrinsic and the 12 tribes are joined together in a common war against the nations, such as can be seen in the War Scroll (e.g. 1QM 3.14, 5.1). The Temple Scroll, which speaks with the voice of the Pentateuch, similarly puts Israel's tribes in a relationship of equation (e.g. 11QT 19-20; 24.1-16). Any tendency of antagonism or priority can only be detected in the order of the tribes. The Damascus Document (CD 7.11-12; 4Q266 frg. 3, 4.6-7), men

6. Samaritan Historiography


tioning Ephraim's detachment from Judah, probably comes closest to an actualized interpretation of Isa. 7.17:
When the two houses of Israel separated, all the renegades were delivered up to the sword; but those who remained steadfast, escaped to the land of the north. [This refers to] when the two houses of Israel split, Ephraim lorded over Judah,51 and all the backsliders52 were turned over to the sword.53

The interpretation, however, is held in so general and cryptic terms that a proper understanding becomes impossible, and we can only guess about authorship and addressee on the basis of references to 'the books of the Law', 'the books of the prophets', 'the princes of Judah, who are those upon whom the rage will be vented', 'the converts of Israel, who left the land of Judah and lived in the land of Damascus', reverence for David, which leads to an abandonment of the whole period from Eleazar and Jehoshua (cf. CD 5.2-5):
However, David had not read the sealed book of the Law which was in the ark, for it had not been opened in Israel since the day of the death of Eleazar and of Jehoshua, and Joshua and the elders who worshipped Ashtaroth had hidden the public (copy) until Zadok's entry into office.

If we associate these things with descriptions of Jewish groups, we might catch a glimpse of the Pharisees behind the 'books of the law', 'the books of the prophets' and 'the reverence for David', a glimpse of perhaps Sadducees, Hasmonaean rulers and others opposed to the Pharisees behind 'the princes of Judah' and finally a glimpse of Samaritans behind 'the elders', as it is the entry of Zadok, which brings forth the Law. If this interpretation is correct, we might (along with some of the DSS material) be placed in a much closer context than is usually considered. Furthermore, 'when the two houses of Israel split' might be a much more complicated reference than just a north-south conflict. That not only Sadducees, but also Samaritans are said to be living according to the 'Way of the Fathers' (m. Nid. 4.2; Ant. 12.10; 13. 297), and that this way is the tradition past for those who sought to re-establish that tradition within a new interpretation, seems to reflect a structural

51. F.G. Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992), reads 'Ephraim detached itself from Judah', which fits the preposition. 52. Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 'renegades'.

53. inn1? "ntwon *cr:no]n 'TJDI rmrr ^DQ cnst* ~ic (*niphai ptc of 310).


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

conflict of considerable dimensions, embracing all aspects of societal life. A thorough evaluation of the Samaritan material can be given only on the basis of already well-known traditions. As seen from this examination, some of the material seems to cast light on obscure passages and stories that otherwise remain incomprehensible. The main problem with Samaritan historiography is not quite so much detecting ancient sources behind what we now have. The main problem is rather that the 'historiography' never reached a level of canonization similar to Jewish 'historiography', which was able to preserve a substantially unchanged text over centuries. We cannot safely know whether the Samaritan historiography, when it agrees with Josephus against the biblical sources, speaks independently of Josephus, or whether its material is composed in accord with Josephus, or, in a somewhat apologetic way, takes up themes and stories about Jewish-Samaritan relationships that are also debated in Josephus. No entirely independent story seems to have been told in the chronicles. Stories dealing with Samaritan matters proper have a close resemblance to stories known from other sources: Letter of Aristeas; the book of Esther; 2 Maccabees; Susanna, the LXX, among others. The authors of the chronicles show no interest in presenting a national history or in placing Samaritans within such a realm of secular history. They did not take part in the Hasmonaean desire for independence and nationality. In this way, they resemble the Hasidim, whose primary goal was religious independence, and who probably withdrew when the uprising turned into a political movement for national independence. Samaritan history is the history of a religious group whose members call themselves Israelites (bene Yisrd'el) and Shomerim. Their main enemies are not foreign nations but their countrymen and brethren called Jews. Such a historiography, of course, is as little reliable at face value as the similar Jewish historiography. We cannot simply read such 'historiographies' independently of each other. The realities giving them substance have been interwoven. Treating them as if they were independent traditions would be comparable to telling a family saga from the perspective of a single one of its members. In future studies, much more work needs to be done. Much more openness and creativity needs to be invested in comparative studies of what is a common history for the benefit of greater clarity regarding both Samaritanism and Judaism.


Ezra 7-10 and Nehemiah 8 and 12 each have an account about the activity in Jerusalem of a certain scribe Ezra, descendant of Aaron. This figure 'later' became of considerable importance to rabbinic Judaism, in which, equated with Moses, he marks the re-establishment of the 'forgotten' tradition. Remarkably, Josephus does not know of this later-tobe-so-famous person, but seems satisfied with paraphrasing the book that carries his name, namely 1 Esdras. It seems necessary to look into sources later than Josephus to find 'information' about a person who 'lived' in the fifth-fourth century BCE. Such a situation caused G. Garbini1 to conclude that 'the figure of Ezra was created by the book of the same name; he did not have an autonomous existence as a person who, if not historical, was at least legendary before the writing of the book'. Garbini's purpose was not to deny Ezra, but rather the book of Ezra's historicity, and, with the help of an understanding of name etymology, transmission, development of tradition and the establishment of stock characteristics seek to place himself hermeneutically before the literary 'evidence' and, as a result, give a more correct picture of Ezra. The sources Garbini examined for this 'creation' were 1 Esdras, Ezra, Nehemiah, the books of Chronicles, 1 Maccabees, the book of Sirach, the DSS, rabbinical literature and Josephus. The examination led Garbini to suggest that Ezra was a synonym for Alcimus and his reform activities around 159 BCE, which led to the Zadokite emigration from the temple in Jerusalem and to their successive establishment of an alternative community in Qumran. 2 By using literature that belonged chronologically and ideologically to different contexts, but whose intertextuality reflects a high degree of 'sociological' agreement, Garbini established a
1. G. Garbini, History and Ideology in Ancient Israel (ET: trans. John Bowden; London: SCM Press, 1988 [1986]), p. 155. 2. Garbini, History and Ideology, pp. 165-69.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

new context and a historiography for a previously unknown person named Ezra. It is our task to re-examine Garbini's conclusions by means of more or less the same sources but with the possibilities that other methods bring. This task is complicated by the fact that our sources are far from neutral and do not exist independently of each other. This means that their authors have already created the connections and contexts that we might detect and perhaps also interpret with the purpose of creating new conclusions, which, however literarily valid, nevertheless may be historically incorrect. The limitations of our sources related to the survival and transmission of ancient literature is an insurmountable problem. Other authors have already decided what should be told from the past and what perspective be seen underlying the narrative. Only coincidences and implicit stories give us access to 'the hidden story' behind those already presented. Ignoring this central hermeneutic problem, much history writing is condemned to paraphrase already written stories. If Garbini is right in his Ezra hypothesis, it is not thereby proven that the description of Ezra in 1 Esdras was false for its intended reader, or that the 1 Maccabees' potential 'dialogue' about Ezra with this tradition's portrayal of Alcimus was correct at the time. Both versions in fact could be false or correct, both then and now. The problems of anachronism and circular dependency are not solved by showing that the portrayal of Ezra fits the portrayal of Alcimus in 1 Maccabees; or, for that matter, showing that the 'history' relating events in the Hasmonaean period fits the biblical acount from the time of the Judges to the refom of Josiah. The possibility of exposing our texts' sociological realities, and from them create the reality that created our texts is minimal. Our only chance for knowledge of our texts' content and perspective is not so much dependent on assuming the role of our text's implicit reader, but rather on assuming the role of its implicit author. We need to decode our author's methods. In our attempt to become 'as clever as' the author, it is today's task to detect how the ancient author used the story he created to hide the history that did not fit his perspective, as well as the message he had chosen to give. Let me give an example. 1 Maccabees, whose literary purpose was to legitimize the Hasmonaean takeover and usurpation of the high priestly office, has two main problems: the Oniads and Alcimus. Alcimus is so obviously a usurper in this story, hardly to be reckoned in the high priestly succession (cf. 1 Mace. 7.5, 21) because he did not know how to behave as a high

7. From Literary to Historical Reality


priest of the lineage of Aaron (cf. 1 Mace. 7.12-18; 9.54-56). The Oniads, on the contrary, had a hundred-year-old tradition as legitimate high priests and a standing that it would be foolish to deny. 1 Maccabees solves this problem in a most elegant way by bringing Jonathan to contrast Onias (1 Mace. 12.5-19). The text does not tell us that Onias is of Lacedaemonian origin. This lies only implicitly in the letter from Arius, which possibility Jonathan exposes in his answer: 'Already in time past a letter was sent to Onias, the high priest from Arius, who was king among you, stating that you are our brethren.' The author of 1 Maccabees did not have more to write. From here the story developed. As we can see in 2 Maccabees 5 the author of 1 Maccabees had reached his goal. Nor in 2 Maccabees is the legitimacy of the Oniads denied. It was not the Hasmonaeans who removed the Oniads. They removed themselves, and, as it must be understood, rightly so, because they did not belong: so 2 Mace. 5.9-10:
and he who had driven many from their own country into exile died in exile, having embarked to go to the Lacedaemonians in hope of finding protection because of their kinship. He who had cast out many to lie unburied had no one to mourn for him; he had no funeral of any sort and no place in the tomb of his fathers.

Josephus grasped enthusiastically at this chance of placing the Oniads in Egypt, as we have already seen demonstrated in his various stories about the temple in Heliopolis or Leontopolis. At the same time, it became even more urgent to suppress discussion of a possible Hasmonaean usurpation of the high priesthood. To make the discussion before Ptolemy a discussion between the Oniads and the Hasmonaeans would have both undermined the earlier argument and have been difficult to accomplish. Therefore, the legislation needed another context, and for that the Samaritans were suitable. Josephus reached his goal: the primacy of Jerusalem and its priests, then and now. Here, however, we find the critical point, for in Josephus's presentation of the list of high priests in Ant. 20.235, he confirms indirectly the course of events: Jacimus or Alcimus is of the family of Aaron, but not of the family of the Oniads (cf. 1 Mace. 7.14, but contra Ant. 12.387, which relates that Lysias appointed a high priest of another house).3 That there is no high priest for seven years thereafter (Ant. 20.237) keeps the Hasmonaeans apart from any conflict over the high priestly office. It is only Jose3. See Chapter 4 above.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

phus's mention of the high priests (whom Herod had appointed), that they 'were not of the family of the Hasmonaeans', which gives reason for the reader to think that these (the Hasmonaeans) were not of the lineage of Aaron, since Josephus, in his initial statement, had declared that nobody who was not of the lineage of Aaron could become high priests. The question now left open is whether this description has been able to move into the universe of the author and thereby create the 'correct' story to contrast to the received story's placement of the Oniads in Egypt, with its legitimizing of the high priestly functions of the Hasmonaeans. This is unknown on the basis of the available sources. However, it is clear that this possibility is inherent in the texts. So too is Nodet's Oniad and Garbini's Ezra theory. It is only further research that can lift the veil from some of the hidden histories of the past. Using these texts as historical documents, however, has been our greatest mistake. In the form in which they are presented, they have already become part of the world of story and tradition. Whatever documentary material may have preceded the narratives, we can only know the versions presented. The few 'independent' fragments and archaeological remains, interpreted with caution, are of considerable help. The most central peculiarity involved in our understanding of the Samaritan-Judaean conflict is the existence of a common Pentateuch. As demonstrated by the brief presentation above of the Greek literature, the traditions about the monarchy seem to have become known considerably later than the Moses traditions. Moreover Judaism's concentration on Jerusalem becomes more explicit during the second century BCE. This reflects well our knowledge of political circumstances, which in the establishment of a partly independent Jewish state in the middle of the second century BCE, created the basis for a literary delimitation of Judaism's geographical boundaries. That the establishment of the state also implied an establishment of a more politically oriented high priestly office seems evident in Demetrius's letter to Jonathan (1 Mace. 10.38), the cruvaycoyfj |ieyd^r|'s (14.28) appointment of Simeon in 14.35 and 41 as their leader and high priest (fiyo'uuBvov amcov KQI dp%iepea), and finally the declaration that 'all contracts in the country should be written in his name' (14.43). Implicit in the offer to add the three Samaritan border regions to Judaea is that they had earlier submitted to another authority. Also implicit in Josephus's discussion of the 'right temple' in Ant. 13.74-79 is that none of the temples discussed had

7. From Literary to Historical Reality


obtained supreme authority and that such authority was indivisible. These circumstances were given vivid expression in much of the literature of the second-first century BCE, as has been shown by Mendels.4 Giving voice to the wish for the development of a single religious centre in Jerusalem, the literature became idealistically descriptive of what was not yet created. The literature does not argue defensively for a re-establishment of an idealized past that had had a single temple, one priest-king and a united people in Jerusalem! The literature in fact argues on the line of innovation and development from that ideal place in the past, where the people once had its centre, to a new place in the present that is in process. The Deuteronomistic literature's elaboration of the Shechem and Bethel traditions is a rejection of that past, implicitly prior to the establishment of the cult in Jerusalem. In the book of Jubilees, necessary corrections of the very same past are given voice, when Jub. 8.19's 'navel of the earth' (cf. Exod. 15.13; Ezek. 37.12) becomes Mt Zion; and when, in its addition to Gen. 22.14's 'mountain where Yahweh shows himself, this is said to be Mt Zion in Jub. 18.13. Yahweh's prohibition of Jacob's plans of building a temple and a wall in Bethel, and of making the place holy for himself and his children (Jub. 32.16-24), both implies that Jacob becomes Israel here (v. 18) and that this Israel does not belong to Bethel (v. 23): 'Do not build this place and do not make an eternal sanctuary, and do not dwell here because this is not the place. Go to the house of Abraham, your father.' The text implies that the houses of Jacob and Abraham become united. Jub. 49.18's correction of Deuteronomy 12's implicit question of where Yahweh was worshipped before the building of the temple maintains that it had only been until the building of the house of the name of Yahweh that the tabernacle had been set up in the midst of the land.5 The relationship to Haran is another issue of concern. Abraham's connection to Haran could not be denied, but any doubts that this relationship should imply a connection to the Nabonide reform in Haran, and that Abraham might have brought his god(s) from there, needed a clear rejection. This was done in the story about Abram's burning of the idol house in Ur in which Abram's brother Haran dies (Jub. 12.12). When Abram thereafter goes to geographical Haran (Jub. 12.15), it is not one of Haran's gods but Yahweh who reveals himself and teaches Abram
4. D. Mendels, Jewish Nationalism, p. 150. 5. A similar question in AF p. 76 is answered by reference to Deut. 15.20 and 16.16.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

not to make signs from the sun and the moon. Only after the cutting of the covenant and the institution of Hebrew as the language of creation (Jub. 12.22-27), does Abram travel to Canaan.6 This 'correction' in Neh. 2.10, 19 led to the apposition added to Sanballat ha-horoni.1 This apposition presumably is not only a reference to an abandoned past, but also to the future past of Samaritan tradition, which not only made 'the Samaritans, the descendants from Phinehas and Joseph' go into exile to Haran (view AF p. 63). but also sought to make a common return from Haran during the leadership of Sanballat. This attempt did not succeed because of disagreements over where to go: Gerizim or Jerusalem (AF pp. 70-78). Once again we are left with the curious problem that MTand Jewish tradition reject their past, while Samaritan tradition seeks to confirm its. This literary technique is in full agreement with Old Testament literature's rejecting the gods of the fathers prior to the acceptance of the covenant at Shechem in Joshua 24. This event is not included in Samaritan tradition. Included, however, are the great cycles of stories dominated by the motif of rejecting the firstborn in order to give room to the youngest. In the Ishmael tradition, he is reckoned as Abraham's illegitimate son; in the Lot tradition, he is a subordinate member of the family; and finally in the Esau-Jacob tradition, he is the twin brother and equal. It is this equal but rejected brother, who makes the connection to Yahweh from Seir, while Jacob is connected exclusively to the Samaria and Shechem traditions.8
6. This still valid question even in rabbinic literature is exemplified in the joke presented in Chapter 4. 7. Josephus either did not understand this word play or his texts did not contain the apposition. It is found only here in the Old Testament; the LXX reads oava(k$AaT 6 Apcovi and is without apposition in LXX Neh. 4.1 and 6.1, 5, 14. Josephus's similar use of 6 xi)00cao<; in Ant. 11.302 has no support. The place name has not been identified; suggested are Beth-Horon on the Samaritan Benjamin border in the vicinity of Ono (cf. Neh. 6.2); the village Huuwara, a little south of Shechem, and finally the Moabite Horonaim paralleling Tobiah, the Ammonite. A possible connection to Haran has been rejected on philological grounds (cf. EncJud.). This, however, seems unreasonable, since the reading of the Hebrew text is determined by its vocalization. According to Gen. 11.31 this is Haran. 8. We are dealing here with a type of literature that is found only in the Old Testament tradition and is unparalleled in Near Eastern literature (cf. D. Irvin, Mytharion: The Comparison of Tales from the Old Testament and Ancient Near East (AOAT, 32; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978). This literature reworks the past in typological narrative, which, taking up the past, is able to reject

7. From Literary to Historical Reality


The move towards Jerusalem is not restricted to non-biblical literature. It also found its expression in several Psalms' and Prophets' wishes for all people to go to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of Jacob, and for the Torah to go forth from Zion and the commandments of Yahweh from Jerusalem (cf. Isa. 2.1-2; Mic. 4.1-2; Joel 3.5); 'for on the mountain of Zion and in Jerusalem there will be salvation/ refuge'. One could doubt whether the reference to Zion is so exclusively a reference to Jerusalem (cf. Mic. 1.1 's words against Samaria and Jerusalem (D^lTl jl-iDET1^)- Micah 3.12 states that 'because of you Zion shall become plowed as a field; Jerusalem shall become a heap of ruins and the mountain of the house [ninn "in], a wooded height'. We usually consider these expressions to be parallelisms, but it is not as obvious as we are wont to think. When we analyse the Zion utterances in Kings and Chronicles, we find the interesting fact that in 2 Sam. 5.8; 1 Kgs 8.1; 1 Chron. 11.5 and 2 Chron. 5.29 Zion is not the temple but the city of David, and that in 1 Kgs 8.1 and 2 Chron. 5.2 the ark is carried 'from the city of David, the same as Zion' (]VX KTI Til TSD) to the temple during the celebration of its inauguration. We find the same conditions in Psalm 2's setting of the king 'on Zion, my holy mountain'; and in Ps. 48.2, 12-13's conflation of kingship and divine presence, calling Zion 'the city of the great king' that is secured by God's presence. We possibly have more texts that support a tradition that does not explicitly combine Zion with the temple. We have several psalms that speak of 'the city, the habitation, the house [etc.] of the Lord' without mentioning Zion (e.g. Pss. 24; 27; 46; 62; 66; 100; 101; 122). It is not the place here to examine how Zion became the temple of the Lord, the temple mount, Jerusalem and the people. We confine ourselves to conclude that several psalms, lamentations and prophets, including Isaiah,
it. From this comes the dissonance in the various compositions, which are seen paralleled in entire books and collection, that is, the dissonance between the Pentateuch and the historical books. Cf. also Th.L. Thompson, Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel (JSOTSup, 55; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), p. 158: The narratives of this genre all begin with a series of three episodes which together perform specific functions of the chain narrative. They state the theme and frequently give the context of the later narrative. They set the mode of resolution for the plot-line, and they take the first step in the plot-line of a greater story. It is usually the third of these episodes which sets the plot of the chain narrative moving and is found to echo through succeeding episodes of the larger narrative.' 9. In the historical books, Zion is only mentioned here (and in 2 Kgs 19.21, 31; quoting Isaiah).


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Jeremiah, Joel, Micah, Zephaniah, Zechariah, Amos and Obadiah10 imply such interpretations. This implicitly holds a strong possibility of a mixture of mundane and clerical authority. It also can be concluded that Zion refers to Jerusalem in these texts. If this contain any allusions to 'the two houses of Israel' (cf. Isa. 8.14), this is based on rhetorical parallelism, which needed two exodoi for Yahweh's works, similar to Jeroboam's new cult, which had needed two centres in exchange for those left in Shechem and Jerusalem. The move towards Zion or Jerusalem is not restricted literarily to the return from exile, which is given concrete expression. It also comprises an eschatological salvation and the creation of the kingdom of glory in which all people should be gathered (cf. Isa. 2.2-4, Mic. 4.1-3; Zech. 2.15), contrasting the rest of the books of Zechariah, Obadiah, Zephaniah and Joel, which place Zion in opposition to the nations. Jeremiah forms another exception. It does not render the salvation complete until all the apostates of the house of Israel have returned. Compare with Jer. 3.14-16, where the faithless children shall be brought home to Zion, the ark of the covenant be forgotten and Jerusalem be called the throne of Yahweh: 'In those days the house of Judah shall join the house of Israel and together they shall come from the land of the north to the land that I gave your fathers for a heritage' [v. 18]). This unification of the people also forms the central message in Jer. 31.1-33.26, explicated in Jer. 31.6: 'For a day will come when the watchers [D'HIS]] will call at the mount of Ephraim: "Arise, let us go up to Zion, to Yahweh, our God".' The motif is the same as in Isaiah 2 and Micah 4, but the remarkable features of the text is the combining of (D'H^D) Mt Ephraim and Zion. The text expresses the same wish as we also find in the Chronicles' story about Hezekiah's invitation to those in Ephraim and Manasseh. Jeremiah's neutralization of the chronology and the levelling of the fates of north and south in the exile caused by the fall of Jerusalem, and the glory at the return, stands in the same tradition as what we find in Samaritan literature and opposes the Deuteronomistic and 'Chronicler's' chronology, which reckon with separated falls and no return for the tribes of the north.11
10. The other books of the Prophets, the remaining Old Testament literature, with the exception of the texts mentioned plus Lamentations and Song of Songs, do not use the term 'Zion'. 11. So also Ant. 11.133: 'But the Israelite nation as a whole remained in the country [Babylon]. In this way it has come about that there are two tribes in Asia

7. From Literary to Historical Reality


The return from exile in Ezra and Nehemiah does not share explicitly in the Old Testament Zion ideology.12 There are no mouths filled with laughter and no shouts of joy at the wandering to Jerusalem. We might either date this tradition to a later period or argue that Ezra and Nehemiah belong to a different tradition, as do half of the writings of the Prophets. With this we can separate Ezra and Nehemiah from 1 Maccabees, which not only have knowledge of the tradition but also of the fulfilment of its expectations in 1 Maccabees 5's stories about Judas's and Simeon's return of the Jews from Gilead and the Galilee (cf. v. 54): 'So they went up to Mt Zion with gladness and joy, and offered burnt offerings, because not one of them had fallen before they returned in safety.' The Zion expectation is hereby given its first concrete fulfilment. This contrasts with the book of Sirach, which, with the Old Testament, speaks about the wandering to Zion in futuristic terms (cf. Sir. 36.13-16), and does not 'know' of any Zion tradition in its references to the temple and the high priest Simeon (Sir. 50.1-24). We are once more placed in the national ideology of the Maccabaean period. We can conclude that part of the literature mentioned expresses a wish for the inclusion of the northern people in this ideology, while the only account of its fulfilment does not include Ephraim. In the Samaritan Chronicle Abu 'l-Fath, the conflict that this national ideology might have created is placed prior to the return from the Babylonian exile, where Zerubbabel and the Jewish leaders wrote to the Samaritan high priest Abdal: 'You and your assembly must do as we tell you: that is, we must go to Jerusalem and be all of us of one nation' (AF p. 70). Samaritan and Jewish literature agree that the claim is advanced from Jerusalem, not the contrary. Neither in the Masoretic literature nor in Josephus's accounts of the discussion before Ptolemy has it been explained theologically why the cult should become established in Jerusalem. As demonstrated in the inauguration of Solomon's temple, it is built before it is chosen. It seems reasonable therefore, to ask whether the 'demand' that the Samaritans go to Jerusalem is anything more than a pious wish. Does it also contain a political statement that might have led to the temple destruction, schism, text revision, and so on? Both Samaritan and Jewish literature agree that the temple was destroyed and
and Europe subject to the Romans, while until now there are ten tribes beyond the Euphrates.' This text is not found in either Ezra or 1 Esdras, which is Josephus's source. 12. The terminology is not used in these books.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

that a text revision took place, with Ezra as the responsible editor. Both traditions furthermore have a Simeon tradition that is tied to the temple and whose reputation is sharply contrasted. The Samaritan Chronicle places the temple destruction in the time of a certain Jewish king named Simeon, appointed by an unknown king before the arrival of Alexander the Great. It does not relate any destruction to the time of John Hyrcanus. This chronology is contradicted in AF p. 102, which states that Alexander was received in the temple, and in 2 Mace. 6.2 and Ant. 12.257-64, both of which refer to the temple at Gerizim in the time of Antiochus IV. The Simeon mentioned in the Samaritan tradition, therefore, cannot be the high priest Simeon II Just, but must be understood to refer to the Hasmonaean Simeon, ruling from about 142/143 BCE to 135 BCE. Neither the Samaritan Chronicle nor Josephus bring any further information which could settle these matters. Megillat Ta'anifs account of the Samaritan attempt to destroy the Jewish temple, however, does. The placement of this account in the time of Alexander the Great is so incredible that it cannot be taken seriously. Another probable dating in the time of Antiochus IIIbecause of the assertion that it is Simeon the Just who is meantis contradicted by the fact that no temple destruction took place at that time. Left is the Hasmonaean Simeon. The event was not unproblematic, and therefore it had to be transferred to another context in a remote legendary past. Josephus's reason for placing the event in the time of John Hyrcanus is a consequence of his account of Hyrcanus's conquest of the region of Samaria in War, with the subsequent expansion of the northern borders that was initiated with the transfer of the Samaritan border areas Aphraim, Lydda and Ramathaim (cf. 1 Mace. 10.30, 38; 11.34; Ant. 13.54, 127, 145) in the time of Jonathan and the appointment of Simeon as strategos over these regions (from the Ladder of Tyre to the borders of Egypt; cf. 1. Mace. 11.59; Ant. 13.146). Josephus's revision of Demetrius's document makes sense. It is hereby expressed that it is Demetrius who sanctions that the Jews should have only one temple. Simeon is freed of any responsibility regarding the temple destruction, as this would have fit badly the reputation he has been given. Hyrcanus's quarrel with the Pharisees certainly gives reason to put the blame of the destruction on him. Therefore it was not the Samaritans who revised their Pentateuch. Why not? Because the Shechem traditions do not conflict with the Samaritan tradition, which rather maintains its coherence with the past,

7. From Literary to Historical Reality


and because the Samaritans' return from exile departs from Haran. Parts of this tradition conflict with some of the Jewish traditions and their conceptions of the New Israel: as an Israel that should gather all the tribes of Israel to Jerusalem. The question becomes rather how this literature is common to both Jerusalem and Shechem, as well as why Jerusalem never created its own origin story independent of the Shechem traditions we now have in the Bible. The Pentateuch is hardly a new composition. It is part of a postBabylonian literary tradition. The inclusion of legal materials in the course of the Persian perioddevelopments such as that of Darius's possible establishment of 'the feast of unleavened bread' in Elephantine13 and that same Jewish colony's maintenance of a cult of offering had developed a law code, connected secondarily to the origin and patriarchal traditions, as well as to a further legislation of the forms of proverbs and sayings within the Moses tradition. This development took place early in the Hellenistic period. It is to this development that the occurrence of Moses traditions in the Hellenistic literature of this time, such as Hecateus of Abdera, is due. This also clarifies the absence of these traditions in papyri from Elephantine. The development of the Pentateuch traditions independent of Jerusalem pleads for an origin from the 'am ha'ares. It is noteworthy here that even Deuteronomy 'does not seem to reflect the point of view and ethos of the Jerusalem priesthood'. 14 The Samaritan story about the return of the law scroll, which had been placed in Ninive during the exile (in contrast to the story of Ezra's activities and the Ezra traditions' rejection of a common building of the temple in Jerusalem) supports this synthesis. The confession in Nehemiah 9 does not mention the Jacob tradition. It rather inserts the tribe of Judah in what is presented as a pre-monarchic genealogy going back to Perez in the lists of Nehemiah 3, 7, 10, 11, 12. This makes it possible to argue for the existence of a tradition prior to the incorporation of all of the patriarchal traditions, a tradition whose historical origin is originally connected to the traditions about the monarchy. This becomes painfully clear in the nearly total absence of ancestral
13. The letter (pap. 21) sent to the Jewish representatives in Elephantine, advising how to celebrate the Pesach, as ordered by Darius and without any reference to a Mosaic tradition, points to a new institution. 14. J. Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1992), p. 215, who is arguing for a Babylonian orientation.


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

stories in the historical corpora. In the books of Chronicles, the song of the Levites of 1 Chronicles 16 and the independent genealogies of the first chapters form an outstanding exception. The few allusions to the God of the patriarchs and to the covenant are in the Elijah and Elishah cycle in 1 and 2 Kings (1 Kgs 18.36; 2 Kgs 13.23). Likewise, the references to Jacob and the Exodus in 1 Sam. 12.8, and to Jacob's sons in 2 Kgs 17.34, implicitly confirm that traditions about the monarchy developed independently from the Pentateuch or Hexateuch traditions. Such considerations must lead to a revision of the variant claim of the Ezra tradition, that Ezra brought the Law of Moses to Jerusalem. This Law of Moses (ntOQTmn, given by Yahweh God of Israel (^tnGrTTftN) (Ezra 7.6), which Ezra brought to Jerusalem, could well refer to the SP that had been adopted in Jerusalem to establish identity and legitimacy for the nationalistic movement of the Maccabees, as well as to legalize the policy of conquest. Jonathan's mention of the holy books in 1 Mace. 12.9, and references to Nehemiah's and Judas's libraries in 2 Mace. 2.13-14, could well have such a background. The borrowed traditions were not unproblematic to the priests in Jerusalem. It is surely little wonder that the development and authorization of the oral Torah follows quickly the Jewish efforts to insist on the authority of such traditions, to claim ownership of them and to develop an identity beyond them. The rabbinic tradition about Ezra's text revision not only is reflective of the reinterpretation of the Torah, it marks the paradigmatic shift from the Mosaic Yahwism of t?N""]2T~<':Q to a Judaism of new covenanters, who now call themselves DmiT (Jews). Challenging the role of Moses as the sole prophet, the insertion of Ezra in the tradition as the receiver of the command to go to Israel from Mt Horeb (4 Ezra 2.33) and as the receiver of the (oral) Law (m. Ab. 1.1-5) and the ten commandments (b. b. Kam. 82a) defines the move paradigmatically within the replaced traditions' own claim for authority. Given the various traditions, it seems now reasonable to conclude that Samaritans and Jews never did form a single state, and that the only historical effort to establish such a state destroyed its basis. The Samaritans, no less than Judaeans, were willing to give up their own traditions as well as their claims to religious and cultural centres. Paralleling proto-MT revisions, which sought to minimize the importance of the Gerizim and Shechem traditions, Samaritans had to argue for the primacy of these traditions. This 'revision' falls outside of the Penta-

7. From Literary to Historical Reality


teuch, 15 and probably also outside of the main parts of Joshua and Judges. From this, it follows that the language of expulsion and dissidence must be silenced. This is a rationalistic afterthought aiming to predate authority for an established Judaism to a time before the formation of the Hasmonaean state, and to demonstrate that this Judaism, emanating from Jerusalem, was indeed the true Judaism, whose rejecters were schismatic 'from the cradle'. The temples outside of Jerusalem did not emerge as a result of this ideology (they were in existence long before); they were demolished because of it. It is this reality that is reflected in the stories about John Hyrcanus's 'Josianic reform', which not only in 2 Kings 23 but also in Josephus's interpretation of events leaves no room for competing Judaisms.

15. Cf. Chapter 3: the inconsistent way Yahweh chooses/has chosen in the SP and Samaritan literature compared to a very consistent use in MT. The discussion about the placement of Gerizim and Ebal (Deut. 11.30) voiced in m. Sot. 7.5 supports that this placement first later became a problem.

Abel, R., La geographic de Palestine (2 vols.; Paris: J. Gabalda, 1933-38). Ackroyd, P.R., Israel under Babylon and Persia (New Clarendon Bible, OT, 4; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970). The Chronicler in his Age (JSOTSup, 110; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991). Ahlstrom, G.W., The History of Ancient Palestine from the Palaeolithic Period to Alexander's Conquest (JSOTSup, 146; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993). Albright, W.F., From the Stone Age to Christianity (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1946). 'New Light on Early Recensions of the Hebrew Bible', BASOR 140 (1955), pp. 27-33. Albright, W.F., and C.S. Mann, 'Stephen's Samaritan Background', in J. Munck, The Acts of the Apostles (AB, 31; Garden City: NY Doubleday, 1958), pp. 18-32. Allegro, J.M., 'Further Messianic References in Qumran Literature', JBL 75 (1956), pp. 174-76. Alon, G., 'The Origin of the Samaritans in the Halakhic Tradition', in idem, Jews, Judaism and the Classical World: Studies in Jewish History in the Times of the Second Temple and Talmud (trans. Israel Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1977), pp.354-73. Alt, A., Die Landnahme der Israeliten in Paldstina (Leipzig: Reformationsprogram der Universitat Leipzig, 1925). 'Die Rolle Samarias bei der Entstehung des Judentums' (1934), KS 2, pp. 316-37. 'Zur Geschichte der Grenze zwischen Judaa und Samaria' (1935), KS 2, pp. 346-62. Altheim, F., and R. Stiehl, 'Erwagungen zur Samaritanerfrage', in idem, Die Araber in der Alien Welt, IV (5 vols.; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1967). Anderson, R.T., Studies in Samaritan Manuscripts and Artifacts: The Chamberlain-Warren Collection (Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1978). 'Samaritan Pentateuch: General Account', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 390-96. The Elusive Samaritan Temple', BA 54.2 (1991), pp. 104-107. Attridge, H.W., The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae ofFlavius Josephus (HDR, 7; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976). 'Josephus and his Works', in M. Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (CRINT, 1; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984), pp. 185-232. Austin, M.M., The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest: A Selection of Ancient Sources in Translation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981). Avigad, N., in E. Stern (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (4 vols.; New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993), IV, pp. 1306-10. Baillet, M., 'Review of Macdonald, Samaritan Chronicle no. II', RB 1 (1970), pp. 592-602. Barstad, H., 'Die Basankiihe in Amos IV 1', VT25 (1975), pp. 286-307.



The Myth of the Empty Land: A Study of the History and Archaeology of Judah during the 'Exilic' Period (Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1996). Bartlett, J.R., 'Zadok and his Successors at Jerusalem', JTS NS 19 (1968), pp. 1-18. Becking, B., The Fall of Samaria: An Historical and Archaeological Study (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992). Ben Hayyim, Z., The Book of Asatir, with Translations and Commentary', Tarbiz 14 (1943), pp. 104-125, 128, 174-90; 15 (1944), pp. 71-87 (Hebrew). The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic amongst the Samaritans (5 vols.; Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1957-77) (Hebrew). 'Review of Purvis, Samaritan Pentateuch1, Bib 52 (1971), p. 255. Bickerman, E.J., Der Gott der Makkabder: Untersuchung iiber Sinn und Ursprung der makkabdischen Erhebung (Berlin: Schocken Books, 1937). ET The God of the Maccabees: Studies on the Meaning and Origin of the Maccabaean Revolt (SJLA, 32; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1979). 'La charte seleucide de Jerusalem', REJ 100 (1935), pp. 4-34. The Jews in the Greek Age (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988). Bilde, P., Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome (JSOTSup, 2; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988). Blenkinsopp, J., 'Interpretation and the Tendency to Sectarianism: An Aspect of Second Temple History', in E.P. Sanders (ed.), Jewish and Christian Self-definition (3 vols.; London: SCM Press, 1981), II, pp. 1-26. 'Temple Society in Achemenid Judah', in P.R. Davies (ed.), Second Temple Studies (JSOTSup, 117; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), pp. 22-53. The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1992). Blum, E., Die Komposition der Vdtergeschichte (WMANT, 57; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984). Boccacini, G., Middle Judaism, Jewish Thought, 300 BCE to 200 CE (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991). Boid, Ruahiridh (M.N. Saraf), 'Use, Authority and Exegesis of Mikra in the Samaritan Tradition', in M.J. Mulder (ed.), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (CRINT, 2.1; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988), pp. 595-99. Bolin, Th.M., 'The Temple of Yahu at Elephantine and Persian Religious Policy', in D.V. Edelman (ed.), The Triumph ofElohim (Kampen: Kok, 1995), pp. 127-44. Bowman, J., Transcript of the Original Text of the Samaritan Chronicle Tolidah (Leeds: University of Leeds, 1954). 'Contact between Samaritan Sects and Qumran?', VT1 (1957), pp. 184-89. 'The Fourth Gospel and the Samaritans', BJRL40 (1958), pp. 298-308. 'Is the Samaritan Calendar the Old Zadokite One?', PEQ 91 (1959), pp. 23-37. 'The Importance of Samaritan Researches', AnLeeds 1 (1959), pp. 43-54. The Samaritan Problem: Studies in the Relationships of Samaritanism, Judaism, and Early Christianity (Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series, 4; Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1975). Samaritan Documents Relating to their History, Religion and Life (Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1977). Brenton, Lancelot C.L., The Septuagint with Apocrypha, Greek and English (repr.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980 [1851]).


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Bruce, F.F., The Books and the Parchments: Some Chapters on the Transmission of the Bible (London: Pickering & Inglish, 1953). Bull, R.J., 'A Note on Theodotus' Description of Shechem', HTR 60 (1967), pp. 221-57. Campbell, E.F., 'Jewish Shrines of the Hellenistic and Persian Periods', in P.M. Cross (ed.), Symposia celebrating the Seventy-fifth Anniversary of the Founding of the American Schools of Oriental Research (1900-1975) (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979), pp. 159-67. Charles, R.H., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913). The Greek Versions of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1908; Hildesheim: G. Olms, 2nd edn, 1960). Charlesworth, J.H., Graphic Concordance to the Dead Sea Scrolls (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1991). Charlesworth, J.H. (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1985). The Dead Sea Scrolls, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations (2 vols.; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1994-95). Cody, A., A History of Old Testament Priesthood (AnBib, 35; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press, 1969). Cogan, M., 'For We, Like You, Worship your God: 3 Biblical Portrayals of Samaritan Origins', VT 38 (1988), pp. 268-92. Coggins, R.J., The Old Testament and Samaritan Origins', ASTI6 (1968), pp. 35-48. 'Review of Purvis, Samaritan Pentateuch', JSS 14 (1969), pp. 273-75. Samaritans and Jews: The Origins of Samaritanism Reconsidered (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1975). The Samaritans and Acts', NTS 28 (1982), pp. 423-33. Cohen, J.A., A Samaritan Chronicle: A Source-Critical Analysis of the Life and Times of the Great Samaritan Reformer Baba Kabbah (SPB, 30; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1981). Cohen, M., The Orthography of the Samaritan Pentateuch: Its Place in the History of Orthography and its Relation with the MT Orthography', Beth Miqra 64 (1976), pp. 50-70; 66 (1976), pp. 361-91 (Hebrew). Cohen, S.J.D., Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1969). Collins, J.J., The Epic of Theodotus and the Hellenism of the Hasmoneans', HTR 73 (1980), pp. 91-104. Cooke, G.A., The Book ofEzechiel (repr.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1967 [1936]). Cowley, A.E., Samaritan Liturgy (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1909). Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century BC (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923; repr.; Osnabruck: O. Zeller, 1967). Crane, O.T., The Samaritan Chronicle or the Book of Joshua (New York: Alden, 1890). Cross, P.M., Jr, The Discovery of the Samaria Papyri', BA 26 (1963), pp. 101-21. 'Papyri of the Fourth Century BC from Daliyeh: A Preliminary Report on Their Discovery and Significance', in D.N. Freedman and J.C. Greenfield (eds.), New Directions in Biblical Archaeology (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1969), pp. 41-62. 'Papyri of the Fourth Century BC from Daliyeh', in idem (eds.), New Directions in Biblical Archaeology (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971), pp. 45-69. 'Notes on the Ammonite Inscription from tell Siran', BASOR 212 (1973), pp. 12-15.



The Contribution of the Qumran Discoveries to the Study of the Biblical Text', in P.M. Cross and S. Talmon (eds.), Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974), pp. 278-92. 'A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration', JBL 94 (1975), pp. 4-18. Crown, A.D., The Date and Authenticity of the Samaritan Book of Joshua as Seen in its Territorial Allotments', PEQ 96 (1964), pp. 79-100. 'A Critical Re-evaluation of the Samaritan Sepher Yehoshua' (unpublished PhD Thesis; 3 vols.; University of Sydney, 1966). 'New Light on the Inter-Relationships of Samaritan Chronicles from Some Manuscripts in the John Rylands Library', BJRL 54 (1971-72), pp. 1-32; 55 (1972-73), pp. 281313. A Bibliography of the Samaritans (ATLA Bibliography Series, 10; London: The Scarecrow Press, 1984). The Samaritan Diaspora', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 195-217. 'Redating the Schism between the Judeans and the Samaritans', JQR 82.1-2 (1991), pp. 17-50. The Abisha Scroll3000 years old? Does the Samaritan Community in Hablus Have a Torah Scroll Written by Aaron's Great-Grandson?', BR1.5 (1991), pp. 12-21, 39-40. Crown, A.D. (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989). Crown, A.D., R. Pummer and A. Tal, A Companion to Samaritan Studies (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1993). Cryer, F.H., and Th.L. Thompson (eds.), Qumran between the Old and New Testaments (CIS, 6; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998). Danby, H., The Mishnah, Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Explanatory Notes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991 [1933]). Davies, G.I., Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions, Corpus and Concordance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991). Davies, P.R., In Search of Ancient Israel (JSOTSup, 148: Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992). 'Scenes from the Early History of Judaism', in D.V. Edelman (ed.), The Triumph ofElohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms (Kampen: Kok, 1995), pp. 145-84. Scribes and Schools (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1998). Davies, P.R. (ed.), Second Temple Studies (JSOTSup, 117; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991). Delcor, M., 'Hinweise auf das samaritanische Schisma im Alten Testament', ZAW 74 (1961), pp. 281-91. 'Vom Sichem der hellenistische Epoche zum Sychar des Neuen Testamentes', ZDPV 78 (1962), pp. 34-48. Demsky, A., 'Pelekh in Nehemiah 3', 7E/33 (1983), pp. 242-44. Dexinger, F., 'Das Garizimgebot im Dekalog der Samaritaner', in G. Braiilik (ed.), Studien zum Pentateuch (Vienna: Akademische Druck, 1974), pp. 111-33. 'Limits of Tolerance in Judaism: The Samaritan Example', in E.P. Sanders (ed.), Judaism, Jewish and Christian Self-definition (3 vols.; London: SCM Press, 1981), III, pp. 88-114. Dexinger, F., and R. Pummer (eds.), Die Samaritaner (Wege der Forschung, 604; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1992). Eben Shushan, A., Qonqordantziah khadashah (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1995 [Hebrew]). Edelman, D.V. (ed.), The Fabric of History (JSOTSup, 127; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991).


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

The Triumph ofElohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms (Kampen: Kok, 1995). Edersheim, A., Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (London: Longmans, 1883). Egger, R., Josephus Flavius und die Samaritaner: Eine terminologische Untersuchung zur Identitatserklarung der Samaritaner (NTOA, 4; Fribourg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986). Eissfeldt, O., Einleitung in das Alte Testament (1934; 3rd edn; Gottingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 3rd edn, 1964). Eshel, E., The Prayer of Joseph: A Papyrus from Masada and the Samaritan Temple on ARGARIZIN', Zion 56 (1991), pp. 125-36 (Hebrew with English summary). Eskenazi, 'The Structure of Ezra-Nehemiah and the Integrity of the Book', JBL 107 (1988), pp. 641-56. Feldman, L.H., 'Flavius Josephus Revisited: The Man, his Writings, and his Significance', ANRW, II, 21.2 (1984), pp. 763-862. Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993). Feldman, L.H., and G. Hata, Josephus, Judaism and Christianity (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987). Finkelstein, L., 'The Maxim of the Anshe Keneset Ha-gedolah', JBL 59 (1940), pp. 45569. Fohrer, G., 'Die israelitischen Propheten in der samaritanischen Chronik IF, in M. Black and G. Fohrer (eds.), In Memorandum P. Kahle (BZAW, 103; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1968), pp. 127-37. Geschichte Israels: Von den Anfangen bis zu Gegenwart (Heidelberg: Quelle Mayer, 1977). Fokkelman, J.P., Narrative Art in Genesis (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1975). Narrative Art and Poetry in the Book of Samuel (2 vols.; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1981-86). Ford, J. Massingberg, 'Can We Exclude Samaritan Influence from Qumran?', RQ 6 (1967), pp. 109-29. Possum, J., 'Sects and Movements', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 293-389. Frankel, Z., Vorstudien zu dem Septuaginta (Leipzig: n. pub., 1841). Uber den Einfluss der paldstinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik (Leipzig: n. pub., 1851). Freed, E.D., 'Samaritan Influence in the Gospel of John', CBQ 30 (1968), pp. 580-87. 'Did John Write his Gospel Partly to Win Samaritan Converts', NT 12 (1970), pp. 24156. Freedman, H., Midrash Kabbah, Genesis Translated (London: Soncino Press, 1951). Freedmann, D.N., and K.A. Matthews, The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll (ASOR; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1985). Freudenthal, J., Alexander Polyhistor und die von ihm erhaltenen Reste juddischer und samaritdnischer Geschichtswerke (2 vols.; Hellenistische Studien; Breslau: Skutsch, 1875). Gall, A.F. von, Der hebrdische Pentateuch der Samaritaner (Berlin: Alfred Topelmann, 1966 [1914-18]). Garbini, G., History and Ideology in Ancient Israel (trans. John Bowden; London: SCM Press, 1988 [1986]). Gaster, M., 'Das Buch Josua in hebraische-samaritanischer Version', ZDMG 62 (1908), pp. 209-79. 'On the Newly Discovered Samaritan Book of Joshua', JRAS (1908), pp. 795-809.



The Samaritans, their History, Doctrines and Literature (London: Oxford University Press, 1925). The Asatir, the Samaritan Book of the 'Secrets of Moses' Together with the Pitron or Samaritan Commentary and the Samaritan Story of the Death of Moses (Royal Asiatic Society, 26; London: n. pub., 1927). The Samaritan Hebrew Sources of the Arabic Book of Joshua (n.p.: n. pub., 1930). Samaritan Eschatology (London: n. pub., 1932). Geffcken, J., Komposition u. Entstehungszeit d. Oracula Sibbyllina (Leipzig: n. pub., 1902). Geiger, A., Urschrift und Ubersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhdngigkeit von der innern Entwicklung des Judenthums (Breslau: Heinauer, 1857). Gesenius, W., De Samaritanorum origine, indole et auctoritate (Halle: Springer Verlag, 1815). Hebrdisches und aramdisches Worterbuch iiber das Alte Testament (Berlin: Springer Verlag, 17th edn, 1962). Giron Blanc, L.F. Pentateuco Hebreo-Samaritano-Genesis (Testos y estudios Cardenal Cisneros, 15; Madrid, 1976). Glaue, P., and A. Rahlfs, 'Fragmente einer griechischen Ubersetzung des Samaritanischen Pentateuchs', NKGWPhil.-Hist. Klasse, Part 2 (1911), pp. 167-200. Goldenberg, D., The Halakha in Josephus and in the Tannaitic Literature: A Comparative Study', JQR 67 (1967-77), pp. 30-43. 'Flavius Josephus or Joseph ben Mattatiah', JQR 70 (1980), pp. 178-82. Goldsmith, L., Der babylonischer Talmud (8 vols.; Berlin: Calvary, 1900). Grabbe, L., Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian (2 vols.; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992). Grabbe, L. (ed.), Leading Captivity Captive: 'The Exile' as History and Ideology (JSOTSup, 278; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998). Groh, D., 'Jews and Christians in Late Roman Palestine: Towards a New Chronology', BA 51.2 (1988), pp. 80-98. Gunn, D.M., The Story of King David (JSOTSup, 6; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1976). Guttmann, H., 'Die Darstellung der jiidischen Religion bei Flavius Josephus (Breslau: Reinhardt Verlag, 1928). Hanson, R.S., 'Paleo-Hebrew Scripts in the Hasmonean Age', BASOR 175 (1964), pp. 2642. Hata, G., 'Is the Greek Version of Josephus' "Jewish War" a Translation or a Rewriting of the First Version?', JQR 66 (1975-76), pp. 89-108. Hayes, J.H., and J.M. Miller (eds.), Israelite and Judean History (London: SCM Press, 1977). Hempel, J., 'Innermassoretische Bestatigungen des Samaritanus', ZAW 12 (1934), pp. 25475. Hengel, M., Judaism and Hellenism (repr.; London: XPress Reprints, 1996 [1981]). Hershon, P.I., The Pentateuch according to the Talmud: Genesis with a Talmudic Commentary (London: Samuel Baxter & Sons, 1883). Hertz, J.H. (ed.), The Pentateuch and Haftorahs: Hebrew Text, English Translation with Commentary (5 vols.; London: Humprey Milford, 1964), pp. 21-36. Hoffmann, K., 'Die Ethik des jiidischen Geschichtsschreibers Flavius Josephus' (unpublished dissertation; Erlangen, 1920). Hoglund, K.G., Achaemenid Imperial Administration in Syria-Palestine and the Missions of Ezra andNehemia (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992).


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Holscher, G., Die Quellen des Josephus fur die Zeit vom bis zum jiidischen Kriege (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1904). Geschichte der israelitischen und jiidischen Religion (Die Theologie im Anbriss, 7; Giessen: Alfred Topelmann, 1922). Hottinger, J.H., Exercitationes Antimorianae: De Pentateucho Samaritano, ejusque authentia etc. (Tiguri, 1644). Huck, A., and H. Greven, Synopsis der drei ersten Evangelien (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 13th edn, 1981). Hyldahl, N., and Th.L. Thompson (eds.), D0dehavsteksterne og Bibelen (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 1996). Irvin, D., Mytharion: The Comparison of Tales from the Old Testament and Ancient Near East (AOAT, 32; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978). Isser, S.J., The Dositheans: A Samaritan Sect in Late Antiquity (SJLA, 17; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1976). Japhet, S., 'People and Land in the Restoration Period', in G. Strecker (ed.), Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), pp. 103-25. 'Sheshbazzar and ZerubbabelAgainst the Background of the Historical and Religious Tendencies of Ezra-Nehemiah', ZAW94 (1982), pp. 66-98 (1983), pp. 218-29. Jastrow, M., A Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Babli, Yerushalmi and Midrashic Literature (New York: Jastrow Publishers, 1967). Jellenik, A., Beit ha Midrash: Sammlungen kleiner Midrashim und vermischter Abhandlungen aus der dltern jiidischen Literatur, III (6 vols.; Jerusalem: Bamberger & Wahrmann, rev. edn, 1967). Jost, I.M., Geschichte des Judentums und seiner Secten (3 vols.; Leipzig, 1857). Juynboll, T.G.J., Chronicon samaritanum, arabice conscriptum, cui titulus est Liber Josue. Ex unico codice Scaligeri nunc primum edidit, latine vertit, annotatione instruxit (Leiden: Luchtmans, 1848). Kahle, P., Textkritische und lexikalische Bemerkungen zum samaritanischen Pentateuchtargum (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1898). 'Zum hebraischen Buch Joshua', ZDMG 62 (1908), pp. 494-594. 'Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Pentateuchtextes', TSK 88 (1915), pp. 399-439. 'The Abisha Scroll of the Samaritans', in F. Hvidberg (ed.), Studia Orientalia loanni Pedersen (Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard, 1953), pp. 188-93. Kalimi, I., and J.D. Purvis, The Hiding of the Temple Vessels in Jewish and Samaritan Literature', CBQ 56.4 (1994), pp. 679-85. Kellermann, U., 'Erwagungen zum Ezragesetz', ZAW80 (1968), pp. 373-85. 'Erwagungen zum Problem der Ezradatierung', ZAWSO (1968), pp. 55-87. Kennedy, J., The Note Line in the Hebrew Scriptures, Commonly called Paseq or Pesiq (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1903). Kippenberg, H.G., Garizim und Synagoge: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur samaritanischen Religion der aramdischen Periode (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1971). Knauf, E.A., 'From History to Interpretation', in D.V. Edelman (ed.), The Fabric of History (JSOTSup, 127; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), pp. 26-64. Kohn, S., De Pentateucho Samaritano eiusque cum versionibus antiquis nexu (Leipzig: n. pub., 1865). Kuenen, A., 'Over de mannen der groote Synagoge'; repr. as 'Ober die Manner der grossen Synagoge', in Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur biblischen Wissenschaft (Freiburg: J.C.B. Mohr, 1894 [1876]), pp. 125-60.



Kutscher, E.Y., The Language and the Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1977). Landau, Y.H., 'A Greek Inscription Found Near Hefzibah', 1EJ 16 (1966), pp. 54-70. Lebram, J.H.C., 'Review of Purvis, Samaritan Pentateuch', BO 26 (1969), pp. 282-83. Lemche, N.P., Early Israel: Anthropological and Historical Studies on the Israelite Society before the Monarchy (VTSup, 37; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1985). The Canaanites and their Land' (JSOTSup, 110; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991). 'Samfundsopfattelsen i GT og i D0dehavsteksterne', in N. Hyldahl and Th.L. Thompson (eds.), D0dehavsteksterne og Bibelen (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 1996). Levy, J., Worterbuch liber die Talmudim und die Midrashim (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1963). Lichtenstein, H., 'Die Fastenrolle, eine Untersuchung zur jiidisch-hellenistischen Geschichte', HUCA 8-9 (1931-32), pp. 257-342. Lifshitz, B., and J. Schiby, 'Une synagogue samaritaine a Tessalonique', RB 82 (1975), pp. 368-78. Lincke, K., Samaria und seine Propheten (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1903). Liver, J., 'The "Sons of Zadok, the Priests" in the Dead Sea Sect', RQ6 (1967), pp. 3-20. Macchi, J.D., Les samaritains histoire d'une legende: Israel et la province de Samarie (Le monde de la Bible, 30; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1994). Macdonald, J., Memar Marqah, the Teaching ofMarqah (BZAW, 84; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1963). The Theology of the Samaritans (NTL; London: SCM Press, 1964). The Samaritan Chronicle No. II from Joshua to Nebuchadnezzar (BZAW, 107; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1969). Macuch, R., Grammatik des samaritanischen Hebrdisch (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1969). Grammatik des samaritanischen Aramdisch (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1982). Magen, I., 'Gerizim Mount', in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (4 vols.; New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993), II, pp. 484-92. Martinez, F.G., The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992). Mayes, A.D.H., Israel in the Period of the Judges (SET, 2.29; London: SCM Press, 1974). Mazar, B., The Tobiads', IEJ 1 (1957), pp. 137-45, 229-38. McCullough, W.S., The History and the Literature of the Palestinian Jews from Cyrus to Herod 550-4 BC (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1975). McLean, M.D., The Use and the Development of Paleo-Hebrew in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods (PhD dissertation, Harvard University, 1982). Meeks, W.A., The Prophet-King Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology (NovTSup, 14; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1967). Mendels, D., The Land of Israel as a Political Concept in Hasmonean Literature (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1987). The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism (New York: Doubleday, 1992). Meyers, E.M., Second Temple Studies in the Light of Recent Archaeology (1994). Mikolasek, A., 'Les samaritains gardiens de la loi contre les prophetes', Comunio Viatorum 12(1969), pp. 139-48. Miller, J.M., The Israelite Occupation of Canaan', in J.M. Hayes and J.H. Miller (eds.), Israelite and Judean History (London: SCM Press, 1977), pp. 213-84. Mischnajot, Die sechs Ordnungen der Misnah, Hebrdischer Text mit Punktation (trans, and ed. E. Baneth et al.; Leipzig: J.C.B. Mohr, 1927).


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Moehring, H.R., 'Review of Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1969), by S.J.D. Cohen', 7/531 (1980), pp. 240-42. Montgomery, J.A., The Samaritans: The Earliest Jewish Sect: Their History, Theology and Literature (Philadelphia: John C. Winston, 1907; repr.; New York: Ktav, 1968). Moore, G.F., Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the Tennaim (2 vols.; repr.; New York: Schocken Books, 1971 [1927]). 'Simeon, the Righteous', in G.A. Kohut (ed.), Jewish Studies in Memory of Israel Abrahams (New York: Jewish Institute of Religion, 1927), pp. 348-64. Mor, M., 'The Samaritans and the Bar-Kokhbah Revolt', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 19-31. Morgenstern, J., 'Dates of Ezra and Nehemiah', JSS1 (1962), pp. 1-11. Morinus, J., Samaritanorum Pentateuchum (Paris, 1621). Exervitationes Ecclesiasticae in utrumque Samaritanorum Pentateucheum (Paris, 1631). Morinus, J. (ed.), The London Polyglott (1657). The Paris Polyglott (1945). Mowinckel, S., Studien zu dem Buck Ezra-Nehemia II: Die Nehemia-Denkschrift (Oslo: SUNVAO, 1964). Mulder, J. (ed.), Mikra, Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (CRINT, 2.1; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988). Neubauer, A., Tolidah, Based on MS Or. 651 (Bodleian Library [Oxford] = A. Neubauer, 'Chronique samaritaine', JA 14 (1869), pp. 385-470. Niehr, H., Der hochste Gott: Alttestamentliche JHWH-Glaube in Kontext syrisch-kanaandischer Religion des 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (BZAW, 190: Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1990). Nodet, E., 'Jesus et Jean Baptiste selon Josephe', RB 92 (1985), pp. 321-48. Essai sur les origines dujudaisme: de Josue aux Pharisiens (Paris: Cerf, 1992); rev. ET: In Search of the Origins of Judaism: From Joshua to the Mishnah (JSOTSup, 248; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997). Noja, S., The Last Decade in Samaritan Studies', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 802-14. The Samareitikon', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 408-12. 'Les etudes samaritaines. 10 studies Concerning Sam. Manuscripts and Religion all Published between 1985 and 1990', Hen 14.3 (1992), pp. 293-300. Noth, M., History of Israel (ET; 2nd edn revised by P.R. Ackroyd: Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960 [1950]). 'Der Beitrag der Archaologie zur Geschichte Israels', in G.W. Anderson et al. (eds.), Congress Volume Oxford 1959 (VTSup, 7; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1969), pp. 262-82. Nutt, J.W., Fragments of a Samaritan Targum Edited from a Bodleian MS with an Introduction Containing a Sketch of Samaritan History, Dogma and Literature (London, 1874; repr.; Gutersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1980). Oded, B., Mass Deportation and Deportees in the Neo-Assyrian Empire (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1979). Pamment, M., 'Is There Convincing Evidence of Samaritan Influence in the Fourth Gospel?', ZNW73.3-4 (1982), pp. 211-30. Paul, A., 'Flavius Josephe et les Esseniens', in D. Dimant and V. Rappaport (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (1992), pp. 126-39.



Perez Castro, F., 'Das Kryptogramm des Sefer Abisha', Congress Volume 1959 (VTSup, 7; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1960), pp. 52-60. 'El Sefer Abisha', Sefarad 13 (1953), pp. 119-29. Peter, H., Die geschichtliche Literatur iiber die romische Kaiserzeit bis Theodosius I und ihre Quellen, I (2 vols.; Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1897). Pfeiffer, R., Introduction to the Old Testament (New York: n. pub., 1941). Philips, A., 'NebalahA Term for Serious Disorderly and Unruly Conduct', VT25 (1975), pp. 237-41. Pummer, R., The Samaritan Pentateuch and the New Testament', NTS 22 (1975), pp. 44143. 'Present State of Samaritan Studies I', JSS 21 (1976), pp. 39-61. 'Present State of Samaritan Studies II', JSS 22 (1977), pp. 27-47. 'The Book of Jubilees and the Samaritans', Eglise et Theologie 19 (1979), pp. 147-78. 'Genesis 34 in Jewish Writings of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods', HTR 75 (1982), pp. 177-88. 'Agarizin: A Criterion for Samaritan Provenance', JSJ 18.1 (1987), pp. 18-25. The Samaritans (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1987). 'Samaritan Material Remains', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 135-77. The SamaritansA Jewish Offshoot or a Pagan Cult?', BR 7.5 (1991). Purvis, J.D., 'Ben Sira and the Foolish People of Shechem', JNES 24 (1965), pp. 88-94; repr. in J.D. Purvis, The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin of the Samaritan Sect (HSM, 2; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968), pp. 119-29. The Fourth Gospel and the Samaritans', NT 17 (1975), pp. 161-98. The Samaritan Problem: A Case Study in Jewish Sectarianism in the Roman Era', in B. Halpern and J.D. Levenson (eds.), Traditions in Transformation (Festschrift P.M. Cross; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981), pp. 323-50. The Samaritans and Judaism', in R.A. Kraft and G.W.E. Nickelsburg (eds.), Early Judaism and its Modern Interpreters (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), pp. 81-98. Purvis, J.D., and I. Kalimi, The Hiding of the Temple Vessels in Jewish and Samaritan Literature', CBQ 56.4 (1994), pp. 679-85. Qimron, E., '4QMMT' (DJD, 10; Oxford: Clarendon Press). Rahlfs, A., 'Bin weiteres Fragment der griechieschen Ubersetzung des Samaritanischen Pentateuchs', NKGW Phil.-hist. Klasse, Part 2 (1911), pp. 263-66. Rahlfs, A., and P. Glaue, 'Fragmente einer griechischen Ubersetzung des Samaritanischen Pentateuchs', NKGW Phil.-Hist. Klasse, Part 2 (1911), pp. 167-200. Rajak, T., 'Josephus and the "Archaeology of the Jews" ',JJS 33 (1982), pp. 465-77. Josephus: The Historian and his Society (London: Gerald Duckworth, 1983). Ramsey, G.W., The Quest for the Historical Israel (London: SCM Press, 1982). 'Zadok', ABD VI, pp. 1033-36. Redford, D.B., Pharaonic King Lists, Annals, and Daybooks (Publication No. 4; Ontario: SSEA, 1986). Reicke, B., The New Testament Era (London: SCM Press, 1969). Reinach, Th. (ed. and trans.), Oeuvres completes de Elavius Josephe traduites en franqais sous la direction de Theodore Reinach (8 vols.; Paris, 1900-1932). Rendtdorff, Das uberliefe rungs geschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch (BZAW, 174; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1977). Rengstorf, K.H., A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1983).


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Roberts, B.J., The Old Testament Texts and Versions (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1951). 'Review of J.D. Purvis, Samaritan Pentateuch', JTS 20 (1969), pp. 569-71. Robertson, E., Catalogue of the Samaritan Manuscripts in the John Rylands Library, Manchester (2 vols.; Manchester, 1938-62). Rothschild, J.P., 'Samaritan Manuscripts', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 771-94. Rowley, H.H., The Chronological Order of Ezra and Nehemiah' (1948); repr. in H.H. Rowley, The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament (London: Lutterworth, 1952), pp. 129-60. 'Sanballat and the Samaritan Temple', BJRL 38 (1955-56), pp. 166-98; repr. in H.H. Rowley, Men of God: Studies in Old Testament History and Prophecy (London: Thomas Nelson, 1963), pp. 246-76. The Samaritan Schism in Legend and History', in B.W. Anderson and W. Harrelson (eds.), Israel's Prophetic Heritage (Festschrift J. Muilenburg; New York: Harper, 1962), pp. 208-22. Sack, R.H., 'Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus in Folklore and History', Mesopotamia 17 (1982), pp. 72-77. Sadaqa, A., and R. Sadaqa, Jewish and Samaritan Version of the Pentateuchwith Particular Stress on the Differences between Both Texts (Tel Aviv: n. pub., 1961-65). Sanders, E.P., Paul and Palestinian Judaism (London: SCM Press, 1977). Judaism, Practice and Belief: 63 BCE66 CE (London: SCM Press; Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1992). Sanderson, I.E., An Exodus Scroll from Qumran: 4QpaleoExod and the Samaritan Tradition (HSM, 30; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986). Sasoon, D.S., Ohel David: A Descriptive Catalogue of the Hebrew and Samaritan Manuscripts in the Sasoon Library (2 vols.; London: n. pub., 1932). Scaliger, J., Opus de Emendatione Temporum (Leiden, 1583; 1598; Geneva, 1629). Schalit, A., The Letter of Antiochus III to Xeukis Regarding the Establishment of Jewish Military Colonies in Phrygia and Lydia', JQR 50 (1959-60), pp. 289-319 = 'Der Brief des Antiochus III. an Zeukis iiber die Errichtung jiidischer Militarkolonien in Phrygien und Lydien', in Zur Josephus-Vorschung (Wege der Vorschung, 84; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1973), pp. 337-66. 'Die Denkschrift der Samaritaner an Konig Antiochus Epifanes zu Beginne der grossen Vervolgung der jiidischen Religion im Jahre 167 v.Chr.', ASTI8 (1972), pp. 131-83. Schechter, S., Documents of Jewish Sectaries (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910). Schencke, H.M., 'JacobsbrunnenJosephusgrab-Sychar', ZDPV84 (1968), pp. 159-84. Schiffman, L.H., Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1994). Schmid, H.H., Der sogenannte Jahwist: Beobachtungen und Fragen zur Pentateuchforschung (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1976). Schmoller, A., Handkonkordanz zum griechischen Neuen Testament (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1973). Schreckenberg, H., Die Flavius-Josephus-Tradition in Antike und Mittelalter (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1972). Rezeptionsgeschichtliche und textkritische Untersuchungen zu Flavius Josephus (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1977).



Schiirer, E., Geschichte des judischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi (Leipzig: H.C. Hinrichs, 1885); (trans, and ed. G. Vermes et al., History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ [3 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973-87]). Shehadeh, H., The Arabic Translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch', in A.D. Cross (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 481-516. Simon, M., St Stephen and the Hellenists in the Primitive Church (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1958). Skehan, P.W., 'Exodus in the Samaritan Recension from Qumran', JBL 74 (1955), pp. 18287. Skehan, P.W., and A.A. Di Leila, The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation, with Notes, Introduction and Commentary (AB, 39; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987). Smallwood, E.M., The Jews under Roman Rule from Pompey to Diocletian (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1976). 'Philo and Josephus as Historians of the Same Events', in L.H. Feldman and G. Hata (eds.), Josephus, Judaism and Christianity (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987), pp. 114-28. Smend, R., Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach (Berlin: Georg Reimer Verlag, 1906). Smith, M., Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament (New York: Columbia University Press, 1971). 'Review of Purvis Samaritan Pentateuch', ATR 53 (1971), pp. 127-29. Smith, S., Babylonian Texts Relating to the Capture and Downfall of Babylon (London: Methuen, 1924). Soggin, J.A., 'The Davidic and Solomonic Kingdom', in J.H. Hayes and J.M. Miller (eds.), Israelite and Judean History (London: SCM Press, 1977), pp. 332-80. Spiro, A., 'Stephen's Samaritan Background', in J. Munck (ed.), The Acts of the Apostles (rev. W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann; AB, 31; London: SCM Press, 1967), pp. 285-300. Stenhouse, A.P., The Kitab al Tarikh of Abu'l-Fath (Sydney: Mandelbaum Trust, University of Sydney, 1985). 'Samaritan Chronicles', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 218-65. Stern, M., Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (3 vols.; Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974-84). 'Aspects of Jewish Society: The Priesthood and Other Classes', in S. Safrai, M. Stern et al. (eds.), The Jewish People in the First Century (CRINT, 2; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1976), pp. 561-630. 'The Jews in Greek and Latin Literature', in S. Safrai, M. Stern et al. (eds.), The Jewish People in the First Century (CRINT, 2; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1976), pp. 1101-59. Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993). Strack, H.L., Die Spriiche Jesus' des Sohnes Sirachs (Leipzig: George Bohme, 1903). Strack, H.L., and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (6 vols.; Munich: n. pub., 1926-56). Strack, H.L, and G. Stemberger, Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1982). Strange, J., The Book of Joshua, a Hasmonaean Manifesto?', in A. Lemaire and B. Otzen (eds.), History and Tradition in Israel (SVT, 12; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995), pp. 136-41. Tal, A., The Samaritan Targum of the Pentateuch: A Critical Edition (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 1981).


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

'Samaritan Literature', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 413-67. Talmon, S., Textual Study of the Bible', in P.M. Cross and S. Talmon (eds.), Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974), pp. 321-400. The Emergence of Jewish Sectarianism in the Early Second Temple Period', in P.D. Miller and S.D. Hanson McBride (eds.), Ancient Israelite Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), pp. 587-616. 'Fragments of Scrolls from Masada', Erlsr 20 (1989) (Hebrew with English summary), pp. 256-87. Tappy, R.E., The Archaeology of Israelite Samaria. I. Early Iron Age through the Ninth Century BCE (Atlanta, CA: Scholars Press, 1992). Tcherikover, V.A., Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (New York: Atheneum, 1975). Tcherikover, V.A., and A. Fuks (eds.), Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum (3 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957). Thompson, Th.L., The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives (BZAW, 133; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1974). Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel (JSOTSup, 55; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987). Text, Context and Referent in Israelite Historiography, in D.V. Edelman (ed.), The Fabric of History (JSOTSup, 127; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), pp. 65-92. Early History of the Israelite People (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994, 2nd edn). The Intellectual Matrix of Early Biblical Narrative: Inclusive Monotheism in Persian Period Palestine', in D.V. Edelman (ed.), The Triumph of Elohim (Kampen: Kok, 1995), pp. 107-26. The Bible in History: How Writers Create a Past (London: Jonathan Cape, 1999) = The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel (New York: Basic Books, 1999). Thompson, Th.L., and F.H. Cryer (eds.), Qumran between the Old and New Testaments (CIS, 6; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998). Thompson, Th.L., and N. Hyldahl (eds.), D0dehavsteksterne og Bibelen (Copenhagen: Museum Tesculanum, 1996). Tigay, J.H., You Shall Have No Other Gods: Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew Inscriptions (HSM, 31; Atlanta, CA: Scholars Press, 1986). Toorn, K. van der (ed.), Dictionary of Deities and Demons (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995). Torrey, C.C., Ezra Studies (1910); repr. (Prolegomenon; W.F. Stinespring, Library of Biblical Studies; New York: Ktav, 1970), pp. xi-xviii. 'Sanballat the Horonite', JBL 47 (1928), pp. 380-89. The Chronicler's History of Israel: Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah Restored to its Original Form (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1954). Tov, E., 'Pap. Giessen 13, 19, 22, 26: A Revision of the LXXT,RB 78 (1971), pp. 355-83. The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (Jerusalem Biblical Studies, 3; Jerusalem: Simor, 1981). 'A Modern Textual Outlook Based on the Qumran Scroll', HUCA 53 (1982), pp. 11-27. 'Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts from the Judean Desert', JJS 39 (1988), pp. 3-37. 'Protosamaritan Texts and the Samaritan Pentateuch', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 397-407. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1992).



Ulrich, E., The Paleo-Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts', in D. Dimant and L.H. Schiffman (eds.), Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995), pp. 10329. Unnik, W.C. van, Flavius Josephus als historischer Schriftsteller (Heidelberg: Quelle Meyer, 1978). Van Seters, J., Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975). Vermes, G., 'A Summary of the Law by Flavius Josephus', NovT24 (1982), pp. 289-303. Vorlander, H., Die Entstehung des jehowistischen Geschichtswerkes (Europaische Hochschuleschriften, 23.109; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978). Wacholder, B.Z., 'Historiography of Qumran: The Sons of Zadok and their Enemies', in Th.L. Thompson and F.H. Cryer (eds.), Qumran between the Old and New Testaments (CIS, 6; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 347-77. Waltke, B.K., Prolegomena to the Samaritan Pentateuch (HTR, 58; dissertation Harvard University Press, 1965). The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Text of the Old Testament', in J.B. Payne (ed.), New Perspectives on the Old Testament (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1970), pp. 212-39. Walton, B. (ed.), Biblia Polyglotta (6 vols.; London, 1657). Prolegomenon XI: De Samaritanis et eorum Pentateucho eiusque versionibus. (The prolegomena have been frequently republished: Heidegger [Zurich, 1673]; Dathe [Leipzig, 1777]; Wrangham, Cambridge [1828]). Wedel, G., 'Halachic Literature', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 484-80. Weiser, A., The Old Testament, its Formation and Development (New York: n. pub., 1961). Weiss, R., Studies in Text and Language of the Bible (Jerusalem: n. pub., 1981 [Hebrew]). Whiston, W., The Complete Works of Flavius Josephus (Edinburgh, 1737; repr.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987). Whybray, N., The Making of the Pentateuch (JSOTSup, 53; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987). Widengreen, G., The Samaritan Schism and the Construction of the Samaritan Temple', in J.H. Hayes and J.M. Miller (eds.), Israelite andJudean History (London: SCM Press, 1977), pp. 489-538. Williamson, H.G.M., The Historical Value of Josephus' "Jewish Antiquities", XI.297301', 77328 (1977), pp. 49-66. Willrich, H., Juden und Griechen vor der makkabaische Erhebung (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1895). Wright, G.E., The Samaritans at Shechem', HTR 55 (1962), pp. 357-66. Schechem: The Biography of a Biblical City (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965). Wiirthwein, E., Der Text des Alien Testament (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1952); ET E.F. Rhodes (trans.), The Text of the Old Testament (Leiden: SCM Press, 1980). Yahuda, S., 'Uber die Unechtheit des samaritanischen Josuabuches', Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie des Wissenschaftes, 39 (1908), pp. 887-914. Yellin, D., 'Das Buch Josua der Samaritaner' (Jerusalem: n. pub., 1902 [Hebrew]), pp. 138-55. Yellin, D., A.M. Lunca, 'A Book of Joshua or a Sepher Hayamim', Jerusalem Yearbook 7.7 (1908 reprint Hebrew), pp. 203. Zeitlin, S. (ed.), The Second Book ofMacabees (New York: Harper, 1954). Zimmerli, W., Ezechiel (BKAT; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2nd edn, 1969).


Genesis 1.1 1.2 1.27 2.2 3.12 MT 3.20 MT 6.19 7.2 MT 7.3 7.9 9 9.21 10.15 10.19 11. 26-1 2.4 MT 11.31 12.6-7 12.6 12.8 13.3 14.14MT 15.18-21 17.5 22.14 24.3 24.7 28.22 31.11-13 31.13 31.19 31.30-35 31.32 32.25-32 33 33.20 34-37


178 150 89 93 90 90 89 91 89 89 220 90 220 218 252 278 146, 149 56 90, 149 90 91 145 252 277 178 178 148 89 148 140 140 140 146 151,252 147 141

34 MT 34.2 34.14 34.22 35.2-4 35.5 35.6 35.8 35.9-15 35.11 35.14-15 35.14 35.15 35.19-20 35.21 35.23 35.24 41.45 41.50 42.16 44.22 46.20 47.21 MT 48.3-4 49.5-7 49.11 49.24-26
Exodus 1.11 LXX 4.14 6.15 6.16-25 7.18

106, 138, 139,220, 265 143 141 139 151 146 140 149 146 146 146 147 147 147 146 147 147 147 231 231 89 89 231 91 146 140 90 146

231 154 220 154 90

7.29 8.19 8.20 9.3 9.5 9.9-20 9.13 9.19 9.24 12.40 MT 14.12 15.13 16.35 19.24 22.4 22.26 24.1-14 24.1 24.10-11 24.14 28.1-2 29 32 32.1-6 32.2-6 32.10 32.17-18 32.22-24 32.25-29 32.27-29 32.29 32.35 34.3 34.30
Leviticus 2.13

90 90 89 89 90 163 89 90 89 93 89 277 220 153 90 90 153 153 153 153 153 157 157, 163 163 153 88 163 153 152 156 153 163 153 153


Index of References
7.24 8.36 10 10.1-5 10.16-20 16.21 19.17-18 19.23 21.20 23.15 26 26.32 26.34 26.35 26.43
Numbers 1.47-53 1.48-53 3.1-6 3.5-9 3.6-9 3.7-10 3.17-35 3.28 3.32 4.27-28 4.33 8.22 10.10 12.1-16 12.16 13.6 13.8 13.16 13.33 14.9 16 16.1-17.5 16.1-35 16.3 16.8-10 17 17.1-11 17.3 17.8 17.18 18

12 12.2-3 12.4-9 12.4 12.5 12.5 MT 12.11
12.11 MT

109 153 154 153 153 138 250 112 248 108 24 150 150 150 150

153 153 154 156 153 153 154 153 153, 154 153 153 153 88 153 88 244 87 87 88 157 24 153 153 154 154 154 154 154 154 163 157

153 18.1-3 18.1-2 153 18.2-7 153 154 18.3 153 18.6-7 18.6 153 18.20-24 163 132 19.1-11 88 20.1 21.12 88 21.20 88 24.17MT 91 163 25 25.1-15 156 25.7-8 165 154 26.57-61 89 27.9 89 27.10 27.11 89 88 27.23 32.29-32 MT 247 163 35.6
Deuteronomy 1.6-8 1.9-18 1.13 1.20-23 1.27-33 2.2-6 2.9 2.17-19 2.24-25 3.21-22 3.24-28 4.2 5.18 6.20-25 7.3 9.20 10.6 10.8 11.4 11.5-7 11.29-32 11.29 11.30

88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 94, 258 92 130 250 88, 155 155 155, 163 92 92 240 92, 259 92, 107, 240, 285

12.12 12.14MT 12.19 12.26 12.32 13.1 14.21 14.28 15.19-20 15.20 17.8 17.9 18.1 18.5 18.6 18.16 18.18-22 21.5 24-29 24.8 25.5-10 27 27.1 27.2-8 27.2-3 27.2 27.4 27.8 27.9 27.12-14 27.12 31.9-13 32.6 32.21 33 33.8-11 33.21 34.10

277 237 237 236 237 92 237 92 163 92 163 237 94 94 109 163 259 277 159 155 155 155 159 90 89 155 85 155 114 22 90 90 92 23 27, 35, 56, 85,92 90 155 240 259 156 125, 142 125 156, 163 156 156 94, 125

Joshua 1-11 1-9 5.1 7.15 8.30

The Samaritans and Early Judaism

242 242 242 147 222 222, 265 244, 254 222 222 147 147, 222, 244 222 9.7 9.18 147, 222 222 9.20 9.22 147 9.23 222 222 9.24 9.26 222 9.28 147 9.33-9.57 222 222 9.39 9.46-55 148 9.46-49 247 9.57 148, 222 222 10.6 11. 12-33 MT 242 12.15 251 17-21 MT 243 19-21 142, 149 19-21 MT 243 142 19.23 142 20.6 142 20.10 20.21 149 149 20.22-23 20.26-29 149 21.2-4 149
3.20-30 MT 4.2-3 MT 4.1 2-24 MT 8.30-31 8.33 9 9MT 9.2 9.3 9.5 9.6 / Samuel 1^ 4.21-22 7.1-2 7.4 7.6 10.17-27 10.27 11.1-11 11.12-15 11. 12-13 MT 12.10 21-22 22 25 28.4-25 MT 31 31 MT 31.10 2 Samuel 1 5.8 6.1-19 7 8.17 13.13 15.24-29 15.27 17.15 20.25 22.19 1 Kings 1.8 1.26 1.38-40 2.4 2.27 2.35 8 8.1 ll-2Kgs23 11.5 11.13-39 11.33 11.38 12 12 MT 12.1 12.15 12.16 12.17-19 12.20 12.24 12.25-29 MT 12.25

240 21 220 142 22, 240, 259 8.33-35 MT 241 107 8.33 9.27 241 241 10.9 241 10.15 241 10.43 11. 1-23 MT 241 13.7-14.5 240 13.14 163 1 3.29-32 MT 247 13.33 163 242 14 241 14.1 MT 240 14.1-27 240 15.1 241 17.4 MT 18-22 149 241 19.51 MT 241 20.7-8 MT 163 20.7 241 21.1 MT 240 22.1-6 24 46, 56, 242, 278 147 24.1 241 24.1 MT 24.14-24 147 24.21-24 193 147 24.23 241 24.25-26 23 24.26 22 24.29 147, 240 24.32
Judges 1.21 2.13 2.19 3.9-10 3.9-10 MT 3. 12-13 MT

246 246 222 248 265 142 248 248 248 222

248 279 149 118 158 142 158 158 158 158 249

134 222 242 240 243 242

149 149 149 222 245 246 246 246

158 158 158 158 243 243 118 279 222 221 148 221 148 148, 254 244 244 148 148 148 244 148 250 148

Index of References
12.26-29 12.26-27 12.28-29 12.29 12.31 12.32 12.33 13.1 13.33 14.14-16 15.34 16.2 16.7 MT 16.19 16.26 16.30-32 16.31 18.36 22.53 2 Kings 3.3 3.4-10 3.13-14 3.26-27 4.1-6.7 5.1-8 MT 6.14-7.20 6.15-22 6.32 MT 7.1 7.2 MT 7.1 7-20 MT 8-23 MT 10.29 10.29 MT 13.2 13.11 13.23 14.24 14.25-27 15.9 15.18 15.24 15.28 17

6.1-15 6.1-2 6.18-24 6.21-24 MT 9.10-13 9.11 10.13-14 MT 11.5 12.25-39 12.26-28 12.32 12.34 16 17.39 18.16 22.8-10 MT 23.28-32 24 24.3-31 24.3-19 24.7 27.16-22 27.17 29.22 2 Chronicles 3^MT 3.1 5.2 5.13-6.2 6.35-38 7.1-2 7.12 7.12MT 7.16MT 11.13-17 11.13 12.1-8 13 13.1-18 13.9 13.11 25.7 28.1-27 28.7-8 28.7-8 MT 28.7 28.11-15

148 148 148 148, 149 157, 158 149 148, 158 148 157, 158 148 221 221 255 221 221 221 221 284 221

17 MT 17.5-6 MT 17.7-24 17.24-41 17.26-27 17.28

221 255 255 255 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 221 251 221 221 284 221 257 221 221 221 221 14, 15,23, 24, 32, 33, 46-49, 70,

17.29 17.34-43 17.34-35 17.34 17.35 17.36-38 17.37 17.38 18.9-12 MT 18.22 19.21 19.31 23
23.4-20 23.4 23.8 23.9 23.13-20 23.13 23.14 23.15-18 23.16 23.20 23.21-23 23.22 24-25 MT 24.8-17

106, 194, 200, 201, 208,217 250 252 193 192 193 146, 149, 193 192 193 146 146, 284 193 193 193 193 252 237 279 279 14, 265, 285 149 146, 149 149 157, 232 221 149, 221 149 149 149 149 151 152 253 253

26 17 24 248 158 165 248 279 155 155 155 155 284 158 158 249 156 165 69 159 165 155 155 158

1 Chronicles 1-19 44 44 2 5.25 157 5.27-41 155 5.29-41 158, 165 5.30-31 MT 243 5.49 155 6.1-16 155, 158

250 245 279 244 158 244 245 92 92 149 148 148 49 149 157 158 253 137,251 254 251 137 118


The Samaritans and Early Judaism

4.1 39, 195, 196 14 15, 40, 196, 260 111, 178 15, 157 198 195 195 31, 195 197 15 198 198 177 201 195 195 195 195, 197 197 31, 195, 197 197 195 195 177 253 65 195 253 199 177 200 177 199 195 195 195 177 155 177 273 158 17 243 178, 284 7.7 7.12-26 7.12 7.21 9.1 9.12 10 10.5 10.8
Nehemiah 1.4 1.5 2.4 2.7 2.10 2.19 2.20 3 3.19 4.1 LXX 5.14 5.15 6.1 LXX 6.2 6.5 LXX 6.6 6. 14 LXX 7 7.1 8 8.4 8.7-9 8.7 8.13-15 8.13 9-10 9 10 10.1-28 10.1 10.2-28 10.11-12 10.31-40 10.39 11 11.10-11 12

2 Chronicles (cont.) 28.15 118 29 138 29.1-32.33 137 29.1-32.33 MT 251 137 29.1 29.5-19 137 29.17 137 29.18 137 138 29.23 137 29.30-36 29.31 152 29.34 156, 269 30 14, 27, 193 254 30.1 30.16 156 30.17 269 30.18-23 108 30.18-20 151 30.22 156, 269 30.26 137, 152 138 31.1 156 31.2-19 31.10 158 137, 237 31.11 31.18-20 237 32.3-4 137 32.12 237 137 32.30 14 33.11 254 34.9 152 35.18 36.9-10 253 36.21 150 36.23 178 Ezra 1-6 1.2 1.7-11 3.1 3.3-4 4-6 4 4.1-6.22 4.1-24 4.1-2

4.2-9 4.2
4.3 4.4 4.5-7 4.7 4.8-10 4.8 4.9-10 4.9 4.11-24 4.12-16 4.13 4.15-16 4.17 4.23-24 4.23 5-6 5.3-4 5.3 5.5 5.6-7 5.6 5.11-12 5.13-15 6.1-12 6.1 6.5 6.6-12 6.6-10 6.8 6.9-10 6.11-12 6.12 6.13 6.15 6.16-22 6.16 6.22 7-10 7.1-5 7.1-2 7.4-5 7.6

155 178 31, 178 178 155 72 27 155 178

66 176, 177 253 39 237 217 23 195 127, 195 24

178 178 178 31 278 278 178 283 16 278 32 31 278 278 278 16 278 283 155 273 72 72 155 72 155 155, 161 72, 283 72, 283 131 155 155 158 72 155 283 165 273, 283

Index of References
12.6 12.19 12.47 13
13.1-2 13.4 13.10 13.25 13.28
165 165 155 11,17,27, 72, 129 72 16 72 72 16, 17, 28, 43,217

37.16-28 37.16-19 40-48 40.45 40.46 42.13-14 42.15-16 42.23 42.24 43.19 43.26 44.10-31 44.10 44.12 44.15 47.15 48.11 Hosea 3.4 4.15-17 5 5.5 5.14 5.15 6.10-11 8.5-6 11.8 12.1 12.8 Joel
3.5 279 120

7.17 8.14 9.8 9.20-21 11.10-16 11.11-13 23.2 24.10 24.12 56-66
Jeremiah 3.14-16 3.18 4.23-27 5.18 7.12-15 21.19-22 23.5-6 26 28 MT 28.1-9 30-31 31.1-33.26 31.6 41.4-6 41.5 43.13 Lamentations
2.14 4.21

271 280 49 270 49 24 220 215 215 49

Psalms 2 24 27 37 44.2 46 48.2 48.9 48.12-13 48.14 62 66 68 68.14-23 68.15 68.16-17 68.19 68.25-36 78 87 100 101 122 136.26 137.7 Isaiah 2 2.1-2 2.2-4 7.5 7.6 7.8

279 279 279 267 130 279 279 130 279 130 279 279 247 247 247 248 248 247 49 49 279 279 279 178 126

280 280 150 150 253 253 24 150 255 253 28 280 280 14 39,49 231

24, 254 49 159 156 156 157 157 157 156 152 156 157 157 156, 159 240 157

15 253 49 253 270 270 253 250 253

253 220

257 126

280 279 280 254 40 14, 15,24, 49 24

157 7.19 1 2.22-25 MT 257 257 13.1-23 13.1-3 257 257 13.10 157 20.5 59 23 25-37 127 126 25.3 25.12-14 126 30.17 231 34.17-31 120 37.12 277 49, 127 37.15-28

Amos 4.1 MT 4.4 MT 5.15 5.27 7.12 9.14 Obadiah


247 247 247 119 257 250





The Samaritans and Early Judaism

279 49 257 279 280 280 279 49
Haggai 2.11-12 Zechariah 1-8




4.14 6.9-13 9.13 10.6

Malachi 1.2-5

26,27 15 24 24


3.3 3.4

4.1-3 4.1-2



49 280 25 26 26



SP Deuteronomy 11.30 92 12.21 92 12.26 92 15.20 92,259 SP Exodus 6.9

8.20 18.21 18.25

20.17b 20.21

89 89 88 88 89,92 89

SP Genesis 7.2 30.36 34 SP Numbers 27.8

89 89,90 143