The Samaritans: A Profile 0802867685, 9780802867681

Citation preview

The Samaritans

The Samaritans

A Profile Reinhard Pummer

WILLIAM B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN / CAMBRIDGE, U.K.

© 2016 Reinhard Pummer All rights reserved Published 2016 by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 2140 Oak Industrial Drive N.E., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49505 / P.O. Box 163, Cambridge CB3 9PU U.K. www.eerdmans.com Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Pummer, Reinhard, author. The Samaritans : a profile / Reinhard Pummer. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-8028-6768-1 (pbk. : alk. paper); 978-1-4674-4406-4 (ePub); 978-1-4674-4366-1 (Kindle) 1. Samaritans — History. I. Title. BM910.P855 2016 296.8’17 — dc23 2015029837 Cover illustration: Top — Passover Pilgrims praying on Mount Gerizim (Reinhard Pummer). Bottom — Delos inscription 2; see Fig. 8 on p. 94 with the discussion on pp. 92-95 (EfA/Ph. Bruneau)

Contents Preface Abbreviations Illustrations

Introduction I. The Identity of the Samaritans 1. The Samaritan View 2. The Traditional Jewish View 3. Modern Scholarly Views II. Samaritans in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament? III. The Samaritans and the New Testament 1. The Gospel of Matthew 2. The Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts 3. The Gospel of John 4. Samaritan Influence on New Testament Writings? IV. Samaritans in Jewish Writings of Antiquity 1. Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Writings 2. The Dead Sea Scrolls 3. Flavius Josephus 4. Rabbinic Literature V. Archaeological Excavations 1. Mount Gerizim 2. Synagogues 3. Amulets and Oil Lamps 4. Ritual Baths — Miqvaʾot VI. Samaritan Sects 1. Samaritan Sources 2. Muslim and Karaite Sources 3. Patristic Sources VII. The Samaritans in History 1. Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods 2. Late Roman and Byzantine Periods 3. Early Muslim Period 4. Crusader Period 5. Mamluk Period

6. Ottoman Period 7. Modern Period VIII. Geographical Distribution and Demography 1. Palestine 2. Diaspora 3. Demography IX. The Samaritan Pentateuch 1. The Nature of the Samaritan Pentateuch 2. Ancient Translations of the Samaritan Pentateuch 3. The Samaritan Pentateuch in Western Scholarship 4. The Samaritan Script X. Samaritan Literature 1. Exegesis 2. Halakhah 3. Liturgy 4. Chronicles 5. Linguistic Writings 6. Folktales 7. Interactions with European Scholars XI. Samaritan Rituals and Customs 1. The Samaritan Calendar 2. Passover and Maṣot 3. The Feast of Weeks 4. The First Day of the Seventh Month 5. The Day of Atonement 6. Tabernacles 7. The Eighth Day of Tabernacles — Shemini Aṣeret 8. Ṣimmut Pesaḥ and Ṣimmut Sukkot 9. Pilgrimage 10. Circumcision 11. Redemption of the First Born 12. Completion of the Reading of the Torah 13. Betrothal and Wedding 14. Funeral 15. Prayer 16. Music 17. Art XII. The Samaritans Today

XIII. New Challenges Bibliography Index of Sources Index of Modern Authors Index of Subjects

Preface Nothing demonstrates more clearly the change from the almost total neglect of anything that has to do with the Samaritans to a heightened interest in their history and religion, than two remarks made almost one hundred years apart: In 1907, an anonymous reviewer of James Montgomery’s influential book, The Samaritans, The Earliest Jewish Sect: Their History, Theology, and Literature, wondered: “Are the Samaritans worth a volume of 360 pages?” In 2000, the situation had changed to such an extent that the authors of an encyclopedia article on the Samaritans in New Testament times could refer to an “explosion in recent years in the publication of Samaritan texts and secondary discussions based upon them.” Others speak of the last two decades as a boom time for Samaritan studies. Editions and translations of Samaritan works have appeared or been announced for publication, numerous linguistic studies have been and are being published, and the excavations in Samaria — and above all on Mt. Gerizim — have opened up new vistas. Moreover, the past of the community is no longer the only focus of interest to scholars, as the results of research by social anthropologists are beginning to appear, shedding light on the modern-day community of the Samaritans. This in turn enables us to make comparisons between contemporary practices and beliefs on the one hand, and the practices and beliefs as recorded in the documents of the past on the other. That the interest in the Samaritans is not confined to specialized scholars but extends to a wider readership is shown by the very publication of several books of haute vulgarization. The present work is neither intended to be a Summa Samaritana nor an encyclopedia encompassing everything that can be said about the Samaritans. As the title indicates, it is meant to be a profile of the Samaritans in the sense of a concise biographical and character sketch of the community as it developed throughout the centuries. My aim is to present the main facets of the history, religion, and life of the Samaritans in the light of recent developments in historical, archaeological, philological, and anthropological studies by setting forth the present state of our knowledge and providing references that enable readers to pursue in greater detail questions of special interest to them. The time frame extends from antiquity to the present. In my studies of the Samaritans throughout many years, a number of scholars have influenced my work more than others. Among them are two who are no longer with us, but whose memory is especially dear to me. They are Alan Crown and Ferdinand Dexinger. Both have not only significantly advanced Samaritan studies throughout their academic careers, but they were also exceptional human beings with generous and warm personalities. In archaeology, it is without doubt Yitzhak Magen who revolutionized our view of early Samaritan history. I was fortunate during several stays in Israel to receive first-hand information from him in situ, both on Mt. Gerizim and at the synagogue sites that he excavated. My thanks are due to him also for giving me permission to include some of his photographs and charts in this book. Last but not least, Benyamim Tsedaka was not only the first Samaritan I met, but also a source of information that never dries up. My thanks are due to him for the many informative and enjoyable hours spent with him and his family in Ḥolon 1

2

3

and on Mt. Gerizim, as well as the occasions where we were able to meet not only at the Samaritan congresses, but also in Ottawa and Toronto. Needless to say, none of these persons is responsible for any deficiencies contained in this book. My warmest thank-you goes to my wife, Lucille, who has supported my research in more ways than I can enumerate: from our travels to the Samaritans in Ḥolon, Nablus, and on Mt. Gerizim — observing and participating in Samaritan life and ceremonies — to proofreading and commenting on the manuscripts of my publications for as long as I have been engaged in Samaritan studies.

Abbreviations AbrN Abr-Nahrain AJBA Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology AJPA American Journal of Physical Anthropology ATLA American Theological Library Association b. Babylonian Talmud BA Biblical Archaeologist BAR Biblical Archaeology Review BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research BJPES Bulletin of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester BSac Bibliotheca sacra BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CPJ Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, edited by Victor A. Tcherikover. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957-1964. DBSup Dictionnaire de la Bible: Supplément, edited by Louis Pirot and André Robert. Paris: Letouzey & Ané, 1928-. DSD Dead Sea Discoveries HBO Hallesche Beiträge zur Orientwissenschaft HTR Harvard Theological Review IEJ Israel Exploration Journal JA Journal asiatique JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JPOS Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society JQR Jewish Quarterly Review JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism JSJSup Journal for the Study of Judaism: Supplement Series JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series JSS Journal of Semitic Studies LXX Septuagint m. Mishna MNDPV Mittheilungen und Nachrichten des deutschen Palästina-Vereins MT Masoretic Text NEAEHL The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, edited by Ephraim Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 1993-2008. NRSV New Revised Standard Version NTOA Novum testamentum et orbis antiquus NTS New Testament Studies OEANE The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, edited by Eric M. Meyers. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. OLZ Orientalistische Literaturzeitung PEFQS Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly PJ Palästina-Jahrbuch

RB Revue biblique REJ Revue des études juives RevQ Revue de Qumran RVV Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten SP Samaritan Pentateuch STDJ Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah t. Tosefta VTSup Vetus Testamentum Supplements WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament y. Jerusalem Talmud ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft ZDMG Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft ZDPV Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 1. Anonymous, review of The Samaritans, The Earliest Jewish Sect: Their History, Theology, and Literature, by James Montgomery, Expository Times 18 (1907): 548. 2. H. G. M. Williamson and Craig A. Evans, “Samaritans,” in Dictionary of New Testament Background (ed. Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter; Downers Grove, IL and Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 1056. 3. H. G. M. Williamson, review of Tradition Kept: The Literature of the Samaritans, by Robert T. Anderson and Terry Giles, Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies 3 (2007): 162.

Illustrations Fig. 1. Mt. Gerizim. General view from the north. (Yitzhak Magen, Mount Gerizim Excavations I, 1) Fig. 2. Tell er-Ras as seen from the main peak of Mt. Gerizim. (Reinhard Pummer) Fig. 3. Roman Neapolis coin with the main peak of Mt. Gerizim and Tell er-Ras. (Reinhard Pummer) Fig. 4. Mt. Gerizim — Palaeo-Hebrew inscription, “Yhwh.” (Yitzhak Magen, Mount Gerizim Excavations I, 254, inscription 383) Fig. 5. Palaeo-Hebrew inscription from Mt. Gerizim, “priest(s).” (Yitzhak Magen) Fig. 6. Delos — overview of the ruins. (Reinhard Pummer) Fig. 7. Delos — Inscription 1. (EfA/Ph. Bruneau) Fig. 8. Delos — Inscription 2. (EfA/Ph. Bruneau) Fig. 9. Distribution map of Samaritan synagogues in the Land of Israel. (Yitzhak Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan, p. 117, Fig. 24) Fig. 10. Khirbet Samara synagogue. (Yitzhak Magen) Fig. 11. Khirbet Samara synagogue — reconstruction. (Yitzhak Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan, p. 131, Fig. 23) Fig. 12. Khirbet Samara synagogue — apse and miqveh. (Yitzhak Magen) Fig. 13. Khirbet Samara synagogue — mosaic depicting a temple facade. (Yitzhak Magen) Fig. 14. El-Khirbe synagogue. (Yitzhak Magen) Fig. 15. El-Khirbe synagogue — reconstruction. (Yitzhak Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan, p. 131, Fig. 23) Fig. 16. El-Khirbe — remains of mausoleum. (Reinhard Pummer) Fig. 17. El-Khirbe — miqveh. (Yitzhak Magen) Fig. 18. El-Khirbe — central carpet of the mosaic floor. (Yitzhak Magen) Fig. 19. Kiryat Luza — the Samaritan settlement Luza on Mt. Gerizim. (Bible Walks) Fig. 20. Interior of Mt. Gerizim synagogue. (Bible Walks) Fig. 21. Synagogue in Ḥolon. (Ori Orhof) Fig. 22. Bathtub from building A of the city on Mt. Gerizim. (Reinhard Pummer) Fig. 23. Olive press in Qedumim. (Reinhard Pummer) Fig. 24. Distribution map of Samaritan settlements in antiquity. (Yitzhak Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan, p. 80) Fig. 25. The Abisha Scroll. (Ori Orhof) Fig. 26. Samaritan scripts. (Reinhard Pummer) Fig. 27. Preparing the lambs for roasting. (Reinhard Pummer) Fig. 28. Putting a lamb on the roasting spit. (Reinhard Pummer) Fig. 29. Tannurim and fire wood. (Ori Orhof) Fig. 30. Fire in roasting pits. (Ori Orhof) Fig. 31. Sukkah. (Reinhard Pummer) Fig. 32. Pilgrims on Mt. Gerizim. (Ori Orhof) Fig. 33. Pilgrims praying on Mt. Gerizim. (Reinhard Pummer) Fig. 34. Mt. Gerizim — Isaac’s Altar, view from the west. (Yitzhak Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan, p. 263) Fig. 35. Prayers on the “Eternal Hill.” (Ori Orhof) Fig. 36. Marriage contract (1820). (Reinhard Pummer) Fig. 37. Funeral on Mt. Gerizim. (Reinhard Pummer)

Fig. 38. Prayers in the synagogue. (Reinhard Pummer) Fig. 39. Modern mezuzah on the wall of a house in Nablus. (Reinhard Pummer) Fig. 40. Musical notations of Exod. 15:1 and 3, as corrected by the author. (Ulrike-Rebekka Nieten, “Die Kantillation bei den Samaritanern,” p. 236) Fig. 41. Waving of the Torah scroll. (Ori Orhof) Fig. 42. Amulet, modern, paper, original size 7 x 8.8 cm. (Reinhard Pummer)

Introduction In cultures with Christian roots — and even among people who do not have a Christian cultural background — the Samaritans are almost exclusively associated with the New Testament stories about the members of this religious group. What comes to mind when Samaritans are mentioned is above all Jesus’ parable about the Good Samaritan who helped a person in distress, as told by Luke in his Gospel (Luke 10:25-37). In contrast to the two functionaries of the Jerusalem temple, a Samaritan literally went out of his way to help a man who was left wounded on the road by robbers. A measure of the unparalleled fame of this parable is the fact that the expression “to be a good Samaritan” is synonymous with the phrase “to help somebody.” In North America in particular, when Samaritans are mentioned, many people think first and foremost of the organization called “Samaritans,” which, according to its website, “is a confidential emotional support service,” available twenty-four hours a day, 365 days a year, “to provide emotional support for people who are experiencing feelings of emotional distress or despair, including those which may lead to suicide.” Similarly, many other European and non-European organizations which provide help to people in difficulties include “Samaritan” in their names. An online search of databases will result in innumerable hits relating to these associations. There is even an organization called “The Wandering Samaritan” which enables “international travelers to create random acts of kindness along their journey,” as their website announces. But very few people are aware that there is a community of Samaritans in existence today in Palestine and Israel whose members see themselves as the true Israelites, having resided in their birthplace for thousands of years and preserving unchanged the revelation given to Moses in the Torah. Once a sizable people, they presently number approximately eight hundred individuals. Because the existence of this Samaritan community is virtually unknown to most people in the West, the community leaders felt compelled to publish a brochure with the title, “The Good Samaritans: A Living People.” Since they attach great importance to their identity as the true Israelites, they added a note that their selfidentification is not “Samaritans,” but “Israelites whose center of life is Mt. Gerizim.” Generally, they call themselves “Israelite Samaritans.” They now maintain a website with information about their history and life at http://www.israelite-samaritans.com/. Despite their small size as a community, they are proud of their tradition and do everything in their power to preserve and practice their age-old beliefs and customs. For specific groups, however, the Samaritans have been the subject of interest for a long time, beginning with the church fathers, rabbinic authors, Holy Land pilgrims, Middle East travelers, and Bible scholars, as well as modern-day anthropologists, geneticists, and other field researchers. The knowledge accumulated by these groups has been greatly expanded in recent years with new editions not only of the Samaritan Pentateuch, but also of other Samaritan writings, and above all with the results of excavations in the district of Samaria. These excavations have brought to light the remains of Samaritan synagogues and, most importantly, the remains of a city and a sacred precinct on the top of the Samaritans’ sacred mountain, Mount Gerizim, near the modern city of Nablus. Still, a great deal of Samaritan 1

2

3

history is only poorly known due to the dearth of sources available to us. Many Samaritan writings have not yet been critically edited and translated into modern languages despite some progress in this area. In 1984, the Société d’Études Samaritaines was founded as an association of scholars engaged in Samaritan studies and cognate fields for the purposes of organizing congresses at regular intervals, promoting the academic study of all aspects of Samaritanism, and publishing its proceedings. In the contemporary situation, new approaches are being taken to study the day-to-day living of the Samaritans and the way they understand and practice their traditions. Until recent times we had to rely extensively on written reports from travelers and pilgrims for these aspects, but this type of text-based study is now being supplemented by research conducted with social-anthropological methods, enabling us to gain insights into the life of the community as it is concretely lived in our age. A first attempt at documenting the life of the Samaritan community in the latter part of the twentieth century which combined historical and ethnographic approaches was my monograph, The Samaritans, published in the series “Iconography of Religions” in 1987. With the help of a collection of annotated photographs taken during several stays with the Samaritans in the 1970s and 1980s, it provides a glimpse into the life of the Samaritans on Mt. Gerizim and in Ḥolon. In 1993, Monika Humer submitted a master’s thesis to the Institut für Völkerkunde at the University of Vienna, Austria, entitled “Symbole samaritanischer Ethnizität: Ethnographische Fallstudie an einer levantinischen Minderheit” (Symbols of Samaritan ethnicity: An ethnographic case study of a Levantine minority), in which she examined the role of the kinship and marriage practices of the community. A similar study was Sean Ireton’s master’s thesis entitled “The Samaritans: Strategies for Survival of an Ethnoreligious Minority in the Twenty-First Century,” submitted to the University of Kent at Canterbury in Great Britain in 2003. Ireton examined the Samaritans’ management of their traditions and the innovations they employ to uphold their distinctiveness and to enable them to survive changes in the Israeli and Palestinian societies in which they live: namely, the principle of patrilineality and the conversion and acceptance of Jewish women, the role of kinship and hierarchies, and the importance of rituals and ceremonies as boundary markers. Another more detailed and in-depth work in this area of research was Monika SchreiberHumer’s doctoral dissertation submitted to the University of Vienna, Austria, in 2009, subsequently published in 2014, entitled “‘The Comfort of Kin’: Samaritan Community, Kinship, and Marriage.” From her analysis of Samaritan marriage and kinship rules and practices, Schreiber paints a picture of the Samaritan society in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries that raises the question whether, at this stage in their long history, the traditional ways are still apt to sustain them as a unique community in the sea of Muslim and Jewish cultures. The use of the past — specifically the Samaritans’ myth of their origin 3,600 years ago — as a means of maintaining their identity, and the transmission of this tradition in the Samaritan community, is the subject of the Mémoire de Master II by Fanny Urien, entitled “Frontières, mémoire et médiation dans la communauté samaritaine, séparée entre Israël et les territoires palestiniens” (Frontiers, memory and mediation in the Samaritan community, 4

5

6

7

8

divided between Israel and the Palestinian territories), approved by the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales in Paris in 2011. Urien is now preparing her doctoral dissertation under the title “Rendre visible ses origines et attester son authenticité. Organisation sociale, transmission et construction identitaire dans la communauté samaritaine, située entre Holon (Israël) et Kiryat Luza (Cisjordanie)” (Making visible one’s origins and testifying to one’s authenticity: Social organization, transmission and identity construction in the Samaritan community, situated between Ḥolon [Israel] and Kiryat Luza [Westbank]). In her dissertation, she will analyze the strategies employed by the Samaritans to prove that they are rooted in Israeli and Palestinian soil, especially their recourse to genealogies, the dynamics of their heritage, the genetics of their population, and the use of new information and communication technologies. In 2014, a book was published called The Dynamics of Coexistence in the Middle East: Negotiating Boundaries Between Christians, Muslims, Jews and Samaritans by Julia Droeber, a social anthropologist presently teaching at An-Najah University in Nablus. Droeber describes the ways in which the Muslim, Christian, and Samaritan citizens of Nablus see their commonalities and mark out their differences and identities; what this means in their everyday lives; and how the Jewish occupation of the country challenges their relationships. The works listed above expand Samaritan studies through close analyses of the present situation of the community. Yet in any study of the Samaritans, terminology also plays an important part. According to many Bible translations, the Old Testament mentions the Samaritans only once in 2 Kings 17:29, in connection with the conquest of the northern Israelite kingdom by the Neo-Assyrians and its resettlement with foreigners in the eighth century B.C.E. This passage has led to the view that the “Samaritans” were syncretists, worshiping not only Yhwh, but also idols. Such a view dominated the thinking of many Jews and Christians for a long time, and for some it still does. Closer analysis has shown, however, that the Hebrew term in this passage should not be translated “Samaritans,” but “people of Samaria.” In order to avoid confusion, the name “Samaritans” is now reserved for the members of the Yhwh-worshiping community of Samarians centered on Mt. Gerizim, excluding Jerusalem and originating as a separate religion at a much later time than the eighth century B.C.E. In the New Testament and in the writings of Flavius Josephus, we encounter the Greek equivalents of “Samaritans” a number of times — in certain instances clearly referring to the Gerizim group, but in others probably only to inhabitants of Samaria in general without indicating the religious affiliation of the persons so called. Other terms used by scholars in this context are “Proto-Samaritans” and “Samarian Yahwists.” Both terms refer to Yhwh-worshiping inhabitants of Samaria who had their own temple on Mt. Gerizim but had not yet rejected the temple in Jerusalem as an illegitimate place of worship. Of course, the ancient sources do not distinguish between inhabitants of Samaria in general and Samaritans in the sense of the Gerizim community as we understand it. The term “Samaritans” in these ancient sources may refer to any of the groups residing in Samaria: that is, to Jewish, pagan, or Yahwistic Samarian inhabitants. It is therefore up to the modern reader to try to determine from the context which group is meant — a task that is sometimes difficult or even impossible. 9

10

The use of terms such as “Judahites,” “Judeans,” or “Jews” represents a similar case. Some authors refer to the residents of Judah/Yehud during the Neo-Babylonian, Persian, and Hellenistic periods as “Judeans” to differentiate them from the “Jews” of the Roman period. Since this distinction is not crucial to my purpose in this book, I use “Jews” and “Judeans” interchangeably. A question that has preoccupied students of Samaritanism and cognate fields for a long time now is the status of the Samaritan religion: Is it a sect of Judaism which separated from the “mother religion” and went its own way, or is it a form of ancient Yahwism? In chapter 1, “The Identity of the Samaritans,” I will look at the various positions taken by scholars throughout the history of the study of Samaritanism. Some scholars find hints and implied polemics against the Samaritans in parts of the Old Testament. For them, certain texts suggest animosity between Jews and Samaritans. I will discuss this question in chapter 2, “Samaritans in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament?” It will become clear that such claims depend on what date an author assigns to a text and to the origin of the Samaritans. In addition to the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), the New Testament contains several other passages in which the Samaritans play a role or are mentioned: Matthew 10:5-6 (Jesus forbids the apostles to enter Samaritan towns); Luke 9:51-53 (Jesus is refused hospitality by a Samaritan village); Luke 17:11-19 (only one of ten healed lepers returns to thank Jesus — a Samaritan); John 4:4-42 (Jesus speaks to a Samaritan woman by Jacob’s Well); and John 8:48 (Jesus is called a “Samaritan”). I will discuss these passages in chapter 3, “Samaritans and the New Testament.” Information about the Samaritans preserved in ancient Jewish literature will be the focus of chapter 4, “Samaritans in Jewish Writings of Antiquity.” The methodological problems one encounters in trying to interpret the data in such texts are particularly acute. It should go without saying that none of these documents may be used to reconstruct Samaritan history without taking into account the purpose for and circumstances under which they were written. Although this is true for all historical sources, it is a major issue in any attempt to derive information about the Samaritans from works such as Josephus’s War and Antiquities or from the rabbinic writings. In chapter 5, “Archaeological Excavations,” I outline the contribution of archaeology to our knowledge of the early history of the Samaritans. Most important are the excavations on Mt. Gerizim where the precincts of a sanctuary from the Persian and Hellenistic times have been found. Monumental staircases and other remains testify to the importance of the site in both periods. In addition, a large, hitherto unknown city around the sanctuary has been partially unearthed. Other important discoveries include the remains of a number of Samaritan synagogues, ritual baths, installations for wine-making, oil lamps, and amulets. From Samaritan as well as non-Samaritan sources we know that at one time the community was not homogeneous, but divided into a number of sects. These sects form the subject of chapter 6. Samaritan Chronicles, church fathers, and Muslim authors all present tantalizingly small glimpses into this aspect of Samaritanism. What is certain is that there 11

once existed such sectarian groups. Less certain are the details about their numbers, their founders, and their teachings. As far as we can ascertain from the scant information available to us, the various factions differed from each other in their attitude to Scripture, their halakhah, and their eschatological expectations. Chapter 7, “The Samaritans in History,” presents an overview of the history of the Samaritans from the Hellenistic and Roman periods to modern times, outlining the fate of the community under successive regimes and the ups and frequent downs through which it went in the more than two millennia of its existence as a religion. I will show how the community dwindled from a substantial entity to a minute group which nevertheless succeeded in preserving its identity and traditions into the present. Over the course of their history, the Samaritans not only inhabited their ancestral home, Samaria, but existed as a diaspora community in several Mediterranean countries as well. However, their numbers continued to diminish through persecutions and conversions to Christianity and Islam until the community was eventually confined to Palestine. In chapter 8, I outline the geographical distribution and demography of the Samaritans from antiquity to modern times. The foundation and absolute reference point of faith and practice for the Samaritans is the Pentateuch. Although it is almost identical with the Masoretic Text, it differs from it in certain respects, some more important than others. Especially the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has enabled scholars to determine with greater precision the character and background of the Samaritan Pentateuch, which is the subject of chapter 9. In chapter 10, I will review the other literature of the Samaritans: works concerned with exegesis, halakhah, chronicles, and grammatical writings; correspondence with European scholars in the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries; and folklore. The Samaritan calendar, annual and life cycle feasts, and music and art are the focus of chapter 11. To determine the time of the celebration of their feast days, the Samaritans have their own calendar which is different from the Jewish calendar. They observe only the biblical festivals based on the Pentateuch, and not the festivals that were added on the basis of biblical books they do not acknowledge as authoritative. They therefore do not observe the festivals of Purim and Hanukkah. Instead, their celebrations are limited to Passover, Maṣot, Sukkot, Yom Kippur, and certain minor festivals. The Samaritan life cycle observances include circumcision, the completion of the reading of the Torah, wedding, and funeral. In chapter 12, I consider the present situation of the Samaritans both in their settlements on Mt. Gerizim and in Ḥolon, south of Tel Aviv. Now more than ever they underline the principles which constitute their identity and the beliefs that guide their faith. Compared to the past, the Samaritans of today are in a much better position than they were for centuries in every respect. This is not to deny that sometimes they do face discrimination on grounds of their religion. However, their greatest challenge comes from encountering modern ways of life that clash with their traditions and are apt to draw away young people attracted by what they experience in the society in which they live and work. Only the future will tell what the outcome of this confrontation will be. Judging by the past, everything leads us to believe that

the Samaritan community will find ways to survive it.

12

1. “Outreach: Our Mission Statement,” accessed February 22, 2015, http://www.samaritans.org/branches/samaritans-chilterns/outreach. 2. “The Wandering Samaritan.org,” accessed February 22, 2015, http://thewanderingsamaritan.org/. This organization has nothing to do with the film, “The Wandering Samaritan,” discussed later in this book. 3. Aaron b. Ab-Hisda et al., The Good Samaritans: A Living People (Ḥolon, Israel: Institute of Samaritan Studies, 1987). 4. See the section “Interactions with European Scholars” in the chapter “Samaritan Literature” later in this study (pp. 252-56). 5. Reinhard Pummer, The Samaritans, Iconography of Religions, 23.5 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1987). 6. Monika Humer, “Symbole samaritanischer Ethnizität: Ethnographische Fallstudie an einer levantinischen Minderheit” (Magisterarbeit, Universität Wien, 1993). 7. Sean Ireton, “The Samaritans: Strategies for Survival of an Ethnoreligious Minority in the Twenty-First Century” (master’s thesis, Canterbury: University of Kent at Canterbury, Department of Anthropology, 2003). 8. Monika Schreiber-Humer, “ ‘The Comfort of Kin’: Samaritan Community, Kinship, and Marriage” (Ph.D. diss., Vienna: Universität Wien, 2009). 9. Fanny Urien, “Frontières, mémoire et médiation dans la communauté samaritaine, séparée entre Israël et les territoires palestiniens” (master’s thesis, Paris: Écoles des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, 2011). 10. Julia Droeber, The Dynamics of Coexistence in the Middle East: Negotiating Boundaries Between Christians, Muslims, Jews and Samaritans (Library of Modern Middle East Studies, 135; London and New York: I. B. Tauris, 2014). 11. For example, Gary N. Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans: The Origins and History of Their Early Relations (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013). 12. Note on names and transcriptions: As we will see below, in Samaritan tradition, men as well as women may have a Hebrew, an Aramaic, and an Arabic name at the same time. For a discussion of Samaritan personal names, see Alan D. Crown, “Names,” in A Companion to Samaritan Studies, ed. Alan D. Crown, Reinhard Pummer, and Abraham Tal (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1993), pp. 165-66; and Alan D. Crown, Samaritan Scribes and Manuscripts (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism, 80; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2001), pp. 384-466. Moreover, for some persons nicknames are used, as in the case of Abraham b. Jacob b. Murjan/Ibrahim b. Yaʿqub b. Ab Sakwa, who has the nickname “al-ʿAyya” (“the Stammerer”). His name can therefore appear as Ibrahim al-ʿAyya. In addition, Samaritan scribes were not always consistent in the spelling of names, and modern transcriptions of them are not uniform. To cite only two examples among many: the family name is variously rendered Tsedaka, Ṣadaqa, or Ṣedaqa; and Shalmah b. Ṭabia is also transcribed as Salama b. Ṭabia, and his Arabic name as Salamah Ghazzal. To facilitate the recognition of names and terms familiar from other works, I have adopted the most common transcriptions, with diacritical marks reserved for consonants. I have done the same with titles of works not referenced in the bibliography.

I. The Identity of the Samaritans The seemingly simple but frequently asked question, “Who/What are the Samaritans?”, receives different answers depending on who is being asked and who is giving the answer. The Samaritans themselves will reply one way, Jews another, and scholars again in their own particular ways. 1

1. The Samaritan View The Samaritans are convinced that they are the original and true Israelites, whereas the Jews have gone astray. In their medieval chronicles, the Samaritans call the Jews, among other epithets, “the sons of Israel the erroneous ones,” “rebels,” “heretics,” or “the people of error.” From the chronicles to modern Samaritan history books, the split between Samaritans and Jews is said to have occurred in the time of Eli, who, according to 1 Samuel 1-4, was priest in Shiloh (modern Khirbet Seilun, approximately 30 km north of Jerusalem) in the days of Samuel’s youth, Shiloh being the site of the religious center of the Israelite tribes in the time prior to the monarchy (cf. Josh. 18:1). In Samaritan tradition, Eli tried to arrogate to himself the high priesthood on Mt. Gerizim but ended up moving to Shiloh where he set up a schismatic sanctuary. Detailed accounts of the clash between Eli and the officiating high priest Uzzi are preserved in the Samaritan Book of Joshua and in Abu l-Fatḥ’s Kitāb alTarīkh, both works incorporating modified elements from 1 Samuel and Josephus, the latter possibly via another work. The earliest extant chronicle, the Tūlīda, however, mentions neither Eli nor a schism, but laconically states that in the twenty-fifth year of the high priesthood of Uzzi God hid the holy Tabernacle that had been built by Bezalel (Exod. 31:111). The event happened in the year 3055 after Adam and put an end to the period of God’s Favor ( ; in Arabic ) on the people of Israel and marks the period of Disfavor or God’s “Turning Away” ( ). Presumably, the account of the split between the two groups was added to the Samaritan tradition only in the time after the compilation of the Tūlīda. The salient passage in the Book of Joshua conveys the essence of this conflict: 2

3

4

5

6

7

Discord had arisen between the descendant of Fînahas (ʾOzi) and his cousin Ilî (Eli), whose name being interpreted means: the insidious. This erring man was of the tribe of Itamar (Ithamar) the brother of el-ʾAzar the imâm. Now the right of administration belonged to the tribe of Fînahas, and it was the one which was offering up the sacrifices upon the brazen altar, and stone altar. And this man – the insidious – was fifty years old, and being great in riches had obtained for himself the lordship over the treasure house of the children of Isrâîl; and he had obtained, through the knowledge of magic, what he had acquired of riches, proud rank and wealth. And his self-importance being great in his own estimation, he gathered to himself a company, and said unto them: “I am one to whom to serve a boy [Uzzi] is impossible, and I will not reconcile myself to this, and I hope that ye will not be content to have me do this.” And the company answered him: “We are under thy command, and under obedience to thee; command us in whatsoever thou willest.” And he put them under covenant that they would follow him unto the place where they purposed going on the morning of the second day (of the week). And he offered up offering on the altar without salt,8 as if he was ignorant, and immediately started out on the journey with his outfit and company, and cattle, and every thing that he possessed, and settled in Seilûn (Shiloh). And he gathered the children of Isrâîl into a schismatical sect … And there was collected to him a multitude in Seilûn, and he built for himself a shrine there, and organized matters for himself in it on the model of the temple, and erected in it one altar, on which he might sacrifice and offer up offerings.9

While Uzzi was high priest in the line of Aaron’s son Eleazar and Eleazar’s son Phinehas, Eli in Samaritan tradition was priest in the line of Ithamar, Aaron’s other son who survived his father. It is noteworthy that only the Samaritans, Josephus and rabbinic sources connect Eli to Ithamar. Thus, both Uzzi and Eli were descended from Aaron, but they did not belong to the same lineage — Uzzi, being descended from the line of Eleazar and Phinehas, was the lawful high priest in the Samaritans’ opinion; Eli, being descended from the line of Ithamar, should have deferred to Uzzi despite the latter’s young age. In the Jewish Bible (Josh. 18:1) Shiloh was the place where Joshua set up the Ark of the Covenant after he had conquered the whole country. The Samaritans claim, however, that the Ark was originally set up on Mt. Gerizim and that the controversy between Eli and Uzzi caused the former to move to Shiloh with a group of like-minded Israelites, building his own sanctuary there — modeled on that on Mt. Gerizim — and causing thus a schism among the people; as Abu l-Fatḥ succinctly states: “Thus Israel was split in factions.” One of these factions set up its cult center in Shiloh (and eventually moved to Jerusalem ). While it is true that Eli alone was not the cause of the end of the period of Grace and the calamities that befell the Israelites, it is also true that the split came about because of Eli’s actions. The disastrous effect of what he did merited him the epithets “the insidious” and the “erring man,” and his death evokes the comment: “And so this man received rewards for his action in this world, and he shall also be brought to account in the next.” Clearly, it was an inner-Israelite dispute — the Book of Joshua states that Eli gathered “the children of Isrâîl into a schismatical sect” and speaks explicitly of the schism among the children of Israel; the Shiloh-faction was not seen as outsiders, but the followers of Eli continued to worship Yhwh. Following this account in the Samaritan Book of Joshua and Abu l-Fatḥ’s Kitāb is the story of Eli’s two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, their misdeeds and their demise in the battle against the nations, as well as Eli’s sudden death on learning of their fate. In all this, the compilers of the chronicles rely on 1 Samuel, modifying the biblical account as needed for their changed premises: in 1 Samuel, Eli is priest in Shiloh, but Uzzi is not mentioned; Eli himself is not evil, but his two sons are scoundrels whose “sin was very great in the sight of the Lord” (1 Sam. 2:17); their misbehavior in the sanctuary — eating from the offerings what did not belong to the priests and having intercourse with women in the sanctuary — becomes the reason why God takes away the priesthood from the house of Eli (cf. also 1 Kings 2:27); the ark plays the same role in the biblical account as in the Samaritan chronicle — it was taken from the Israelites in battle; Eli’s two sons fell and Eli died the same way in both sources. It may well be that the negative view of Shiloh in the Samaritan story of the division of the Israelite people was also influenced by the dire warnings in Jeremiah 7:12, 14; 26:6, 9: God destroyed the temple in Shiloh because of the wickedness of the people, and he may do so again if they do not mend their ways. The Samaritan chronicles explain thus the parting of the ways by having recourse to characters and stories from a portion of the Hebrew scriptures which they do not consider part of their own sacred writings, using the account in 1 Samuel selectively and adapting it to their view of the history of Israel as they saw it in the Middle Ages when the chronicles were compiled. 10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

2. The Traditional Jewish View

It goes without saying that the Samaritans’ view is rejected by the Jews. In particular, orthodox Jews — together with various Christian groups — believe that the Samaritans are a mixed people whose religion was contaminated when the Assyrians settled foreigners in the former kingdom of Israel in the eighth century B.C.E. according to a certain understanding of the account in 2 Kings 17. After one of the places where these settlers originated, Cutha in Mesopotamia (50 km north-east of Babylon, modern Hila, which lies 85 km south of Baghdad), rabbinic sources call the Samaritans by the pejorative name Kutim (Cutheans). More liberal Jews, on the other hand, admit that the Samaritans are their kin, notwithstanding important differences in beliefs and practices. An example of the contemporary orthodox view of the Samaritans is the following. As noted in the chapter on History, in 1842 the Samaritans were saved from Muslim persecution by the testimony of the Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem, Haim Abraham Gagin, who testified that the Samaritans are a branch of the children of Israel. In 2005, the website “Ask The Rabbi” of the Beit-El Yeshiva Center in the West Bank near Ramallah, published, in the category “The Nation of Israel — Who is a Jew?”, the following exchange: 18

19

20

Question: I take exception to Rabbi Lewis’ answer to a question where he stated that Samaritans are not Jewish. In 1842, the Chief Rabbi of Eretz Yisrael, Haim Gaggin, and the Bet Din in Jerusalem, stated categorically that “the Samaritans were a branch of the House of Israel”. I interpret that to mean that they have been recognized as Jews for the last 160 years. Answer: In the Tanach Kings 2 17; 24-31 the origin of the Samaritans is from tribes brought over by the Assyrian kings and they are not Jews. See also Ezra 4;2. The Rambam holds them as non Jews and in a way even worse. (Commentary on Mishna Brachot 8; 8). Rabbi Eshtori HaParchi in his book Kaftor VaFerach follows the path the Rambam went. The term “A branch of the house of Israel” given by the Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem Rabbi Avraham Chaim Gaggin does not mean at all they are Jews but that their belief in the five books of Moshe (though they twist it a lot) and in one G-d binds them in a way with the Jews, it’s a politically correct way of saying they are not Jews…. More so, though I’m no authority in Jewish history, it seems like this statement was given only to save the Samaritans from genocide by the Muslims of the time and such a statement of the chief Rabbi could protect them from being wiped out. Bottom line is the Samaritans were and remain non Jews and that is the official approach of Halachic Judaism today. Rabbi Elchanan Lewis

The above statement succinctly summarizes the current position of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel. It means that a Samaritan wanting to enter the Jewish community for whatever reason has to undergo conversion, as is illustrated by the case of the two Samaritan sisters who married Jewish men in the mid-1980s. 21

3. Modern Scholarly Views Many scholars, past and present, see the Samaritans as a branch, or a sect, of Judaism, citing various events when the split is said to have occurred. More recently, however, this view has been called into question by a number of authors. From what was said above, it becomes

apparent that the issue of the identity of the Samaritans is intimately connected with that of their origin. More precisely, we have to ask: are the Samaritans as we know them now and as they have been known for many centuries, descendants — religiously and otherwise — of the Israelite inhabitants of the North? Or are they a sect of Judaism which separated from its mother religion and eventually became a religion in its own right? We begin the following brief survey of scholarly opinions with those voices that answer the second question in the affirmative because they have been dominant for a very long time.

a. Samaritanism as a Jewish Sect More than one hundred years ago, the first scholar to present a modern synthesis of what was known about the Samaritans at the beginning of the twentieth century, James Alan Montgomery, gave his important and influential book The Samaritans the subtitle “The Earliest Jewish Sect.” In his chapter on the “The Modern Samaritans” he lays out his view that not only his own work but also that of all recent scholars studying the beliefs and practices of the Samaritans show that they are a sect of Judaism, even if anthropology says they are “Hebrews of the Hebrews.” He summarizes his discussion with the words: “The facts given in this Chapter abundantly prove the thesis that, whatever its beginning, Samaritanism has become and is a Jewish sect.” Montgomery was followed in this characterization of the Samaritans by numerous other authors. John William Lightley, for instance, devoted a long chapter to the Samaritans in his book Jewish Sects and Parties in the Time of Jesus. Marcel Simon in his short book Jewish Sects at the time of Jesus notes that the Samaritans “are a sect in the modern usage of the term” — but then does not discuss them. James D. Purvis entitled his book on the Samaritan Pentateuch The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin of the Samaritan Sect. He expressed his opinion again in a later article, “The Samaritan Problem: A Case Study in Jewish Sectarianism in the Roman Era,” affirming that Samaritanism is “an alternative form of Judaism based on a narrow dimension of the Jewish heritage,” clearly one of the Jewish sects of the Roman period, no matter what the Samaritans thought of themselves. He argued that the Samaritans must be a Judean sect because they exhibit none of the “characteristic elements of northern Israelite religion known from biblical and archaeological sources.” Among these elements Purvis enumerated the syncretistic cult practices ascribed to Bethel, the open air sanctuaries, the idiosyncratic kind of Yahwism contained in the Elephantine writings, and “the admixture of Yahwism and paganism reported in II Kings 17:24-41.” Furthermore, Shaye J. D. Cohen enumerates the Samaritans as one of the Jewish sects in his book From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, as does Lester Grabbe in his work Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian. Uriel Rappaport, in his article “Reflections on the Origins of the Samaritans,” clearly comes out in favor of designating the Samaritans a Jewish sect, rather than a people, living more or less in their own territory and having their own cultic center. Shemaryahu Talmon, too, includes Samaritanism in his discussions of the “Emergence of Jewish Sectarianism in the Early Second Temple Period.” Similarly, Hans Gerhard Kippenberg saw the origin of Samaritanism in the dissension of certain circles of Jerusalem priests who migrated to Shechem because they had entered into “mixed” marriages and were forced to leave Jerusalem. Finally, according to Frank Moore 22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Cross, Samaritanism from the Roman age on is a sect of Judaism, not a continuation — pure or mixed — of the old Israelite religion. This becomes clear, according to him, from the Samaritan Pentateuch which originated in the Hasmonean period, and also from the Yahwistic names in the Wadi Daliyeh papyri which are the same as in Judah. There is thus a long and strong tradition of seeing the Samaritans as an offshoot of Judaism, stretching from the beginnings of the modern study of Samaritanism to today and counting among its representatives leading scholars of Judaism and Samaritanism. Different scholars suggest different times when the split occurred. A major factor in all these theories is the virtual identity of the texts of the Samaritan and the Jewish Pentateuch. Since the Torah, it was reasoned, is a document of the South, i.e., of Judah, the Samaritans at one point must have taken it over and modified it in conformity with their own theology. This would account for the differences between the two texts. Recent research, however, has been chipping away at this image, and, as a consequence, the relationship between Samaritanism and Judaism is being re-examined, as we will see in the following section. 29

30

31

b. Samaritanism as Ancient Yahwism As mentioned, the Samaritans’ own view of their origin, as expressed in their medieval chronicles, is that they are the true Israelites worshiping in the place chosen by God, and those who worship in Jerusalem have gone astray when they established a sanctuary in Shiloh. The split goes back to the time of the priest Eli who was descended from Ithamar, son of Aaron. It bears underlining once more that according to the Samaritan chronicles this was a split within Israel. As pointed out above, the group that established a sanctuary in Shiloh is not seen by the Samaritans as pagans or semi-pagans, but as fellow Israelites who disagree on which sanctuary is the legitimate one. Nevertheless, from this point on there was a division within Israel even if it was never a watertight separation of the two branches, as is demonstrated by the very fact that the Samaritan chronicles construct their version of the early history of Israel in constant dialogue with the Former Prophets of the Jewish canon. Moses Gaster in his Schweich Lectures of 1925, published as The Samaritans, realized that the Samaritans’ account cannot stand up to critical scrutiny, but at the same time he believed that there must be some truth to it, “especially when it governs the whole historical development and explains many an incident mentioned in the Bible to which hitherto insufficient attention has been paid.” Despite the caveats expressed by Gaster here and there, he describes the history of the Samaritans along the lines of their chronicles. In his opinion, the latter help us understand the one-sided Old Testament accounts. Moreover, he believes that in the 3,000 years or more in which the Samaritans have lived in Shechem and worshiped on Mount Gerizim they have not changed their beliefs and practices. With regard to their Pentateuch, Gaster was convinced that the Samaritans could not have taken it over from the Jews at such a late date as the time of the destruction of their temple. Even if they were descended from the proselyte Cutheans, “the priests who came back so many centuries before and taught them the Law of God and re-established the service must have had some code or some book upon which to rest their claim of being the lawful priests entrusted with the duty of carrying out the Divine Law.” In Gaster’s opinion, the Samaritans are 32

33

34

35

undoubtedly the “last remnants of those tribes of Israel who had separated themselves from the Judeans, and had occupied the north of Palestine with the center in Sichem, the old Holy City.” Another scholar of Samaritanism who accepted the traditions in the Samaritan chronicles is John Macdonald. For him, Samaritan history begins with the time of Eli. However, unlike Gaster, he did not think that the Samaritans did not change, although he was of the opinion that they never borrowed from the Jews. Samaritanism and Judaism developed rather from a common matrix. Both had the Law, even though they differed on certain points, as was natural in an environment in which ideas were still in flux. For many years now, Bernd Jørg Diebner has put forward the thesis that Samaria and the Samaritans were originally dominant in terms of population, natural resources, and culture, although not all inhabitants of Samaria were Samaritans and worshiped on Mt. Gerizim. The latter community called itself “Israel.” With time, the Judeans outmaneuvered the Samaritans politically and militarily, and during the Hasmonean rule they appropriated for themselves what was the original Samaritan designation, “Israel.” Thus, contrary to earlier assumptions, there was no cultic separation within the once unified Israel, because this “unified Israel” came into existence only by the (small-state) Judean “Imperial Power,” religiously (kultisch) identifying itself with “Israel,” and from then on claiming to represent the “true Israel.” Moreover, the most important part of the Hebrew Bible, the Torah, seems to be based in large part on Israelite, i.e., Samaritan traditions. Despite the supremacy of Judah evident in the text, everything in the Torah was formulated in such a way that it is acceptable to “both Israel,” i.e., to the Gerizim- and to the Zion-community. The political situation at the time of the Hasmoneans made it necessary to find a common cultural code for the two communities. And this was the fundamental document of both groups, the Torah, which is thus a compromise document. Despite the tensions still detectable in the text, the important aspects are the common elements. Étienne Nodet maintains the thesis “that the Samaritans of Gerizim were the most direct heirs of the ancient Israelites and their cult.” They were the authors of the traditions in the Hexateuch (Pentateuch plus Joshua), except for the weekly Sabbath. Judaism was imported from Babylon and “was made up of ancestral traditions and memories of the Kingdom of Juda.” The Samaritans are thus considered to be the original Israelites who continued traditions which derive from Joshua and were unconnected to Moses. Only when a lay group arrived in Judah from Babylon bringing with it the weekly Sabbath, did the Samaritans revise their scripture which then became the common Pentateuch. Nodet makes a further contribution to this discussion in his recent book Samaritains, Juifs, Temples. In it, he advances anew the proposition that the Samaritans of Shechem are the heirs of the ancient Israelites and not corrupt Jewish dissidents as Josephus would have his readers believe, nor are they a group of syncretists as 2 Kings 17:24-41 depicts them. In Nodet’s opinion, during the early Persian period there existed two Israelite cult centers — one on Mt. Gerizim and one in Jerusalem; they were not yet temples but open precincts with an altar and had been erected by traditional Yahwistic circles of the South and the North, represented, on the Judean side, by Zerubbabel and the high priest Joshua son of Jehozadaq, 36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

and, on the Samaritan side, by Sanballat. Their Yahwistic monotheism was limited to Israel. Later in the Persian period, the first wave of immigrants from Babylon and, in particular, the prophets Haggai and Zechariah in Judea, insisted on a temple for the universalistic monotheistic Yhwh cult. A temple was built in Jerusalem and, in imitation of it, Sanballat built one on Mt. Gerizim. And finally, there was a third party, immigrants from Babylon who had arrived in a second wave. They were reformers and were represented by Ezra and Nehemiah, distancing themselves from the cult, emphasizing instead parabiblical teaching and cultivating a separatist attitude with themselves representing the true Israel as opposed to the local Israelites whom they likened to the local pagans. The cultural, economic and military predominance of the North, Israel, over the South, Judah, has also been underlined on the basis of archaeological and historical research by Israel Finkelstein. Furthermore, it has been shown that the North is the source of such accounts as the Jacob cycle, the narratives about the heroes in Judges 3-9, the Exodus tradition, and the books of Hosea and Amos. These segments, written probably in the first half of the eighth century B.C.E., were brought, together with oral traditions, to the South by Northern refugees from the Assyrians. They then became part of the Bible that was eventually written by Judahites in Jerusalem. The latter adapted and incorporated the Northern traditions either because they fit in with their ideology or because the Judahites needed to come to terms with the refugees from Israel. In the process, and in competition with the original Israelites, the Samaritans, the South applied the name “Israel” to a unified Hebrew nation ruled by Davidic kings and acknowledging the temple in Jerusalem as the only legitimate sanctuary. Two new books are dedicated to the question of the origin of the Samaritans. One is Magnar Kartveit’s The Origin of the Samaritans and the other is Gary Knoppers’ Jews and Samaritans: The Origins and History of Their Early Relations. On the basis of a detailed analysis of biblical and post-biblical literary and epigraphic sources Kartveit concludes that the building of the temple on Mt. Gerizim caused the split between the two religions: “The moment of birth of the Samaritans was the construction of the temple on Mount Gerizim,” most likely in the first part of the fourth century B.C.E. in Kartveit’s opinion. The erection of the Gerizim temple and the rejection of the Northerners by Jerusalem went hand in hand. Although the Northerners were Yhwh worshipers, the fact that they had not been exiled was possibly their “basic flaw.” It was the returnees who brought about a split by not accepting the people of the land. Eventually, the returnees became the Jews of Jerusalem, and elements of the people of the land came to be the Jews of Samaria, i.e., the Samaritans. It should be noted, however, that the construction of the temple alone cannot have been the cause of the division. Apart from the fact that there were other Yahwistic temples in Palestine — even if they were of lesser duration and importance than the Gerizim temple — there is ample proof that the two peoples maintained continuing contacts for a long time after the construction of the Gerizim temple. It is therefore unlikely that this was the point where the two communities parted company. The continuing contacts between the two communities and their implications for our understanding of the history of the Samaritans were emphasized in the second recent book on 44

45

46

47

48

49

the subject — Gary Knoppers’ monograph Jews and Samaritans, published only four years after Kartveit’s book. Although Knoppers too analyzes the literary and epigraphic sources that shed light on the developing relationships between Judeans and Samarians, he draws also on the evidence that material culture — brought to light through archaeology and surveys — provides in assessing the relationship between Yahwistic Judahites/Judeans and Yahwistic Samarians in the biblical period. He shows that throughout the time from the conquest of northern Israel by the neo-Assyrians to the Hellenistic and Roman periods, there were Yhwhworshiping Israelites in Samaria who interacted in many different ways with the Yhwhworshiping Judahites/Judeans. And even though he too concludes that the destruction of the Gerizim temple by John Hyrcanus I (134-104 B.C.E.) must have been the decisive event that precipitated the breach between Samarian Yahwists and Judean Yahwists, he, with other scholars, emphasizes that this was not an absolute schism, but contacts between members of the two religions continued. As the above review of recent scholarship shows, the idea that the Samaritans are not latecomers nor an offspring of early Judaism is gaining ground in the scholarly world. Diebner, Nodet, Fleming, Israel Finkelstein and other authors believe that the Judeans of Jerusalem wrote them out of Israelite history by appropriating to themselves the title “Israel” and making the Pentateuch a predominantly southern document. At the very least, it is accepted opinion that there were always Yhwh-worshiping Samarians in the North who had a part in the composition of the Pentateuch, and that the split was one within the Israelite people. In other words, Yahwism did not disappear from the North with the Assyrian conquest of the region in the late eighth century B.C.E. despite repeated statements in 2 Kings 17 that King Shalmanasser of Assyria conquered Samaria and “carried the Israelites away to Assyria” (v. 6), and that “none [of the Israelites] was left but the tribe of Judah alone” (v. 18). Although initially there was a diminution of the population, the area soon prospered again. As is well known, 2 Kings 17 is a composite passage containing commentaries from different periods. The notion of the “empty (Samarian) land” has been recognized to be a myth. The Samarian Yahwists remaining in the land outnumbered the foreigners brought in by the Assyrians and soon absorbed the latter. 2 Kings expresses this in the story of the lions attacking the inhabitants for not worshiping Yhwh and the priest sent back from exile by the Assyrian king to teach the newcomers the right worship. The historical reality as revealed by a critical assessment of the texts and by archaeology is one of continued settlement by Yahwistic Israelites in the North from the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian occupation through the Achaemenid and Hellenistic periods. That the inhabitants of the North were not considered pagans is evident from the attitude displayed in the Book of Chronicles. Whereas older scholarship saw the book’s attitude as anti-Samaritan, contemporary works on Chronicles have shown that the author accepted the Samarian Yahwists as part of the Israelite people. Of course, in the Persian period Yahwists in Judea looked back to the Babylonian exile, and certain leaders of the returnees had their own particular views as to who belonged to Israel and who did not, and this comes to the fore in some of the literature that has its roots in this period, particularly in Ezra-Nehemiah. But there are no indications that there were 50

51

52

53

54

fundamental religious differences between the North and the South. The Samarian and Samaritan onomastica from the Persian and Hellenistic times also show that there was no difference between them and the Jewish onomastica. The Wadi Daliyeh papyri from the middle of the fourth century B.C.E. demonstrate that the great majority of the wealthy inhabitants of the city of Samaria who left the documents behind bore Yahwistic names. A governor of Samaria had an Akkadian name, Sinʾuballiṭ (Sanballaṭ), but his sons had Yahwistic names — Delaiah ( ) and Shelemiah ( ). Another governor was named (Ḥa)naniah or (ʿA)naniah. Moreover, the names of the two Judean leaders Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel are not Yahwistic names either, as has been repeatedly pointed out. In the thirdsecond centuries B.C.E. some pilgrims to Mt. Gerizim came from the city of Samaria, as is proven by votive inscriptions unearthed on Mt. Gerizim. These inscriptions show that in the Hellenistic period the names of the persons who worshiped and made donations on Mt. Gerizim are indistinguishable from the names in vogue in contemporary Jerusalem. They include the name “Yehudah”/“Yehud” as well as biblical names which are not taken from the Pentateuch but from books which are not part of the Samaritan canon, such as Elnathan, Delaiah, and Zabdi. Such usage continues in much later periods. Several high priests, for instance, are named Hezekiah and Jonathan. In other words, Samarians and Judeans not only shared their faith in Yhwh, but were in contact with each other throughout these times. That there were tensions between the two communities, or between certain groups within these communities, can be seen in the book of Ezra-Nehemiah. But at the same time, it is clear that these quarrels did not cause a break between Judeans and Samarians. Nor did the building of a temple on Mt. Gerizim, first erected probably in mid- or late fifth-century B.C.E. and enlarged in the Hellenistic period. Rather, each community held fast to its sanctuary without rejecting the other out of hand. Amicable contacts between the leaders of the two communities are documented in the Elephantine papyri from the late fifth century B.C.E. when the Jews in Elephantine sought support for their attempt to rebuild their temple from both the authorities in Judea and those in Samaria. The command to worship in only one sanctuary in Deuteronomy 12 was interpreted by each community to refer to their temple. This state of affairs has consequences for the formation of the Pentateuch, that is, the Pentateuch is the product of both North and South. The relationship between Judeans and Samaritans deteriorated in the Hellenistic period until it reached a low point with the destruction of the Mt. Gerizim temple by John Hyrcanus in 111/110 B.C.E. Clearly, from then on the atmosphere changed. Josephus (War 1:62-63//Ant. 13:254-256; Ant. 18:29-30; Ant. 18:85-89; War 2:232-246//Ant. 20:118-136; War 3:307-315) and the New Testament (Matt. 10:5b-6; Luke 9:51-53; John 4:4-42; 8:48) portray the animosity between the two groups. It was probably around the turn of the eras that certain texts in the Pentateuch were adjusted to reflect the respective theologies of the two communities. Thus, the origin of the Samaritans as a religion different from Judaism with its own sacred writings, center of worship, functioning priesthood, attitude to the halakhah and exegesis of the Pentateuch, is to be dated in the second century B.C.E. But notwithstanding this development, contacts continued in many areas of religious life, such as the synagogue, 55

56

57

miqvaʾot (ritual baths) and religious texts ranging from the Prophets and Writings of the Jewish Bible to Maimonides’ schema of 613 precepts and even to modern literature. However, the influence eventually seems to have been one-directional — from the numerically and culturally stronger Judaism to the smaller sister religion of Samaritanism. Although the two communities never lived in total isolation from each other — neither before the second century B.C.E. nor after — they did go their separate ways in fundamental doctrinal and ritual matters. In conclusion, all the evidence shows that the Samaritans are not a sect that broke off from Judaism, but rather a branch of Yahwistic Israel in the same sense as the Jews.

58

1. A perusal of publications about the Samaritans would show that many popular as well as scholarly writings begin with this question. The above is Paul Stenhouse’s formulation of it, the “what” referring to the identification of the Samaritans by many as a sect of Judaism. See Paul Stenhouse, “The Chronicle of Abu ʾl-Fatḥ and Samaritan Origins: 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah Viewed Through the Prism of Samaritan Tradition,” in Die Samaritaner und die Bibel: Historische und literarische Wechselwirkungen zwischen biblischen und samaritanischen Traditionen = The Samaritans and the Bible: Historical and Literary Interactions between Biblical and Samaritan Traditions, ed. Jörg Frey, Ursula Schattner-Rieser, and Konrad Schmid (Studia Judaica, 70, Studia Samaritana, 7; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012), p. 311. 2. Stenhouse, “The Chronicle of Abu ʾl-Fatḥ,” pp. 305-06. 3. Benyamim Tsedaka, Summary of the History of the Israelite-Samaritans [in Hebrew] (Holon, Israel: A. B. Institute of Samaritan Studies Press, 2001), p. 6. 4. See also the account in Elkan Nathan Adler and Max Séligsohn, “Une nouvelle chronique samaritaine,” REJ 44 (1902): 205-06. For an evaluation of these accounts in the chronicles, see Magnar Kartveit, “The Origin of the Jews and Samaritans According to the Samaritan Chronicles,” in “Durch Dein Wort ward jegliches Ding!”: 2. Mandäistische und samaritanistische Tagung: Zum Gedenken an Rudolf Macuch (1919-1993) = “Through Thy Word All Things Were Made!”: 2nd International Conference of Mandaic and Samaritan Studies, ed. Rainer Voigt (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2013), pp. 283-97. 5. Moshe Florentin, The Tulida: A Samaritan Chronicle: Text, Translation, Commentary [in Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Yad Yitzchak Ben Zvi; The Rabbi David Moshe and Amalia Rosen Foundation, 1999), p. 76. 6. See Deut. 31:18: “And I will surely hide My face from them in that day, because of all the evil which they have done. For they have turned to other gods.” SP, translation from Benyamim Tsedaka, ed. and trans., The Israelite Samaritan Version of the Torah: First English Translation Compared with the Masoretic Version (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), p. 480; differences from MT in italics. Contrary to Cowley and other scholars, Kippenberg understands the “turning away” not as an act of God, but as Israel’s apostasy. See Hans Gerhard Kippenberg, Garizim und Synagoge: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur samaritanischen Religion der aramäischen Periode, RVV, 30 (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1971), p. 239. It should be pointed out that in this verse the readings of the Samaritan Pentateuch are also present in other versions. 7. This is also the opinion of Kartveit, “The Origin of the Jews and Samaritans,” p. 284. 8. According to Lev. 2:13, to every offering salt was to be added; Eli purposefully neglected to observe this command. 9. Theodorus Guilielmus Johannes Juynboll, Chronicon Samaritanum, Arabice conscriptum, cui titulus est Liber Josuae (Lugduni Batavorum: S. & J. Luchtmans, 1848), ch. 43 (text); Oliver Turnbull Crane, trans., The Samaritan Chronicle or the Book of Joshua, the Son of Nun: Translated from the Arabic with Notes (New York: John B. Alden, 1890), pp. 108-09. Abu l-Fatḥ’s Kitāb al-Tarīkh relies on the Book of Joshua as one of its sources, but introduces modifications into the story. 10. Cf. Christopher T. Begg, Judean Antiquities, Books 5-7, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, vol. 4 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), p. 92 n. 1065; and Christopher T. Begg, “The Loss of the Ark According to Josephus,” Liber Annuus 46 (1996): 181 n. 94. 11. Paul Stenhouse, The Kitāb al-Tarīkh of Abū ʾl-Fatḥ: Translated into English with Notes (Studies in Judaica, 1; Sydney: Mandelbaum Trust, University of Sydney, 1985), p. 48. 12. See Stenhouse, Kitāb, p. 66. 13. Juynboll, Chronicon Samaritanum, chapter 44 (text); Crane, The Samaritan Chronicle, p. 111 (translation). 14. Juynboll, Chronicon Samaritanum, chapters 43 and 44 (text); Crane, The Samaritan Chronicle, pp. 109 and 110 (translation). 15. This was pointed out by Gary Knoppers, who strongly underlines the wider context of the account which has as its aim “to provide a broad construction of the Israelite past.” See Gary N. Knoppers, “Samaritan Conceptions of Jewish Origins and Jewish Conceptions of Samaritan Origins: Any Common Ground?” in Die Samaritaner und die Bibel: Historische und literarische Wechselwirkungen zwischen biblischen und samaritanischen Traditionen = The Samaritans and the Bible: Historical and Literary Interactions between Biblical and Samaritan Traditions, ed. Jörg Frey, Ursula Schattner-Rieser, and Konrad Schmid (Studia Judaica, 70, Studia Samaritana, 7; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012), pp. 110 and 115. 16. According to Abu l-Fatḥ, a third group split off from the Yhwh-worshiping Israelites and turned to false gods (Stenhouse, Kitāb, p. 48). 17. Although 1 Samuel 2:29 and 3:13 ascribe guilt to Eli. 18. See the following chapter, “Samaritans in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament?” 19. See below the chapter, “Samaritans in Jewish Writings of Antiquity.” 20. http://www.yeshiva.co/ask/. See also the section on the Ottoman period in the chapter “The Samaritans in History.” 21. See the chapter later in this study entitled “The Samaritans Today.” 22. James Alan Montgomery, The Samaritans, The Earliest Jewish Sect: Their History, Theology and Literature (Philadelphia: The J. C. Winston Co., 1907), p. 27.

23. Montgomery, The Samaritans, p. 45. 24. Marcel Simon, Jewish Sects and Parties in the Time of Jesus, trans. James H. Farley (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967), p. 7. 25. James D. Purvis, The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin of the Samaritan Sect, Harvard Semitic Monographs, 2 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968); James D. Purvis, “The Samaritan Problem: A Case Study in Jewish Sectarianism in the Roman Era,” in Traditions in Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith, ed. Baruch Halpern and Jon D. Levenson (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981), p. 324 (both quotations). 26. Purvis, The Samaritan Pentateuch, p. 92. 27. Uriel Rappaport, “Reflections on the Origins of the Samaritans,” in Studies in Geography and History in Honour of Yehoshua Ben-Arieh, ed. Yossi Ben-Artzi, Israel Bartal, and Elchanan Reiner (Jerusalem: Magnes Press; Hebrew University; The Israel Exploration Society, 1999), p. 17. 28. Kippenberg, Garizim und Synagoge, pp. 57-58. 29. Frank Moore Cross, “Samaria and Jerusalem in the Era of Restoration,” in From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel, ed. Frank Moore Cross (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), p. 175. 30. Cross, “Samaria and Jerusalem,” p. 201. 31. Cross, “Samaria and Jerusalem,” p. 175 n. 10. For a more recent analysis, see Frank Moore Cross, “Personal Names in the Samaria Papyri,” BASOR 344 (2006): 75-90. We may now add that the names found in inscriptions on Mt. Gerizim are also the same as in Judah, including names which are taken from non-pentateuchal books of the Bible (see below). 32. The idea of an inner Israelite struggle is underlined in the modern popular presentation from an anonymous author, “The Samaritan-Israelites and Their Religion: Educational Guide” (Ḥolon, 2004), pp. 4-5. 33. Moses Gaster, The Samaritans: Their History, Doctrines and Literature (The Schweich Lectures 1923; London: Oxford University Press, 1925), p. 6. 34. Gaster, The Samaritans, p. 45. 35. Gaster, The Samaritans, p. 112. 36. Gaster, The Samaritans, p. 15. 37. John Macdonald, The Theology of the Samaritans (New Testament Library; London: SCM Press, 1964), p. 29. 38. Bernd Jørg Diebner, “Die Konzeption der hebräisch-aramäischen ‘Bibel’ (TNK) und die Definition der judäischen kulturellen Identität ‘Israel’ gegenüber der samaritanischen Kultgemeinde Israel seit dem 2. Jh. v.Chr.,” HBO 31 (2001), p. 165. 39. Bernd Jørg Diebner, Seit wann gibt es “jenes Israel”?: Gesammelte Studien zum TNK und zum antiken Judentum, ed. Veit Dinkelaker, Benedikt Hensel, and Frank Zeidler (Beiträge zum Verstehen der Bibel, 17; Berlin: Lit Verlag, 2011), p. 47. (Repr. with some updates from Bernd Jørg Diebner, “Juda und Israel: Zur hermeneutischen Bedeutung der Spannung zwischen Judäa und Samarien für das Verständnis des TNK als Literatur,” in Landgabe: Festschrift für Jan Heller zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. M. Prudký [Praha: ISE, ed. Oikúmené, 1995].) 40. Diebner, “Das Buch Bereʾshith/Genesis als gemeinsamer kultureller Code für die großen jüdischen Konfessionen, die Garizim- und die ZionsGemeinde, zur Zeit ihrer politisch erzwungenen Koexistenz (2. Jh. v.Chr.–1. Jh. n.Chr.),” in Gemeinsame kulturelle Codes in koexistierenden Religionsgemeinschaften: Leucorea-Kolloquium 2003, ed. Ute Pietruschka (Hallesche Beiträge zur Orientwissenschaft, 38; Halle: Institut für Orientalistik, 2004), p. 143. 41. Étienne Nodet, A Search for the Origins of Judaism: From Joshua to the Mishnah (JSOTSup, 248; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), p. 12. See also most recently Nodet, “Israelites, Samaritans, Temples, Jews,” in Samaria, Samarians, Samaritans: Studies on Bible, History and Linguistics, ed. József Zsengellér (Studia Judaica, 66; Studia Samaritana, 6; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011), p. 121: “the Samaritans of Shechem are the heirs of the early Israelites, and not a downgraded Jewish sect as old Judean traditions and many modern scholars claim.” 42. Nodet, A Search for the Origins of Judaism, p. 12. 43. Étienne Nodet, Samaritains, Juifs, Temples (Cahiers de la Revue Biblique, 74; Paris: J. Gabalda, 2010). For a slightly revised English version see Nodet, “Israelites, Samaritans, Temples, Jews,” pp. 121-71. 44. See now Israel Finkelstein’s latest book, The Forgotten Kingdom: The Archaeology and History of Northern Israel (Ancient Near East Monographs, 5; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013), p. 162 and other passages. 45. See Daniel E. Fleming, The Legacy of Israel in Judah’s Bible (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012), p. 308 and his detailed discussions in Part II of the book (pp. 39-176); cf. also Finkelstein, The Forgotten Kingdom, p. 3 and pp. 141-51. 46. See Finkelstein, The Forgotten Kingdom, p. 163. 47. Magnar Kartveit, The Origin of the Samaritans (VTSup, 128; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2009); Gary N. Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans: The Origins and History of Their Early Relations (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013). 48. Kartveit, The Origin of the Samaritans, p. 351. 49. Kartveit, The Origin of the Samaritans, p. 370. 50. See the chapters later in this study, “The Samaritans in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament?” and “Samaritans in Jewish Writings of Antiquity.” 51. For similar assessments see József Zsengellér, Gerizim as Israel: Northern Tradition of the Old Testament and the Early History of the Samaritans/Gerizim als Israel. Noordelijke Traditie van het Oude Testament en de Vroege Geschiedenis van de Samaritanen (met een samenvatting in het Nederlands) (Utrechtse Theologische Reeks, 38; Utrecht: Faculteit der Godgeleerdheid, Universiteit Utrecht, 1998); Ingrid Hjelm, The Samaritans and Early Judaism: A Literary Analysis (JSOTSup, 303 = Copenhagen International Seminar, 7; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000); and Ingrid Hjelm, Jerusalem’s Rise to Sovereignty: Zion and Gerizim in Competition (JSOTSup, 404 = Copenhagen International Seminar, 14; London; New York: T & T Clark International, 2004). 52. However, see Diebner’s opinion, above. On the bi-directional deportations in the neo-Assyrian empire see now also Yigal Levin, “Bi-Directional Forced Deportations in the Neo-Assyrian Empire and the Origins of the Samaritans,” Archaeological Review from Cambridge 28 (2013): 217-40. 53. If not stated otherwise, the English translations of the Bible are from the NRSV. 54. For references see Reinhard Pummer, The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism, 129; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), p. 65. 55. For thorough discussions of the Wadi Daliyeh papyri and bullae, see Jan Dušek, Les manuscrits araméens du Wadi Daliyeh et la Samarie vers 450332 av. J.-C. (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East, 30; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2007).

56. Yitzhak Magen, Haggai Misgav and Levana Tsfania, Mount Gerizim Excavations, Volume 1: The Aramaic, Hebrew and Samaritan Inscriptions (Judea & Samaria Publications, 2; Jerusalem: Staff Officer of Archaeology — Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria; Israel Antiquities Authority, 2004), pp. 25-26 and p. 85; Jan Dušek, Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions from Mt. Gerizim and Samaria between Antiochus III and Antiochus IV Epiphanes (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East, 54; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2012); and Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans, pp. 126-32. 57. See the chapter below on “The Samaritan Pentateuch.” 58. See also Reinhard Pummer, “Samaritanism: A Jewish Sect or an Independent Form of Yahwism?” in Samaritans: Past and Present: Current Studies, ed. Menachem Mor and Friedrich V. Reiterer (Studia Judaica, 53, Studia Samaritana, 5; Berlin; New York: De Gruyter, 2010), p. 16. On the 613 precepts see below, the Malef, in the chapter “Samaritan Literature.”

II. Samaritans in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament? Many students of the Bible take it for granted that the Old Testament in various books speaks about or refers to the Samaritans, either directly or indirectly. One passage that most often is thought to be a direct reference to Samaritans and to explain their origin is 2 Kings 17:24-41. It is, however, not the only Old Testament passage that is thought to deal with the origin and nature of the Samaritans or to polemicize against them. In particular, Ezra-Nehemiah is adduced by some scholars as evidence for the split and ongoing enmity between the two communities — Jews and Samaritans. In what follows, the most pertinent biblical texts will be analyzed in view of their possible relationship to the Samaritans. Traditionally, the first mention of the Samaritans in the Bible was believed to occur in 2 Kings 17:29 where the English translations, from the King James Version to the Revised Standard Version, translate the Hebrew with “the Samaritans.” 2 Kings 17:24-41 was then considered to recount the origins of this religious community. To quote only two examples of this view, the New Jerusalem Bible, published in 1985, entitles the particular section in 2 Kings “The origin of the Samaritans.” Similarly the revised version of Die Bibel nach der Übersetzung Martin Luthers (The Bible in the Translation by Martin Luther, 1984) entitles this section “Die Entstehung des Volkes der Samaritaner” (The Origin of the Samaritan People). As a result of continued research into the biblical text and, in particular, into the origins of the Samaritans, various Bible translations have changed and have replaced the translation “the Samaritans” with the phrase “the people of Samaria,” as do the New Revised Standard Version (1989), the translation of the New Jewish Publication Society (1985), and the German Einheitsübersetzung (“die Bewohner Samariens”), to name only some of the most widely used translations. These translations are based on the realization that, understood by itself, that is, without reading later interpretations into the text, the pericope does not describe the origin of the Samaritans, but states that “the people of Samaria” had previously, i.e., before their deportation to Assyria, put up “shrines of the high places” into which the imported nations placed their gods. This is not the place to undertake a detailed and comprehensive analysis of the passages pertaining to the relationship between Samaria and Judea according to the biblical accounts. Keeping in line with the purpose of this book, the present state of research on this question will be briefly summarized. During the reign of the Israelite king Menahem (ca. 746-737 B.C.E.) Samaria was made an Assyrian puppet state by Tiglath-Pileser III (745-727 B.C.E.). When Hoshea, the last king of Israel (ca. 732-724 B.C.E.), changed his loyalty to Egypt, ceasing to submit tribute to Assyria (2 Kings 17:4), the Assyrian king Shalmaneser V (727-722 B.C.E.) arrested him (2 Kings 17:4) and besieged Samaria. It was probably his successor Sargon II (722-705 B.C.E.) who conquered it in 722 B.C.E. and integrated it into the Assyrian empire. During his reign he deported a part of the Israelites, as Tiglath-Pileser III had done already (cf. 2 Kings 15:29), and replaced them with foreigners from various parts of the Assyrian empire. The account in 2 Kings describes the fall of the northern kingdom in the eighth century B.C.E. at the hands of the Assyrians. The latter are said to have deported the Israelites to 1

2

3

4

5

6

Assyria and settled them there: (5) Then the king of Assyria invaded all the land and came to Samaria; for three years he besieged it. (6) In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria captured Samaria; he carried the Israelites away to Assyria. He placed them in Halah, on the Habor, the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes. (17:5-6)

The inhabitants of the kingdom of Samaria were then replaced by people from five Mesopotamian cities: (24) The king of Assyria brought people from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath, and Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria in place of the people of Israel; they took possession of Samaria, and settled in its cities. (17:24)

Thus, according to 2 Kings, all of Israel was emptied of its original citizens and the land was resettled by foreigners. The new settlers were polytheists and are said not to have worshiped Yhwh who, therefore, sent lions that killed some of them. When the Assyrian king was informed of this, he sent an Israelite priest from among the deported population of the North to teach the newcomers the right religion. They did not, however, cease to worship their own gods, but on the contrary, set up images of them “in the shrines of the high places that the people of Samaria had made” (17:29). The Bible emphasizes repeatedly that they worshiped Yhwh and at the same time their own gods (17:33-34a and 41), and this practice is said to have continued “to this day” (17:34 and 41). Immediately after v. 34a, however, the biblical author claims “They do not worship the Lord and they do not follow the statutes or the ordinances or the law or the commandment that the Lord commanded the children of Jacob, whom he named Israel,” a statement that clearly is at variance with the accusation that the people worshiped Yhwh and other gods. Clearly, the passage combines different sources (see below). As indicated, 2 Kings 17 is the account that forms the basis of later accusations that the Samaritans are syncretists whose allegiance to Yhwh is suspect because it was contaminated in the Assyrian period by the veneration of pagan deities, an accusation that stigmatized them in the minds of many Jews and Christians up to modern times, and even the later pejorative designation “Cutheans” goes back to this understanding of the story in 2 Kings. As already stated, it is derived from Cuthah, the name of the place of one group of the new settlers who were brought to Samaria by the Assyrian king. As far as we know, the term was first applied to the Samaritans by Josephus and later by the rabbis in their writings, such as the Mishna, the Talmud, and the Midrashim. In addition to the biblical account of the fall of Samaria we have Mesopotamian sources about the event, such as inscriptions, reliefs, the Eponym Chronicle, and the Babylonian Chronicle. But similar to the biblical text, they are complex and have given rise to different theories as to what took place — was Samaria razed and emptied of its original population or was there only a partial destruction and the majority of the Israelites remained in the country? And which king in fact conquered Samaria — Shalmaneser V or Sargon II? The various components of 2 Kings 17:24-41 and their possible meanings have been 7

8

9

differently assessed by different scholars. To begin with, chapter 17 of 2 Kings has three principal segments: vv. 1-6 describe briefly the reign of Hoshea; the fall of Samaria at the hands of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser; and the deportation of the Israelites to Assyria. This is followed by a Deuteronomistic commentary in vv. 7-23, listing reasons why Samaria fell: “the people of Israel had sinned against the Lord their God … They had worshipped other gods and walked in the customs of the nations whom the Lord drove out before the people of Israel, and in the customs that the kings of Israel had introduced.” Vv. 24-41 consist of two further Deuteronomistic commentaries (2 Kings 17:24-34a and 34b-40), describing the resettlement of Samaria by foreigners and the religious customs of the population (v. 41 restates what was said in vv. 32-34a). 2 Kings 17:24-41 can be read in such a way that the two last mentioned commentaries depict the population of Samaria in two different ways: vv. 24-34a paint the inhabitants of Samaria ethnically as foreigners, but religiously as conservative — they worship their own gods, but they also worship Yhwh. According to vv. 34b-40, on the other hand, they did not worship Yhwh, but they are sons of Jacob, i.e., they are ethnically the same as before the Assyrian conquest. Nevertheless, this text paints the inhabitants of the North as ethnically and religiously suspect, and it was with this brush that the later Samaritans were painted. Recent archaeological investigations have shown that the northern and western zones of Samaria soon recovered from the ravages of the Assyrian attacks and prospered during the Persian period. Settlements increased greatly in numbers and the system of roads was expanded. Although evidence for the city of Samaria is very sparse, from the fact that the region around it was densely populated it may be inferred that it “was one of the most important [cities] in Palestine.” In comparison with Jerusalem and Judah, Samaria the region and the city were not only larger, but also more densely settled and enjoyed greater material wealth. In the words of Knoppers, “During the Achaemenid era, members of the Judean elite were not dealing with a depopulated outback to the north. Quite the contrary, they were dealing with a province that was larger, better-established, and considerably more populous than was Yehud.” Language and scripts known from papyri, coins and bullae were substantially the same in Persian Judea and Samaria. Similarly, the two regions shared common proper names. All this evidence shows that, on the one hand, 2 Kings 17:24-41 does not speak of the later Samaritans, and, on the other, the population living in the north was at no time composed only of foreign settlers, but comprised Yhwh-worshiping Israelites throughout the history of the area. In short, it is now generally accepted by biblical studies that the events recounted in 2 Kings 17 do not constitute the Ursprungslegende (myth of origin) of the Samaritans. Similar as in the case of 2 Kings 17, in the past many scholars saw anti-Samaritan polemics in the Book of Chronicles, whereby they assumed that 1 and 2 Chronicles and EzraNehemiah have the same authors. To quote only one older and one more recent example from introductions to the Old Testament: Otto Eissfeldt in his book, The Old Testament: An Introduction, published in 1965, writes that the goal of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah is “to prove that in contrast with the godless northern kingdom, it is only the southern kingdom Judah, with its Davidic dynasty and its Jerusalem Temple, which is the true Israel … and not 10

11

12

13

14

15

the religious community of the Samaritans, which was in the process of coming into being at the time of the Chronicler.” In the more recent Einleitung in das Alte Testament, fifth edition, edited by Erich Zenger in 2004, Heinz-Josef Fabry saw a schism between the Samaritans and the southern state reflected in, among other passages, 2 Chronicles 13:3-18. In the eighth edition of the same work (2012), however, he no longer speaks of a schism at the end of the Persian period and omits the reference to 2 Chronicles. Recent research has not only shown that Ezra-Nehemiah do not have the same author as Chronicles, but also that Chronicles does not polemicize against the Samaritans. Its author certainly took the existence of Yhwh worshipers in the North for granted. According to him, priests, Levites, and people “from all the tribes of Israel [came] to Jerusalem to sacrifice to the Lord” (2 Chr. 11:13-17). The Judahite King Abijah addresses the northern Israelites in 2 Chronicles 13 in a major speech; in it, he holds out the possibility of repentance for them. Under King Asa “great numbers had deserted to him from Israel when they saw that the Lord his God was with him” (2 Chr. 15:9). They gathered around him in Jerusalem, sacrificed to Yhwh and “entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their ancestors, with all their heart and with all their soul” (2 Chr. 15:9-15). During the reign of Ahaz, a prophet of Yhwh, Oded, spoke to the Israelites in Samaria, persuading them to release the Judahite prisoners that they had taken (2 Chr. 28:8-15). King Hezekiah “sent word to all Israel and Judah, and wrote letters also to Ephraim and Manasseh, that they should come to the house of the Lord at Jerusalem, to keep the passover to the Lord the God of Israel” (2 Chr. 30:1). Clearly, the inhabitants of Samaria are addressed as Israelites; there is no trace in the text of forced emigrations or settlements of foreigners. The cultic reforms carried out by Hezekiah extended to Ephraim and Manasseh (2 Chr. 31:1). Similarly, Josiah implemented his reforms in “the towns of Manasseh, Ephraim, and Simeon, and as far as Naphtali” (2 Chr. 34:6) and “made all who were in Israel worship the Lord their God” (2 Chr. 34:33). Thus, for the Chronicler, the Northerners were Yhwh worshipers, not foreign pagans. As in the case of 2 Kings 17:24-41, Josephus is the first to read the later conflicts between Jews and Samaritans into the biblical accounts of the events following the return from the Babylonian exile in the late sixth century B.C.E. in his version of events narrated in 1 Esdras and Ezra-Nehemiah (Ant. 11:19-20 and 11:84-88). Here too, Josephus is followed by many modern authors. In Ant. 11:19, in his description of the attempts of the surrounding nations trying to prevent the rebuilding of the temple, he singles out the Cutheans as particularly hostile, bribing the satraps and other leaders, and in Ant. 11:84 he states that the Samaritans were known by the name “Cutheans.” It is especially Ezra 4 that has been seen by many commentators to refer to the Samaritans. Thus, the Jerusalem Bible entitles the pericope Ezra 4:1-5 “Opposition from the Samaritans: their tactics under Cyrus,” and vv. 6-23 “Samaritan tactics under Xerxes and Artaxerxes.” It is evident that terminological decisions are especially important here. Ezra 4:1-5 speaks of the “enemies of Judah and Benjamin” who wanted to help the returnees from the exile rebuild the Temple of Yhwh in Jerusalem but were rebuffed. V. 2b mentions that these enemies had been brought in by the Assyrian king Esarhaddon (ca. 681-669 B.C.E.) and were worshipping the same god as the Judeans. Although Esarhaddon began to rule several decades after the colonization referred to in 2 Kings 17:24, the mention of foreign settlers was apt to evoke in the minds of the readers the 16

17

18

19

20

21

importees of an earlier time and contributed to the view that Ezra 4:1-5 has the Samaritans in mind. The narrative then continues and claims in v. 4 that the “people of the land” tried everything in their power to prevent the people of Judah from accomplishing their task. Various suggestions as to the identity of the “people of the land” in this passage have been made. A number of authors believe that the “enemies of Judah and Benjamin” and the “people of the land” were “Israelites who remained in the land and the survivors of the colonies settled under the Assyrians.” Again others point out that the redactor nowhere suggests that the phrase “people of the land” means in this context descendants of Judeans who had not been in exile. Rather, it refers to the “satrapal officials who administered government,” and the redactor made the erroneous assumption that they were the descendants of the foreigners settled in the country by the Assyrians. Other authors reject this hypothesis and believe that the phrase is used to designate a group of people who are relevant to a given context, but whose exact identity is deliberately left unmentioned. Others see in the “enemies of Judah and Benjamin” northern Yahwists. This is also the opinion of Sebastian Grätz. In his view, “most of the adversaries in Ezra 4 are closely linked to the contemporary Samarian population which is said to have been the result of the Assyrian policy of resettlement in the 8th and 7th centuries B.C.E.” The aims of portraying the adversaries of Judah were, one, to exemplify the numerous troubles of the restoration after the exile, and, two, to delimit the Judean society by depicting outsiders — even if they were Yhwh worshipers — as enemies. This broad diversity of opinions demonstrates the difficulty of identifying the people named in the passage. In any event, the Samaritan interpretation put forward by Josephus clearly is tendentious and is rejected by most modern scholars. As opposed to earlier scholarly views, more recent studies have shown that EzraNehemiah as a whole was not composed on the premise of a schism between Judah and Samaria in the sixth or fifth century B.C.E. If one follows Grätz’s interpretation, the hostility of the Samarians as seen by the Judeans does not presuppose that there was a “schism,” although it would show that the relationship between the two Yahwistic communities was — at least at times and for some segments of Judah — strained. One other passage should be mentioned here, viz. Deuteronomy 11:29-30. In contradistinction to earlier opinions, Eckart Otto believes that Deuteronomy 11:30 is an antiSamaritan correction of Deuteronomy 11:29 and 27:1-26 in the sense that the blessing and curse commanded by Moses to be pronounced on Gerizim and Ebal was moved from Shechem to the Jordan valley, “opposite Gilgal.” The same tendency comes to the fore in Deuteronomy 27:4 where, after the crossing of the Jordan, the large stones are to be set up on Mt. Ebal. Similarly, in Josh. 4:20-24, the stones are to be set up in Gilgal after the crossing of the Jordan. According to Otto, the incorporation of a Shechem-tradition does not reflect the influence of a Northern tradition in the time before the Exile, but the post-exilic disputes between representatives of the idea of a comprehensive “Israel” (großisraelitisches ‘Israel’) that includes Samaria, and a restricted Judean identity (kleinjudäische Identität) confined to the province of Judea. At the same time Otto points out that the anti-Samaritan intention is not the only reason for the insertion of Deuteronomy 11:29-30 by the post-pentateuchal redactors. Rather, the aim of the latter was above all to harmonize their interpretation with 22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

the existing text, that is, rather than leave Moses’ command to put up the stones on the day of the crossing of the Jordan unfulfilled, they moved Mt. Gerizim to Gilgal. By obfuscating the localization of Gerizim and Ebal, the two mountains were turned into a symbol. Otto concludes: “So spiegelt sich in Dtn 11,29-30 einerseits judäischer Anspruch auf Samarien als integrativer Bestandteil ‘Israels,’ gleichzeitig aber eine Distanzierung vom samaritanischen Kult auf dem Garizim wider.” There are a number of other Old Testament passages in which at different times scholars have detected anti-Samaritan remarks. It is not possible to review all of these suggestions and hypotheses here. Suffice it to point out that the presumptive allusions to Samaritans in these texts depend, among other factors, on particular scholars’ model of the formation of the Bible or of a given biblical text, and especially on how they define the concept of “Samaritan” — simply as “inhabitant of Samaria” or, more narrowly, as Yahwistic Samarian either before or after the second century B.C.E. Moreover, many such alleged references are indirect and ambiguous, and often alternative explanations prove to be more plausible. With regard to Yahwistic Samarians whose center of worship was Mt. Gerizim to the exclusion of Jerusalem, that is, after the destruction of the Gerizim temple by John Hyrcanus I, many scholars agree with Coggins’s conclusion that “there is no reference to the Samaritans in the Hebrew Old Testament,” a conclusion which is confirmed by the recent assessment along the same lines by Rainer Albertz and Bob Becking. What has become clear in recent biblical research is that it is wrong to assume there was a long-standing enmity between Judeans and Samarians which did not allow for amicable contacts and exchanges. Animosity there was, but this is not the whole picture. Even after the destruction of the Gerizim temple the two communities did not sever all connections. Throughout the centuries, there are many instances of Jewish influence on the Samaritans. 30

31

32

33

1. The same is true for the French translations: Samaritains, including La Bible Segond 21, first published in 2007 by the Société Biblique de Genève. 2. This has been done most recently and thoroughly by Gary Knoppers in a series of articles, and now in his book Jews and Samaritans: The Origins and History of Their Early Relations (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013). 3. 2 Kings 15:29; 1 Chron. 5:26; see William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, Jr., eds., The Context of Scripture, vol. 2: Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World (Leiden: Brill, 2000), pp. 286, 288. 4. See Bob Becking, The Fall of Samaria: An Historical and Archaeological Study, Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East, 2 (Leiden; New York; Cologne: E. J. Brill, 1992); and K. Lawson Younger, Jr., “The Fall of Samaria in Light of Recent Research,” CBQ 61 (1999): 461-82. 5. On the deportations of the Israelites and the repopulation of Samaria see K. Lawson Younger, Jr., “The Deportations of the Israelites,” JBL 117 (1998): 201-27; and K. Lawson Younger, Jr., “The Repopulation of Samaria (2 Kings 17:24, 27-31) in Light of Recent Study,” in The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions; The Proceedings of a Symposium, August 12-14, 2001, at Trinity International University, ed. James K. Hoffmeier and Alan Millard (Grand Rapids; Cambridge, U. K.: Eerdmans, 2004), pp. 254-80. 6. The most recent and thorough discussion of this passage is found in Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans, chapters 2 and 3. 7. On the settlement policy of the Assyrians see also Yigal Levin, “Bi-Directional Forced Deportations in the Neo-Assyrian Empire and the Origins of the Samaritans: Colonialism and Hybridity,” Archaeological Review from Cambridge 28 (2013): 217-40. 8. Josephus uses it already in his War (1:63) which he wrote in the second half of the seventies C.E. It is possible that it was applied to the Samaritans prior to Josephus, but this would need to be established,. 9. The literature on the fall of Samaria is voluminous. For examples of recent publications see Becking, Fall of Samaria; Younger, “The Fall of Samaria.” 10. See Gary N. Knoppers, “Cutheans or Children of Jacob? The Issue of Samaritan Origins in 2 Kings 17,” in Reflection and Refraction: Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld, ed. Robert Rezetko, Timothy H. Lim, and W. Brian Aucker (VTSup, 113; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2007), pp. 223-39; and Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans, pp. 48-62. 11. The Israelite ethnicity is presupposed also in Josiah’s reforms as described in 2 Kings 23:15-20 (see Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans, pp. 62-65). 12. See Adam Zertal, “The Pahwah of Samaria (Northern Israel) During the Persian Period: Types of Settlement, Economy, History and New Discoveries,” Transeuphratène 3 (1990): 14. 13. Ephraim Stern, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, Volume II: The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Periods, 732-332 B.C.E. (Anchor Bible Reference Library; New York: Doubleday, 2001), p. 424. See also Adam Zertal, “The Province of Samaria (Assyrian Samerina) in the Late Iron Age (Iron Age III),” in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period, ed. Oded Lipschits and Joseph Blenkinsopp (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns,

2003), p. 380. 14. Gary N. Knoppers, “Revisiting the Samarian Question in the Persian Period,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, ed. Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2006), p. 273. See also Bernd Jørg Diebner, Seit wann gibt es “jenes Israel”?: Gesammelte Studien zum TNK und zum antiken Judentum, ed. Veit Dinkelaker, Benedikt Hensel, and Frank Zeidler (Beiträge zum Verstehen der Bibel, 17; Berlin: Lit Verlag, 2011). 15. See above in the chapter on “The Identity of the Samaritans.” 16. Otto Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction Including the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, and also the Works of Similar Type from Qumran: The History of the Formation of the Old Testament, trans. Peter R. Ackroyd (Oxford: Blackwell, 1965), p. 531. 17. Erich Zenger, ed., Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 5th ed. (Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie, 1,1; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2004), p. 49. 18. Erich Zenger and Christian Frevel, eds. Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 8th rev. ed. (Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie, 1,1; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2012), p. 54. 19. See the detailed discussion in Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans, pp. 71-101. 20. See Gary N. Knoppers’ discussion of the speech in “Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Zion: A Study in the Early History of the Samaritans and Jews,” Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 34 (2005): 309-38. 21. On Hezekiah’s Passover invitation see Knoppers, “Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Zion,” pp. 321-25. 22. Reinhard G. Kratz, “The Second Temple of Jeb and of Jerusalem,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, ed. Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), pp. 80-81. 23. Lisbeth S. Fried, “The ʿam hāʾāreṣ in Ezra 4:4 and Persian Imperial Administration,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, ed. Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), pp. 123-124, 125 and 141. 24. John Tracy Thames, Jr., “A New Discussion of the Meaning of the Phrase ʿam hāʾāreṣ in the Hebrew Bible,” JBL 130 (2011): 120. See also Sebastian Grätz, “The Adversaries in Ezra/Nehemiah — Fictitious or Real?” in Between Cooperation and Hostility: Multiple Identities in Ancient Judaism and the Interaction with Foreign Powers, ed. Rainer Albertz and Jakob Wöhrle (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), p. 74 n. 6. 25. John Kessler, “Persia’s Loyal Yahwists: Power Identity and Ethnicity in Achaemenid Yehud,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, ed. Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), p. 110. 26. Grätz, “The Adversaries in Ezra/Nehemiah,” pp. 76-77. 27. Grätz, “The Adversaries in Ezra/Nehemiah,” p. 85. 28. See Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans, p. 128 and the whole of chapter 6. 29. Eckart Otto, trans., Deuteronomium 1-11: Zweiter Teilband: 4,44-11,32, Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament (Freiburg: Herder, 2012) p. 1066. Otto discusses and rejects earlier interpretations from 1896 to 2010. 30. Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, p. 1068: “Thus, Deut. 11:29-30 reflects on the one hand the Judean claim that Samaria is an integrative part of ‘Israel,’ but at the same time a distancing from the Samaritan cult on Mt. Gerizim.” 31. As a recent example, see Nadav Naʾaman, “A Hidden Anti-Samaritan Polemic in the Story of Abimelech and Shechem (Judges 9),” Biblische Zeitschrift 55 (2011): 1-20. 32. Richard J. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews: The Origins of Samaritanism Reconsidered, Growing Points in Theology (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1975), p. 163; Rainer Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, Volume 2: From the Exile to the Maccabees (The Old Testament Library; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1994), p. 529; Bob Becking, “Is There a Samaritan Identity in the Earliest Documents?” in Die Samaritaner und die Bibel: Historische und literarische Wechselwirkungen zwischen biblischen und samaritanischen Traditionen = The Samaritans and the Bible: Historical and Literary Interactions between Biblical and Samaritan Traditions, ed. Jörg Frey, Ursula Schattner-Rieser, and Konrad Schmid (Studia Judaica, 70, Studia Samaritana, 7; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012), p. 52: “Earlier texts reflect antagonisms between North and South, between Samaria/Gerizim and Jerusalem. We should, however, not overinterpret the evidence. At best some hints to proto-Samaritanism can be found.” 33. See the previous chapter, “The Identity of the Samaritans.”

III. The Samaritans and the New Testament No other ancient source has contributed as much to the renown of the Samaritans as the New Testament. It is here that we find the famous parable of the Good Samaritan, the story of Jesus’ encounter with the Woman at the Well, and several other accounts that still define this community in the minds of Christians and people all over the globe. The main texts about them are contained in three canonical gospels: the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Luke, and the Gospel of John. Neither Samaria nor the Samaritans are mentioned in the Gospel of Mark, which may be an indication that there was little interaction between the historical Jesus and the Samaritans. One other passage mentioning Samaria and the Samaritans is Acts 8:425 which describes the Christian mission to Samaria. In all other New Testament writings the Samaritans are passed over in silence, a sign that the Samaritans were not germane as interlocutors to the early Christians either in Palestine or the diaspora of Greece and Asia Minor. This does not mean that they were an insignificant component of Israel at that time. As has been aptly stated, the impression given by Luke and John of only a few Samaritans in Samaria and in the border areas to Galilee and, at most, a famous traveler going to Jericho, is only part of a more comprehensive and many-faceted reality. 1

2

1. The Gospel of Matthew Matthew mentions the Samaritans only once, and that in connection with the missionary discourse (Matt. 10:5-42) in which Jesus instructs the twelve apostles where and how to proclaim the good news that “The kingdom of heaven has come near” (v. 7). The initial advice he gives them is not to go anywhere among the Gentiles and not to enter any town of the Samaritans: “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 10:5-6). If “Samaritans” refers to the members of the Gerizim community, the author of the Gospel would exclude the Samaritans from Israel because in verse 6 the apostles are told to “go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (τὰ πρόβατα τὰ ἀπολωλότα οἴκου Ἱσραήλ),” that is, to the Jews. The Samaritans would then belong neither to the Gentiles nor to the Jews, but constitute a third category. This is the opinion of most scholars. Other authors believe that the Gospel of Matthew saw the Samaritans as heathen, following the opinion of certain groups among the Jews who categorized the Samaritans according to their understanding of 2 Kings 17. Possibly the attitude expressed in Matthew 10:5-42 reflects the view of a conservative group of Christian Jews of the first century. If so, the passage is an instance of the negative disposition towards the Samaritans by Jews in the first century C.E. At the same time, though, the instruction in this passage seems to be an echo of what took place in the life-time of Jesus, that is, there was no systematic mission to “the Samaritans as a group.” 3

4

5

6

2. The Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts The largest number of New Testament references to the Samaritans is contained in the Gospel of Luke. At the beginning of Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem where he was to suffer and die (Luke 9:51–19:44), Luke narrates an incident which involved the inhabitants of a village of the Samaritans (κώμη Σαμαριτῶν) whose name is not given. Jesus had sent messengers ahead to arrange for accommodation in that village. However, the people there refused the messengers their request (Luke 9:51-53), “because his face was set toward Jerusalem (ὅτι τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ἦν πορευόμενον εἰς ’Ιερουσαλήμ).” Clearly, what is at stake in this refusal to receive Jesus is that he goes to the city which, in the eyes of the Samaritans, is the rival of Mt. Gerizim. From approximately the same time we know through Josephus that there were clashes between Jews and Samaritans (War 2:232-246//Ant. 20:118-136). The unrest happened during the procuratorship of Ventidius Cumanus (48-52 C.E.): Galileans traveling to Jerusalem were murdered when they crossed Samaria. Whether Luke’s story about the refusal by the Samaritan village to give shelter to Jesus is historical or not is a moot point. Literary and theological motifs certainly play a role in the narrative. The author wants to emphasize that despite all the obstacles put in his way, Jesus is determined to go to Jerusalem. The negative attitude of the Samaritans in this pericope stands in contrast to the positive depiction of the people in the other two Samaritan stories in Luke — the love of the neighbor by the Good Samaritan and the gratefulness of the healed Samaritan leper. This is a further indication that christological motifs influenced the pericope. Whether all the Samaritans were hostile to the Jews or only certain villages is difficult to tell from this episode. Jesus is said to have moved on to another village, although it is not stated whether this other village was within or outside Samaria. In his report about the attack on the Galileans on their way to Jerusalem, Josephus speaks of the “custom (ἔθος) of the Galileans at the time of a festival to pass through the Samaritan territory on their way to the Holy City” (Ant. 20:118). This suggests that hostilities occurred only at certain times or were caused only by some groups. Had the antagonism between the two religious groups been general, the Galileans would never have traveled through Samaritan terrain. Moreover, Jesus’ messengers would not even have tried to find accommodation for him in Samaria had there been permanent hostility between the Galilean Jews and the Samaritans; similarly, in John 4:40 the Samaritans of Sychar ask Jesus to stay with them, which also presupposes that this was not uncommon. Should, however, the hostility between Galileans and Samaritans have been more than an occasional occurrence, one could hypothesize that in the eyes of the Samaritans the “Galileans were being deeply disloyal in not supporting them rather than the Judean/Jerusalem center, when [shared] social and religious experiences might be presumed to have dictated differently.” The famous parable of the Good Samaritan is Luke’s second passage about the Samaritans (Luke 10:25-37). Asked “Who is my neighbor?”, Jesus tells of a man who fell into the hands of robbers on his way from Jerusalem to Jericho. Neither a passing priest nor a passing Levite was ready to help the beaten and bleeding man — apparently believing him to be dead — only a Samaritan had mercy and took care of him. Clearly, this Samaritan is a member of 7

8

9

10

the Gerizim community because the author wants to say: although as a Samaritan the man was suspect in the eyes of the Jews and at best existing on the fringes of their society, he abided by the law to love one’s neighbor and considered it more important than the rigid observance of cultic prescriptions which decree that anybody who touches a corpse is unclean for seven days (Num. 19:11). Thus, the parable wants to show that the Samaritan knew the love commandment of the Torah (Lev. 19:18) and set it higher than the ritual laws in contrast to the religious functionaries of the Jerusalem temple. To help fellow human beings in need, regardless of their provenance, religion, and rigid legal considerations, is the lesson drawn from this short parable by Bible readers of more than two thousand years. Not quite as famous as the Good Samaritan story is the incident of the Ten Lepers, only one of whom returned to Jesus to thank him — and he was a Samaritan (Luke 17:11-19). In an area said to lie “between Samaria and Galilee” (v. 11), ten lepers approached Jesus; he healed them and told them to show themselves to the priests so that they could certify their cure and perform the required rituals. When only one of them came back to Jesus to praise God and thank him for healing him, Jesus expresses his astonishment that only one returned, and he is an “alien” (ἀλλογενής). He sends him on his way with the words: “your faith has made you well.” That we have before us not a pagan Samarian, but a member of the Gerizim community, becomes clear from the fact that he was ready to follow the prescriptions of the law for lepers as given in Leviticus 13:49 and 14:2-32. The term ἀλλογενής, which occurs only here in the New Testament and occurs only in Jewish and Christian Greek, has generated a great amount of discussion. It does occur also in the Septuagint, Philo, Josephus, and the Temple inscription which was found in 1871. After a thorough discussion of these instances, Böhm concludes that the term means someone who stands outside the group which is mentioned in the text; in the case of the pericope under discussion this group is most likely a Christian community which is familiar with the Torah and is attached to the temple in Jerusalem. For the understanding of ἀλλογενής in Luke 17:18 this means that the term does not refer to a pagan, but to a Samaritan. On the whole, as Jörg Frey has pointed out, Luke is not interested in the Samaritans as such, i.e. as part of the Israelite tradition or as representatives of a specific religious rite, but in the Samaritans as contrast to the Jewish religion or its representatives; his aim is to establish an exemplar of how to overcome religioethnic barriers. The account of the mission to Samaria in Acts 8:4-25 also shows that the addressees were observers of the Torah and most likely Samaritans who, for Luke, belonged to Israel, but not to the community whose focus was the Jerusalem temple. They are neither depicted as syncretists nor are they condemned or criticized for their religious views, which, however, are nowhere mentioned. That Philip, one of the seven men chosen in Acts 6:1-6, “proclaimed the Messiah to them” (8:5), shows that he addressed a population that expected such a figure. The Samaritans expected the “Taheb” who in Jewish parlance was called “Messiah.” The identity of “the [or: a] city of Samaria” (v. 5) cannot be known since the phrase is too imprecise. In any case, it cannot refer to Shechem since it was destroyed by John Hyrcanus and not rebuilt. Luke may not have had any specific location in mind, as the summary phrase of the report suggests: Peter and John “returned to Jerusalem, proclaiming the good news to 11

12

13

14

15

16

17

many villages of the Samaritans” (8:25). The passage under discussion shows that the early Christian mission among the Samaritans was successful. Many authors thought — and some still think — that Simon the Magician, whose story is told in this pericope, was a Samaritan. However, nothing connects him or the later Simonian movement with Samaritan concepts, either in Acts or in the early Christian authors; no specifically Samaritan ideas such as Mt. Gerizim or the Patriarchs are mentioned in Acts 8. Only the so-called Pseudo-Clementine writings of the late fourth century ascribe a Samaritan affiliation to him. The background of Simon seems more likely to be pagan Sebaste. The Gospel of Luke thus sees the Samaritans neither as pagans nor as syncretists — nowhere does it allude to 2 Kings 17 as explanation of their origin and religious outlook — but as part of the Jewish people, albeit one that is located on the border of it. Luke’s interest is not primarily in the Samaritans, but in the removal of religious boundaries — what matters is to do the will of God. 18

19

20

3. The Gospel of John The second best known narrative after the parable of the Good Samaritan is the story about Jesus’ meeting with the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4:4-42. It is the narrative in the New Testament that displays the greatest familiarity with the Samaritans and specifically contrasts the Samaritan and Jewish centers of worship, although it does not explicitly mention Mt. Gerizim. On his way from Judea to Galilee Jesus travels through Samaria; he stops for a break at Jacob’s Well near the city named Sychar. The time was about noon, and Jesus was alone because his disciples had gone into the city to procure something to eat. There came a woman to fetch water and Jesus asked her to let him drink from it. She was taken aback by his request and asked: “How is that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?” because, so she said, “Jews do not share things in common with the Samaritans” or “Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans” (οὐ γὰρ συγχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρίταις) (John 4:9). Although the last part may be a later insertion and the meaning of the Greek is not unambiguous, the woman’s reply demonstrates that there were differences between Jews and Samaritans at that time apart from the different centers of worship. In the course of the ensuing conversation, Jesus promises her water that will never again leave her thirsty. When he further correctly describes her marital situation, she concludes he must be a prophet. Immediately, she broaches the question of the true place of worship: our ancestors worshiped on “this mountain,” that is, on Mt. Gerizim, but the Jews worship in Jerusalem — which one is the right one? Jesus states that “You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation comes from the Jews” (v. 22). He continues, though, to tell her that the time has come when the true worshipers will worship neither in Jerusalem nor on Mt. Gerizim, but in spirit and truth. The woman tells him that she knows that the messiah is coming and will “proclaim all things to us” (v. 25). Jesus then identifies himself to her as such. When the disciples return, the Samaritan woman leaves and calls the other inhabitants of Sychar to see Jesus. At their request he stayed two days in the city and many of them believed because of what the woman had told them, but others “because of his word” (John 21

4:41). The story not only underscores that there were differences between Jews and Samaritans in the first century C.E. which concerned the place of worship and other issues — possibly questions of halakhah — but it also alludes to the Samaritan belief in a “messiah” who will bring the truth. The term “messiah” is not a Samaritan expression, but it refers to that figure which later will be called “Taheb,” the returning one. John 4 is thus one of the oldest evidences for this idea among the Samaritans; the other is Ant. 18:85-89. What has to be kept in mind also is that the pericope in John 4 reflects the concern over the Christian mission among the Samaritans. The question of the relationship between Jewish Christians and Samaritans is intertwined with that between Jews and Samaritans. On the one hand, Jesus’ superiority over Jacob and the Samaritan religion is brought out; on the other, animosity between the Samaritans and Jews also comes through. However, Samaritans and Jews have the same ancestor, Jacob; worship the same God; and follow the laws of Moses. The Gospel’s interest is, however, not in the Samaritans as such nor in the disputes between Jews and Samaritans. Rather, the Samaritans serve as a foil to the former — in the course of the Gospel, the Jews oppose Jesus more and more, whereas the Samaritans accept Jesus’ message. Moreover, the traces of the conflict between Jews and Samaritans in this passage are obfuscated by the pericope’s intention to highlight Jesus’ position of prophet and messianic teacher. Later in the Gospel of John, Jesus is accused by the Jews of being a Samaritan and being possessed by a demon (John 8:48). This is the only place in the New Testament where “Samaritan” and “demon” are used together, and nowhere is “Samaritan” a term of abuse. Some scholars see in the dispute an argument over the question of who represents the true Israel. In John 8:33-47 Jesus’ interlocutors, “the Jews who had believed in him,” emphasize several times that they are children of Abraham (vv. 33, 37, 39); but Jesus answers them: “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing what Abraham did” (v. 39b). Later he says: “You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father’s desires” (v. 44). Because Jesus disputes the claim of the Jews to be the true heirs of Abraham, he speaks like a Samaritan. Thus, the accusation of being a “Samaritan” hurled at Jesus expresses only that Jesus belongs to another camp within Israel, just like the Samaritans. 22

23

24

25

26

4. Samaritan Influence on New Testament Writings? In the past, some authors believed that certain parts of the New Testament were influenced by Samaritan ideas, in particular Stephen’s speech in Acts 7:2-53, the Gospel of John, and the Letter to the Hebrews. Stephen’s speech was thought to contain several features that pointed to Samaritan motifs. In fact, one author spoke of “Stephen’s Samaritan Background.” Apart from alleged quotations from the Samaritan Pentateuch in his speech, the main reason why Stephen was associated with the Samaritans by some scholars is his antagonism towards the Jerusalem temple. While in Acts 7:44 Stephen speaks approvingly of the tent of testimony which the fathers used in the wilderness, in Acts 7:48 he condemns the temple of Jerusalem: “The Most 27

28

29

High does not live in houses made with human hands.” For the Samaritans the tabernacle is the only legitimate sanctuary and the Jerusalem temple was considered illegitimate by them. But rather than assuming that Stephen condemned only the Jewish temple and implied that the Samaritan temple was the only lawful temple, it is more likely that he condemned all temples. Moreover, at the time when Stephen was said to have delivered his address, the Gerizim temple had been lying in ruins for a century and a half. Other supposed traces of Samaritan influence on Acts 7 are even more tenuous and have been discounted by later authors. A number of scholars claimed that the background of the Gospel of John is to be sought among the Samaritans. They maintain that John’s acquaintance with the topography of Samaria, the beliefs and practices of the Samaritans, and, above all, the description of the conversion of the Samaritans in John 4 were evidence of Samaritan influence. As with Acts 7, today the majority of authors no longer believe that the Gospel of John has a Samaritan background. Given the lateness of the preserved Samaritan sources, affinities between the Gospel of John and certain Samaritan motifs may be due to the reverse influence, that is, Christian concepts may have influenced the Samaritans. The Letter to the Hebrews is another New Testament writing for which a Samaritan connection was alleged, first in 1927 by E. A. Knox and, more recently, by Charles H. H. Scobie. The two authors believe that the epistle was directed to Samaritan Christians, because, on the one hand, it rejects some christological concepts that it deems inadequate, and, on the other, it presents its own christology which makes allowances for Samaritan sensitivities. The concepts which play a role here are: angels, Moses, Joshua, David, priesthood, two worlds, Melchizedek, the Tabernacle, and the view of the history of faith. For each one Lincoln Douglas Hurst systematically has shown that a Samaritan background cannot be demonstrated, and in fact in one case, i.e. angels mediating the Torah in Heb. 2:2, it is to be ruled out. Influence in the opposite direction, that is, from Hebrews to medieval Samaritan writings, has also been shown to be impossible to prove. As a perusal of recent publications in the fields of Samaritan and New Testament studies shows, in both areas scholars have come to the conclusion that the issue of Samaritan influence on New Testament writings (or vice versa) is not a fruitful avenue of research to pursue, and despite some renewed attempts to prove Samaritan influence on the New Testament, the voices advocating such influences have mostly fallen silent about any hypotheses of this kind. 30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

1. John P. Meier, “The Historical Jesus and the Historical Samaritans: What Can Be Said?” Biblica 81 (2000): 218. 2. Martina Böhm, “Wer gehörte in hellenistisch-römischer Zeit zu ‘Israel’? Historische Voraussetzungen für eine veränderte Perspektive auf neutestamentliche Texte,” in Die Samaritaner und die Bibel: Historische und literarische Wechselwirkungen zwischen biblischen und samaritanischen Traditionen = The Samaritans and the Bible: Historical and Literary Interactions between Biblical and Samaritan Traditions, ed. Jörg Frey, Ursula Schattner-Rieser, and Konrad Schmid (Studia Judaica, 70, Studia Samaritana, 7; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012), p. 201. 3. The genitive here is probably a genitive of quality or description, describing all of Israel. 4. See, e.g., Rita Egger, Josephus Flavius und die Samaritaner. Eine terminologische Untersuchung zur Identitätsklärung der Samaritaner (NTOA, 4; Freiburg, Switzerland: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), p. 193; Meier, “The Historical Jesus and the Historical Samaritans,” p. 221; and Gary Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans: The Origins and History of Their Early Relations (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 22021. 5. So Jürgen Zangenberg, Frühes Christentum in Samarien. Topographische und traditionsgeschichtliche Studien zu den Samarientexten im Johannesevangelium (Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter, 27; Tübingen: Francke, 1998), pp. 189-91.

6. So Meier, “The Historical Jesus and the Historical Samaritans,” p. 221 (Meier’s italics). 7. See Jörg Frey, “‘Gute’ Samaritaner? Das neutestamentliche Bild der Samaritaner zwischen Juden, Christen und Paganen,” in Die Samaritaner und die Bibel: Historische und literarische Wechselwirkungen zwischen biblischen und samaritanischen Traditionen = The Samaritans and the Bible: Historical and Literary Interactions between Biblical and Samaritan Traditions, ed. Jörg Frey, Ursula Schattner-Rieser, and Konrad Schmid (Studia Judaica, 70, Studia Samaritana, 7; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012), p. 211. Frey believes the village was a neighboring village still lying in Samaria, suggesting that Jesus and his companions were kindly received there, which would show that not all Samaritans rejected the Christian mission. 8. Texts and translations of Josephus’s works are from the Loeb Classical Library. 9. Seán Freyne, “Behind the Names: Galileans, Samaritans, Ioudaioi,” in Galilee Through the Centuries: Confluence of Cultures, ed. Eric M. Meyers (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999), p. 49. 10. Shemaryahu Talmon put forward the thesis that the third person in this parable was not a “good Samaritan,” but a “good Jewish Israelite.” See Shemaryahu Talmon, “The ‘Good Samaritan’ — A ‘Good Israelite,’ ” in “Wer ist wie du, Herr, unter den Göttern?” Studien zur Theologie und Religionsgeschichte Israels, für Otto Kaiser zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Ingo Kottsieper, et al. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994), p. 485. But as Frey pointed out, only the contrast between functionaries of the Jerusalem temple on the one hand and a member of the Samaritan religious community on the other makes sense (Frey, “ ‘Gute’ Samaritaner?,” p. 212). 11. See the chapter “On the Linguistic Tradition of ’Αλλογενής” in Annette Weissenrieder, Images of Illness in the Gospel of Luke: Insights of Ancient Medical Texts (WUNT, 2.164; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), pp. 195-209. 12. Martina Böhm, Samarien und die Samaritai bei Lukas. Eine Studie zum religionshistorischen und traditionsgeschichtlichen Hintergrund der lukanischen Samarientexte und zu deren topographischer Verhaftung (WUNT, 2.111; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), pp. 194-202. 13. Böhm, Samarien und die Samaritai, pp. 274-278. Contrast Frey who believes that for Luke, as in Matthew, the Samaritans are no longer part of the “house of Israel,” but are a special ethnic group (Volksgruppe) as in Acts 8:9 (Frey, “‘Gute’ Samaritaner?” p. 214). 14. Frey, “‘Gute’ Samaritaner?” p. 215. 15. See Böhm, Samarien und die Samaritai, pp. 279-308. Pierre Haudebert thinks that Luke assigns an intermediate place to the Samaritans who, though observers of the Torah, were considered strangers and therefore pagans. See Pierre Haudebert, “Le Samaritain-Étranger (Lc 17,18) dans l’oeuvre de Luc,” in L’Étranger dans la Bible et ses lectures, ed. Jean Riaud (Paris: Cerf, 2007), p. 193. 16. See below for John 4:29. 17. The manuscripts differ; some have the article, others do not. The likelihood points toward “a city of Samaria” (see Böhm, Samarien und die Samaritai, pp. 288-89). 18. See recently Ingrid Hjelm, “Simon Magus in Patristic and Samaritan Sources: The Growth of a Tradition,” in Die Samaritaner und die Bibel: Historische und literarische Wechselwirkungen zwischen biblischen und samaritanischen Traditionen = The Samaritans and the Bible: Historical and Literary Interactions between Biblical and Samaritan Traditions, ed. Jörg Frey, Ursula Schattner-Rieser, and Konrad Schmid (Studia Judaica, 70, Studia Samaritana, 7; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012), p. 265. 19. For the texts see Reinhard Pummer, Early Christian Authors on Samaritans and Samaritanism: Texts, Translations and Commentary (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism, 92; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), pp. 104-110. 20. This was demonstrated by Jürgen Zangenberg, “Δύναμις τοῦ θεοῦ. Das religionsgeschichtliche Profil des Simon Magus aus Sebaste,” in Religionsgeschichte des Neuen Testaments. Festschrift für Klaus Berger zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Axel von Dobbeler, Kurt Erlemann, and Roman Heiligenthal (Tübingen and Basel: Francke, 2000), pp. 519-40. 21. Opinions are divided as to the identity of the “we” and the “you” and whether v. 22 is a gloss or not. Some exegetes saw in “we” a reference to the Christians as opposed to Samaritans and Jews. Contra this interpretation see the discussion in Hartwig Thyen, Das Johannesevangelium (Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, 6; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), pp. 257-60. 22. See the parenthesis in v. 9: “Jews do not share things in common with Samaritans.” 23. For the concept of the Taheb and its place in Samaritan religion see the chapters “The Samaritans in Jewish Writings in Antiquity,” “Samaritan Literature,” and “The Samaritans Today” later in this study. 24. See Frey, “ ‘Gute’ Samaritaner?,” pp. 230-31. 25. So Zangenberg, Frühes Christentum in Samarien, pp. 197-202. 26. See Zangenberg, Frühes Christentum in Samarien, pp. 201-202, and Böhm, Samarien und die Samaritai, p. 147. 27. Although some of these theses were put forward about one hundred years ago, the second half of the twentieth century saw particularly numerous studies on the subject, albeit not primarily by New Testament scholars, but by scholars of Samaritanism. 28. Abram Spiro, “Stephen’s Samaritan Background,” in The Acts of the Apostles, ed. Johannes Munck and rev. William F. Albright and C. S. Mann (The Anchor Bible, 31; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1967), pp. 285-300. 29. Acts 7:4, 5, 32, 37. That it is not the Samaritan Pentateuch that underlies these passages was shown, among others, in Reinhard Pummer, “The Samaritan Pentateuch and the New Testament,” NTS 23 (1975-76): 441-43; and Earl Richard, “Acts 7: An Investigation of Samaritan Evidence,” CBQ 39 (1977): 190-208. 30. See now Hartwig Thyen, “Joh 8,48f: Die ʾΙουδαῖοι werfen Jesus vor, er sei ein dämonisch besessener Samaritaner: Indiz für eine besondere Nähe unseres Evangelisten zu samaritanischer Theologie?” in Studien zum Corpus Iohanneum (WUNT, 214; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), pp. 554-60. 31. See Margaret Pamment, “Is There Convincing Evidence of Samaritan Influence on the Fourth Gospel?” ZNW 73 (1982): 221-30; Zangenberg, Frühes Christentum, p. 223; and Bruce W. Hall, “Some Thoughts About Samaritanism and the Johannine Community,” in New Samaritan Studies, ed. Alan D. Crown and Lucy Davey (Sydney: Mandelbaum, 1995), pp. 111-12. 32. E. A. Knox, “The Samaritans and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Churchman, New Series 41 (1927): 184-93. 33. Charles H. H. Scobie, “The Origins and Developments of Samaritan Christianity,” NTS 19 (1972-73): 409-14. 34. Lincoln Douglas Hurst, The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its Background of Thought (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series, 65; Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp. 77-82. 35. So Robert J. F. Trotter, Did the Samaritans of the Fourth Century Know the Epistle to the Hebrews? (LUOS, Monograph Series, 1, 1961); John Macdonald, The Theology of the Samaritans (New Testament Library; London: SCM Press, 1964); and John Macdonald, Memar Marqah: The Teaching of Marqah, 2 vols. (BZAW, 83; Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1963).

36. Scobie, “The Origins and Developments,” pp. 409-10. 37. See Robert T. Anderson in his article “Samaritan Studies and Early Christianity,” in New Samaritan Studies, ed. Alan D. Crown and Lucy Davey (Sydney: Mandelbaum, 1995), pp. 121-31; and Grant R. Shafer, “Further Samaritan Motifs in Stephen’s Speech (Acts 7:2-53),” in Samaritan Researches, vol. V, ed. Vittorio Morabito, Alan D. Crown, and Lucy Davey (Mandelbaum Studies in Judaica, 10; Sydney: Mandelbaum Publishing, 2000), pp. 2.03-12. See also Robert T. Anderson and Terry Giles, The Samaritan Pentateuch: An Introduction to Its Origin, History and Significance for Biblical Studies (Society of Biblical Literature, 2012), pp. 117-19.

IV. Samaritans in Jewish Writings of Antiquity Apart from the New Testament accounts, there are a small number of so-called apocryphal/deuterocanonical books containing possible references to Samaritans. Scholars have also examined the Dead Sea Scrolls with a view towards identifying passages that may have to do with Samaritans. The most extensive reports, however, are to be found in the two main works of Flavius Josephus, the Jewish War and the Jewish Antiquities. Another source of information are the early rabbinic writings authored in Palestine, i.e., Galilee and its adjacent regions, and Babylon in the first millennium C.E.

1. Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Writings Among the apocryphal/deuterocanonical writings, it is above all Ben Sira 50:25-26 and 2 Maccabees 5:22-23 and 6:1-2 which are of interest.

a. Ben Sira 50:25-26 Ben Sira 50:25-26, a numerical proverb unrelated to what precedes and follows, is the oldest extant text which is thought by many scholars to make reference to the Samaritans. The text is preserved in Hebrew, dating from approximately 180 B.C.E., and in Greek, dating from after 129 B.C.E. The wording of the original Hebrew and the Greek translation differs slightly. In Hebrew, the verses read: 1















(25) (26)

(25) Two nations my soul detests, and the third is not even a people: (26) Those who live in Seir, and the Philistines, and the foolish people that live in Shechem.

The last part of v. 26 is thought to refer to the Samaritans whose capital, according to Josephus in Ant. 11:340, was Shechem. If this is correct, the author of the book inveighs against the Samaritans of his time — they are not even a people and they are foolish. No reason is given for either charge. Scholars have, therefore, presented various speculations about the sentiments lying behind this invective. The Septuagint has substituted “Seir” with “Mount Samaria”: (25) ’Εν δυσὶν ἔθνεσιν προσώχθισεν ἡ ψυχή μου, καὶ τὸ τρίτον οὐκ ἔστιν ἔθνος· (26) οἱ καθήμενοι ἐν ὄρει Σαμαρείας καὶ Φυλιστεὶμ καὶ ὁ λαὸς ὁ μωρὸς ὁ κατοικῶν ἐν Σικίμοις. (25) My soul was offended at two nations, and the third is not a nation: (26) those who settled on Mount Samaria and Philistiim, and the foolish people who live in Sikima.2

“Mount Samaria” can mean “on the mountain of (the city of) Samaria” or “on the Samarian mountain, i.e., on the mountains of the district of Samaria.” The phrase can

therefore refer either to the inhabitants of the Hellenistic city of Samaria who were pagans, or to the population of the district of Samaria who, in the majority, was also pagan. “Those who live in Seir,” i.e., in Idumea south of Judah, were converted to Judaism by John Hyrcanus shortly after 129 B.C.E. They were therefore no longer pagans when the Greek version was authored and the text was changed to “those who are settled on Mount Samaria.” The change from the Hebrew version to the Greek version has been interpreted as proof that the breach between Samaritans and Jews occurred in the time between the redaction of the two versions. In the early second century B.C.E., when the Hebrew text was composed, the Idumeans (“Those who live in Seir”) and the Philistines are the two nations detested by the author, whereas the Shechemites are not a people. In the late second century B.C.E., when the Greek translation was made, the two nations are Samaria and the Philistines instead, and the people who live in Shechem have become “a sub-group of the Samarian people.” While in the Hebrew version the Shechemites are only despised, in the Greek version “they are no longer part of the Jewish people but have now become foreigners.” This interpretation is, however, contradicted by 2 Maccabees 5:22-23, a text that was written shortly after 124 B.C.E., that is, approximately five years later than the Greek Ben Sira, and it still sees the Jews and the Samaritans as one nation: Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.E.) “left governors to oppress the [Jewish] people (γένος): at Jerusalem, Philip, … and at Gerizim, Andronicus.” Conspicuously absent from the passage is any reference to Mt. Gerizim as identifier of the intended population. At the time of both the composition of the Hebrew text and that of the Greek translation, the Samaritan city on top of Mt. Gerizim was still standing and was undoubtedly the center of Samaritan life. As noted, in a well-known passage, Josephus (Ant. 11:340) claims that at the time of Alexander the Great the chief city of the Samaritans was Shechem “which lay beside Mt. Gerizim.” In the light of the excavations on Mt. Gerizim, doubts about the accuracy of this statement have been raised by Yitzhak Magen. He concludes that the chief city of the Samaritans in the Hellenistic period was the city on the top of Mt. Gerizim, much of which he excavated in recent years. If this holds true, Ben Sira’s phrase “the foolish people that live in Shechem” may not refer to the Samaritans at all. Certainly, other texts which clearly do refer to the Samaritans, such as 2 Maccabees and the Delos inscriptions, do not mention Shechem as the city in which the Samaritans resided. Rather, for them, Mount Gerizim serves as identifier. If by “the foolish people that live in Shechem” the Samaritans are meant, there is still no indication in the text why they were called that — because they worship on Mt. Gerizim rather than on Mt. Zion? Nor is it known by whom they were called foolish — by all the Jews or by some or only by the author? In other words, the passage is not as clearly antiSamaritan as it appears at first sight. 3

4

5

6

7

b. 2 Maccabees 5:22-23 and 6:1-2 The Samaritans are briefly mentioned in 2 Maccabees 5:22-23. After the Seleucid King Antiochus IV Epiphanes had heard about the uprising by the Hasmonean Jason, he killed and enslaved large numbers of Jews. Before he departed for Antioch, “He left governors to oppress the people: at Jerusalem, Philip … and at Gerizim, Andronicus.” Second Maccabees

was written probably after 124 B.C.E. “The people” (τὸ γένος) that Antiochus IV wants to oppress is the Jewish people, and those “at Gerizim” are a part of it. The latter are not identified with a specific name, nor is Shechem mentioned as their city. In 2 Maccabees 6:1-2 Mt. Gerizim is again mentioned, this time as the place of the temple which, like the temple in Jerusalem, was to be renamed: (1) Μετ’ οὐ πολὺν δὲ χρόνον ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ βασιλεὺς γέροντα Ἀθηναῖον ἀναγκάζειν τοὺς Ἰουδαίους μεταβαίνειν ἀπὸ τῶν πατρίων νόμων καὶ τοῖς τοῦ θεοῦ νόμοις μὴ πολιτεύεσθαι, (2) μολῦναι δὲ καὶ τὸν ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις νεὼν καὶ προσονομάσαι Διὸς Ὀλυμπίου καὶ τὸν ἐν Γαριζιν, καθὼς ἐτύγχανον οἱ τὸν τόπον οἰκοῦντες, Διὸς Ξενίου. (1) Not long after this, the king sent an Athenian senator8 to compel the Jews to forsake the laws of their ancestors and no longer to live by the laws of God; (2) also to pollute the temple in Jerusalem and to call it the temple of Olympian Zeus, and to call the one in Gerizim the temple of Zeus-the-Friend-of-Strangers, as did the people who lived in that place.

This is a factual statement that does not impugn either the temple on Mt. Gerizim or “the people who lived in that place.” It is one more measure that Antiochus took against the Jews. Second Maccabees considers Samaritans and Jews as belonging to one people and does not censure the temple on Mt. Gerizim. The second half of v. 2 has given rise to scholarly discussions. What the New Revised Standard Version translates as “Zeus the Friend of Strangers” is at variance with Josephus’s statement that the temple was named the temple of “Zeus Hellenios” (Ant. 12:261), and the phrase “as did the people who lived in that place” (καθὼς ἐτύγχανον οἱ τὸν τόπον οἰκοῦντες) is rendered by other Bible translations “as the inhabitants of the place happened to be [namely, hospitable].” We do not need to enter into these debates here. Suffice it to say that no unanimity among the various modern authors has been reached since more than the wording of this particular text is involved in trying to defend the one or the other of the possible interpretations. Certainly a scholar’s conviction that the Samaritans’ depiction in 2 Maccabees is negative or, as the case may be, positive, will have a bearing on his or her understanding of the phrase. Apart from the works discussed above, other writings from this period are sometimes believed to contain undertones of polemics against the Samaritans. However, care must be taken not to read too much into the sources and succumb to the vicious circle of arguing that a certain remark exhibits anti-Samaritan sentiments because it is believed that at that time there was strong antagonism between Jews and Samaritans which, in turn, is inferred from the very same remarks. 9

10

11

2. The Dead Sea Scrolls As will be discussed in the chapter on the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Dead Sea Scrolls have enabled us to better understand the character of the Samaritan Torah and to date it with greater accuracy. Similar to the authors of the Scrolls, the Samaritans practiced a form of religion which was derived from the same Israelite background as that of the Jews; both these

communities — the one connected with the Scrolls and the other the Samaritans — differed only in certain beliefs and customs from the Judaism practiced in Jerusalem and the rest of Judah. So far, no direct reference to the Samaritans has been found in the Scrolls, although some scholars believe there may be veiled allusions to them in the following texts or fragments of texts. Mt. Gerizim is named in the Copper Scroll (3Q15). In column 12, lines 4-5 it is said that on Mt. Gerizim, underneath a staircase, a treasure is hidden, i.e., a chest with all its vessels and sixty talents of silver. Most scholars assume that the scroll dates from before 68 C.E. and comes from the Temple in Jerusalem. However, this particular passage is difficult to explain. A connection with Mt. Gerizim by Nablus is most unlikely and the meaning of the phrase remains so far unknown. Another text found in Qumran that is thought by some authors to contain references to the Samaritans is the so-called 4QNarrative and Poetic Composition (4Q371 1 and 4Q372 1), written probably before 100 or 75 B.C.E. In a prayer in lines 10-15 of 4Q372 1 Joseph is said to have been exiled into a foreign land and dispersed in all the world; fools came to live in their land, making for themselves a high place on a high mountain in order to make Israel jealous; they reviled Levi, Judah and Benjamin; and Joseph was mistreated by the foreigners. It has been argued that Joseph here designates the exiled northern tribes and their descendants. The building of “a high place upon a high mountain to provoke Israel to jealousy” by people who are called “fools” may refer to the erection of the Samaritan temple on Mt. Gerizim, “fools” being suggestive of the phrase “the foolish people that live in Shechem” in Ben Sira 50:25-26. The Samaritans considered themselves to be descended from the tribe of Joseph, as we know from Josephus and the Samaritans’ own writings. Thus, the “Text about Joseph” may be a Jewish invective against the Samaritans or protoSamaritans, its implied message being: “‘Joseph’ is really in exile, the Samaritan claim to be descendants of Joseph is spurious.” However, other interpretations are also possible. The invective may be directed at non-Samaritan groups, such as “Shechemite reformers … , or Greek colonists at Samaria, or no actual contemporary group at all.” And if the text is really referring to the Samaritans, it is possible that only the sectarians in Qumran rather than the general Jewish population felt that way. On Masada, a very small papyrus fragment, inscribed in palaeo-Hebrew script, was found which contains the Hebrew word for Mount Gerizim written as one word: ] . Because this is the manner in which the Samaritans spell the name of their sacred mountain, some authors think that the scroll from which the fragment comes belonged to the Samaritans, proving that Samaritans were among the heterogeneous group of people who sought refuge at Masada. Others, however, interpret the “text” of the fragment in an antiSamaritan spirit. In addition to the word ] , the expression “to give a ringing cry” or “joyful singing” occurs in the three consecutive lines preceding the line with “Mount Gerizim.” Thus, these authors infer that the text may have been part of a Jewish hymn praising the destruction of the Samaritan temple and the city surrounding it. Several reasons make both inferences more than questionable. First, the fragment is much too small and contains only disconnected words which do not yield an intelligible phrase. Second, the 12

13

14

15

16

spelling of “Mount Gerizim” as one word is not exclusive to the Samaritans, but occurs also in non-Samaritan texts. In sum, due to the extremely fragmentary nature of the papyrus neither the precise contents nor the author(s) of the text can be determined, and it must be underlined that no conclusions can be drawn from this fragment that would shed light on the Samaritans in the context of Masada. Even more questionable is the reading [ ] , i.e., Cuthean, in one of the fragments c d (4Q550 = 4QPrEsther ar 1). Milik assigned the fragment to the first century B.C.E. and the composition of the text to the fifth century B.C.E. His translation reads: “You know [… It is not] admissib[le] that a Cuthean be the (foremost) person in charge [of the affairs of] Your [King]dom.” However, the majority of the scholars now interpret the word as (“like me”) and translate the phrase thus: “For you kno[w that] it is possib[le] for a man like [me] to recompense [a man] l[i]ke you.” In any event, it is highly unlikely that this text preserves the first mention of “Cuthean.” The recently surfaced small fragment said to come from Qumran cave 4 and containing the text of Deuteronomy 27:4 will be discussed in the chapter on the Samaritan Pentateuch. 17

18

19

20

21

3. Flavius Josephus Our most detailed source of information on the early Samaritans is the first century C.E. Jewish historian Flavius Josephus — at least so it seems when first reading his Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities. He writes about the Samaritans’ beginnings and describes their clashes with the returnees from the Babylonian exile; their meeting with Alexander the Great; the building of their temple on Mt. Gerizim; the disputes between them and the Jews in Egypt; and their clashes with the Romans. When we look at these accounts more closely, however, doubts arise as to the accuracy and reliability of at least some of his statements. Like any other ancient — and, for that matter, modern — author, Josephus had his likes and dislikes and pursued his own agenda in what he writes and what he wants the readers to learn from his works. Of course Josephus makes use of sources since he writes about times and events that lie before his own life time. But he does not simply string these sources together; rather, he selects what he needs to convey his own message. This has consequences for how we read and use his writings. Although Josephus shared his fellow Jews’ ambiguous attitude towards the Samaritans of his day, what he says about the latter reflects predominantly the aims that he set for himself in writing his two main works. Both War and Antiquities address Greek-speaking Gentiles, but each has a different aim. The objective of War is to defend the Jews and to counter hostile writings about the war between the Jews and the Romans (66-70 C.E.), whereas the goal of Antiquities is to inform Josephus’s audience about the history and institutions of Judaism. While Antiquities contains a number of passages that depict the Samaritans in a negative light, War is free of such animosity. In Antiquities Josephus wanted to tell the readers that, in contrast to such unreliable groups as the Samaritans, the Jews can be counted on as trustworthy subjects. Thus, the inimical statements about the Samaritans are not so much expressions of Josephus’s personal hostility towards them as attempts to enhance the positive image of the Jews by contrasting it with that of another, unreliable subject people of the Romans, the Samaritans, and by painting an unflattering picture of 22

them. If Josephus had harbored strong personal feelings against the Samaritans, he would have expressed them also in War, and in Antiquities he would have had more opportunities to make hostile comments about them. Thus, in any attempt to reconstruct “what really happened” we have to be aware of Josephus’s aims in his writings and realize that extracting historical information from Josephus’s works has to be done with great circumspection. Some authors think it cannot be done at all. As one eminent scholar of Josephus, Steve Mason, puts it: “we have no place to stand that affords traction for getting behind Josephus.” And, he continues: “We might prefer one hypothesis or another on the basis of taste…. But comparison of the overlapping material in War and Life should warn us against relying upon hunches, ‘inherent plausibility,’ or the appearance of duplicity as guides. Any effort to extract some strands from Josephus’s tapestry while leaving others will seem more or less arbitrary to those with different tastes.” Throughout his two main works, Josephus uses many terms for the inhabitants of Samaria and for Samaritans in the meaning of the religious community centered on Mt. Gerizim, above all Χουθαῖοι, Σαμαρεῖς, Σαμαρεῖται, οἱ ἐν Γαριζείν, and Σικιμῖται. In the following discussion, “Samaritans” is used when it is reasonably certain that he has specifically the Gerizim community in mind. Josephus’s Antiquities contains two accounts of the origin of the Samaritans. In the first (Ant. 9:288-291), he interprets 2 Kings 17:24-41 in such a way that he makes the Bible depict the beginnings of Samaritanism with the conquest and Assyrian resettlement of Israel in the eighth century B.C.E. He calls the colonists “Cutheans” after one of the peoples imported into Israel as related in 2 Kings 17:24 and adds that the Greek equivalent is Σαμαρεῖται. The latter constitute thus the foreign population brought from Persia (Ant. 9:288) and settled by the Assyrians in Samaria. Originally they worshiped their own gods, but after the Most High God punished them with a pestilence and they learned that they should worship him, they served him with great zeal and do so “up to this day.” Different from 2 Kings 17, Josephus does not depict the Samaritans as syncretists. But they are opportunists: when the Jews are prospering, they claim to be their kin, descended from Joseph, but when the Jews are in trouble, they deny that they have anything to do with them, let alone be related to them. Josephus levels such accusations against them also in other contexts: Ant. 11:340, 12:257 and 261. In a summary statement in Ant. 10:183-184, not to be found in the Bible, Josephus repeats his affirmation made in Ant. 9:278: the North was emptied of Israelites, i.e., the people of the Ten Tribes were deported by the Assyrians, and, he adds, new settlers, the Cutheans, called Samaritans after the country in which they settled, were brought in. Clearly, in these passages Josephus has the Samaritans of his own day in mind. Thus, already in this first account of their origins he depicts them in an unfavorable light — they are not only descended from foreigners, but they are also opportunists. To be able to do that, he modified the biblical account of 2 Kings 17:24-41 to suit his purpose. As is well known, the influence of his version of the pericope in 2 Kings 17 was felt up to the present: Josephus’s Cutheans = Samaritans became the “Kutim” of the rabbis. Before Josephus presents the second version of Samaritan origins, he narrates, in Antiquities 11, their dealings with the returnees from the Babylonian exile. In his account of 23

24

the events surrounding the returnees he relies mainly on 1 Esdras 5:63-70 rather than on Ezra-Nehemiah. However, Ant. 11:114-119 has no parallel in the Bible, and Ant. 11:174-175 is based on Nehemiah 4:1. The text of 1 Esdras used by Josephus is very close to that of the Septuagint. In the last part of Book 11 (Ant. 11:297-347) Josephus presents his second version of Samaritan origins and recounts the building of the temple on Mt. Gerizim. As in the case of his retelling of 2 Kings 17, in his narration of the events concerning the Samaritans in the Persian period, Josephus paraphrases and modifies the biblical story. First, he tells of the surrounding nations, especially the Cutheans, and their attempts to thwart the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple by the returnees — they bribe the Persian officials to stop the Jews from reconstructing the city and the temple. While both Ezra 4:1 and 1 Esdras 5:66 speak in this context in general terms of the adversaries and enemies of (the tribes of) Judah and Benjamin, Josephus focuses on the Cutheans and, in an obvious reference back to his retelling of 2 Kings 17, repeats that they had been brought from Persia and Media to Samaria to replace the deported Israelite population. In this way he reinforces the tradition that the Cutheans, equated with the Samaritans, were the main enemies of the returnees. The canonical Book of Ezra identifies implicitly the enemies of Judah and Benjamin with the inhabitants of the North in 4:2 without saying which specific group or community it has in mind. As to the accusation of the Samaritan practice of bribery, Josephus will raise it again in Ant. 20:119. The next time Josephus mentions the Samaritans is in Ant. 11:84-88, once more in connection with the rebuilding of the temple. As opposed to 1 Esdras 5:66 and Ezra 4:1, he describes the Samaritans as the only group “hostile to the tribes of Judah and Benjamin” (v. 84), and in v. 88 he once more equates Cutheans and Samaritans. The Samaritans ask the tribes of Judah and Benjamin to be allowed to participate in the rebuilding of the sanctuary because, so they said, they worship God with the same zeal as the Jews ever since Salmanasses brought them there from Chuthia and Media — another allusion to 2 Kings 17. However, they were refused participation in the construction and only permitted to worship in the temple just like all the others. No reason for this refusal is given, but as enemies of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, identified as such at the outset of this episode, their request could not have been sincere. In an addition to the text of 1 Esdras, Josephus continues his list of hostile actions committed by the Samaritans against the Jews with the narrative of a letter that the former wrote to King Darius, accusing the Jews of fortifying the city and making the temple into a fortress, although King Cambyses had forbidden the rebuilding of the temple (Ant. 11:97). The accusation that the Jews were rebuilding the temple like a fortress was made earlier by the Persian officials Sisines and Sarabazanes (Ant. 11:89). In another addition to 1 Esdras, Josephus further charges the Samaritans with harassing the Jews (Ant. 11:114-119). They are said to have “relied on their wealth and pretended to be related to the Persians, since they had come from their country.” Neither here nor earlier in Ant. 11:84 does Josephus give any reason for the hostility of the Samaritans. At the very beginning of this passage (Ant. 11:114) he once again ascribes a foreign origin to the Samaritans — they came from the country of the Persians — as he did in Ant. 9:288-291; 25

10:184; and 11:61. In Ant. 11:174-175 Josephus enumerates the “Ammanites, Moabites, Samaritans and all those living in Coele-Syria” as being angry at the building of the walls of Jerusalem and sparing no efforts to obstruct the Jews’ work, although the underlying text, Nehemiah 4:1 (MT) = 2 Esdras 14:7 (LXX), mentions only “the Arabs and the Ammonites and the Ashdotites” in this context; the Samaritans are a Josephan addition. In sum, in his account of the Chouthaioi/Samareitai during the Persian period, Josephus again writes in such a way that the reader gains the impression that he has the Gerizim community of his own day in mind. He modifies the thrust of the biblical texts in such a way that the identity of the adversaries of the Jews is clearly established. In his work, they have become the main adversaries of the returnees from the Babylonian exile, trying to forestall the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple. Moreover, Josephus repeatedly underlines their foreign origin: they were settled in Samaria by the Assyrians, hail from Persia and Media, are called “Cutheans,” and appertain to the nations surrounding the Jews, which makes them non-Jews. Their offer to help rebuild the Jerusalem temple was made with ulterior motives and is therefore rejected. They bribe the Persians, write to Darius to denounce the Jews, and warn the king of the machinations of the Jews; together with other peoples they conspire to subvert the rebuilding efforts by the Jews, kill many, and even try to assassinate Nehemiah. Josephus was able to paint this negative image of the Samaritans by modifying his main source, 1 Esdras, and identifying “the enemies of the Jews” almost exclusively with the Samaritans. Josephus’s second version of the origins of the Samaritans is connected with his lengthy account of Alexander the Great’s visit to Palestine narrated in Ant. 11:297-347. The report begins with the death of the high priest Eliashib and ends with Alexander’s death and the succession to the high-priesthood by Onias. The greater part of the story has no counterpart in the Bible and may well be a product of Josephus’s or his source’s creativity. At the heart of the story about the Samaritans and Alexander the Great is the question of a “mixed” marriage. The Persian satrap Sanballat gave his daughter, Nikaso, in marriage to Manasseh, brother of the high priest Jaddua in Jerusalem. Josephus labels Sanballat a member of the “Cuthean race from whom the Samaritans also are descended” (11:302). Although when first mentioning this marriage (11:302-303), Josephus gives no indication that it may have been objectionable; only later on (11:306-312) does it become an issue: the elders of Jerusalem resented this liaison because they feared it would be the beginning of an affiliation with foreigners, something which they believed was the cause of past misfortunes which had come over them. They demanded therefore that Manasseh divorce Nikaso or refrain from serving at the altar. Manasseh was not willing to do either and informed his father-in-law that, although he loves Nikaso, he does not want to give up his standing as a priest because of her. Sanballat promised him to make him high priest if he keeps his daughter and, with the approval of Darius, to build a temple for him on Mt. Gerizim similar to the one in Jerusalem. All the priests and Israelites who had married foreigners — and there were many — defected to Manasseh, Sanballat supplying them with money, land, and dwellings in order to make them favorably disposed towards his son-in-law. Most recent

scholars assume that Josephus has elaborated here on the short remark in Nehemiah 13:28: “And one of the sons of Jehoiada, son of the high priest Eliashib, was the son-in-law of Sanballat the Horonite; I [Nehemiah] chased him from me.” However, other authors, pointing to the differences between the account in Josephus and that in Nehemiah 13:28, believe that they refer to two different incidents and that there may be some historical truth behind it. But whether one opts for the view that Josephus’s Manasseh-Sanballat story is a midrash on Nehemiah 13:28 or the view that it preserves an independent and historically accurate tradition — or at least a kernel of it, Josephus uses it to depict the Samaritans, their temple and their priesthood in a negative light: the Samaritans were Cutheans and their first high priest was a renegade Jew, who married a foreigner and whose ambition was the reason why the Gerizim temple was built in the first place. But Josephus goes further. As opposed to the Jews who remained loyal to Darius, Sanballat switched allegiance when he saw that Alexander was about to defeat the Persians; offered Alexander his troops to help with the siege of Tyre; and asked him permission to build a temple on Mt. Gerizim for his son-in-law (Ant. 11:321-325). He pointed out to Alexander that such a temple would divide the Jewish people and weaken them in case they were to revolt. Alexander acceded to Sanballat’s request; the temple was built within nine months and Manasseh was appointed high priest. When the temple was completed, Sanballat died. Alexander took Gaza, marched on Jerusalem where he met the high priest at the head of the other priests and the citizens, sacrificed to God and honored the priests, and bestowed on the Jews the favors they had asked of him. Having just counted the Samaritans as part of the Jewish people (Ant. 11:323), the next time Josephus mentions them (Ant. 11:340-345) he calls them renegades from the Jewish nation and accuses them once more of duplicity, as he did in Ant. 9:291 and will do again in Ant. 12:257. Josephus concludes his second founding myth of the Samaritans with the statement that Jerusalemites who were accused of committing unlawful acts, such as eating unclean food or violating the Sabbath, fled to the Shechemites. In his desire to picture the Samaritans as a suspect group, Josephus not only uses 2 Kings 17 to denounce them, but he also connects them with elements from the Jerusalem priesthood who were accused of transgressing Jewish precepts and were expelled from their community. In short, any argument will do. Moreover, to depict the Samaritans as stemming from breakaway Jews provides to outsiders an explanation why the observances of the two groups were so similar. In Ant. 12:257-264, an interruption of his retelling of the events described in 1 Maccabees, Josephus alleges that during the persecution of the Jews by the Seleucid King Antiochus IV Epiphanes the Samaritans distanced themselves from the former and, in a letter to Antiochus, claimed to be Sidonians and to have nothing in common with the Jews even though the king’s officers think they are their kin and practice the same customs. They furthermore petitioned the king to be allowed to name their hitherto nameless sanctuary “temple of Zeus Hellenios.” The king believes them, exempts them from the persecution, and permits them to name their temple as they had requested. As he did previously, Josephus implicitly admits that the Samaritans are related to the Jews: he introduces his defamatory insertion by saying 26

27

28

that the Samaritans would no longer admit that they are the Jews’ kin, which implies that in reality they are their kin. In the same sentence he contradicts himself when he states that the Samaritans were in fact colonists from the Medes and Persians. In this passage Josephus contrasts the Samaritans’ craven obedience with the Jews’ brave resistance to Antiochus’s decrees as described in Ant. 12:255-256. Although many Jews complied with the king’s demands either voluntarily or out of fear, “the worthiest people and those of noble soul disregarded him” (Ant. 12:255//1 Macc. 1:52-53 and 62-64). Among the Samaritans no such high-minded individuals were found; all obeyed the royal ordinances. In writing this section, Josephus made use of documents that he found in one of his sources, but he changed the tenor of these documents by introducing the quotes with his negative remarks about the Samaritans in the initial paragraph (§ 257) of the pericope. Twice Josephus relates quarrels between Jews and Samaritans in Alexandria, once in Ant. 12:7-10, and a second time in Ant. 13:74-79. Both accounts refer probably to one and the same event, the first supplying the reason and the background for the second. At the center of the dispute were the questions which temple, the one in Jerusalem or the one on Mt. Gerizim, is to be honored with sacrifices and which one was built in accordance with the laws of Moses. Only the representatives of the Jews speak and convince the king that the temple in Jerusalem is the legitimate one; the Samaritan delegation loses without having said a word and is put to death. There are many signs that these stories as told by Josephus cannot be historical, but through them, Josephus shows once more that the Samaritans compare unfavorably with the Jews. At the same time, however, he implicitly counts them as Israelites — for both Jews and Samaritans the laws of Moses are decisive in determining which temple was legitimate. According to Josephus, the Gerizim temple was destroyed two hundred years after it had been built in the time of Alexander the Great. The event happened in the course of the Hasmonean king John Hyrcanus I’s conquests in Syria (War 16:62-63 and Ant. 13:254-256), as Josephus recounts: John Hyrcanus captured “Shechem and Garizein and the Cuthaean nation, which lives near the temple built after the model of the sanctuary at Jerusalem, which Alexander permitted their 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” (Ant. 13:255256). In the introduction to this passage, Josephus dates the event in the year 130 or 129 B.C.E., and in the conclusion of his account in Antiquities he adds that it was laid waste two hundred years after it was built. However, we will see in the section on archaeology that excavations on Mt. Gerizim — especially coin finds — have shown that the destruction must be dated later, that is, in 111 or 110 B.C.E. In contrast to the narrative about the building of the temple, Josephus’s report about its end is very short; no mention of John Hyrcanus’s motive is made. Nor does Josephus even hint at the impact of Hyrcanus’s actions on the Samaritans and on the relationship between the latter and the Jews. In several accounts Josephus refers to the Samaritans of the Roman period, i.e., in Ant. 18:85-89; War 2:232-246//Ant. 20:118-136; and War 3:307-315. The events occurred either in his own life time or shortly before. He did therefore not need to use ancient sources but could rely on personal witnesses and his own experience. The primary aim of these texts is to

point up Roman wrongdoings against the Jews, some of which involve the Samaritans. Although events that occurred in the Roman period were closer to Josephus’s own life time, this does not necessarily mean that everything he has to say about the Samaritans of that period is based on historical incidents. Thus, a basis in history and the identification of the perpetrators are difficult to ascertain in the narrative of a hostile act against the temple in Jerusalem, that is, the scattering of bones in the temple area described in Ant. 18:29-30. The event purportedly took place shortly before the end of the term of the first procurator of Judea, Coponius, around the year 8 C.E. Certain Samaritans are said to have secretly entered Jerusalem at the time of Passover and scattered bones “in the porticoes and throughout the temple.” Not only is the text of this passage corrupt, but Josephus also mentions no motives of or consequences for the perpetrators. If in fact the latter were Samaritans and not just people from Samaria who had no connection to the Gerizim cult, the story may be an indication of the antagonism between Jews and Samaritans in the early years of the Common Era. Later on, in 36 C.E., during the governorship of Pontius Pilate (26-36 C.E.), a disturbance occurred that involved the Samaritans. A man, characterized as a liar and swindler by Josephus, called together the Samaritans and bade them to go up with him to Mt. Gerizim, where he would show them the sacred vessels buried there by Moses. They followed his call, arrived in arms and gathered in the village Tirathana (probably modern Et-Tire, 6 km southwest of Nablus) at the foot of the mountain. But before they could ascend, Pilate’s troops engaged them in a battle, killed some, put others to flight, and took many prisoners; their leaders were put to death by Pilate. This harsh action was to cost Pilate his position because the Samaritans complained to the Roman governor of Syria, Vitellius, who ordered him to give an account of his deeds to the emperor in Rome. This story has all the hallmarks of an eschatological event. As discussed in connection with the incident of the Woman at the Well (John 4), according to Samaritan beliefs, at the end of this age a prophet like Moses will appear who is called in Aramaic , “Taheb,” i.e., the returning one. Although this title occurs in Samaritan sources only from the fourth century C.E. on, the concept goes back to an earlier period and designates the prophet like Moses whose return is promised in Deuteronomy 18:15 and 18. Although often called the Samaritan “messiah,” this eschatological prophet is not identical with the messiah as understood in Judaism. One of the functions of the Taheb is to bring back the holy Tabernacle of which the sacred vessels mentioned by Josephus in this passage are a part. This tradition of the hidden vessels is not unique to Samaritanism, but is also known in Judaism where the earliest references are to be found in 2 Maccabees 2:4-8 and in the Jewish historian Eupolemus who lived in the mid-second century B.C.E. The imposter’s statement in Josephus that Moses had hidden the vessels on Mt. Gerizim is puzzling, since Moses never entered the Promised Land (see Deut. 32:52 and 34:4) and the Samaritans nowhere attribute the hiding of the vessels to him, but rather to the high priest Uzzi. Unfortunately, it is impossible to know what precisely the envisaged connection with Moses was. In any event, Josephus’s remark that the Samaritans viewed the tale as plausible (Ant. 18:86) indicates that some such tradition was current at that time among the Samaritan population. It should be pointed out 29

that Josephus makes no pejorative remarks about the Samaritans in this passage. Another serious clash involving the Samaritans occurred during the procuratorship of Ventidius Cumanus in 52 C.E. (War 2:232-246//Ant. 20:118-136). It was the most serious of the three disturbances that took place in Cumanus’s term of office and it marks the point where “robbery, and raids and insurrections” and brigandry began to infest the whole country (War 2:238; Ant. 20:124). It started with the murder of one Jew (War 2:232 and 237) or many Jews (Ant. 20:118) from Galilee at a village called Gema (modern Jenin) in the great plain of Samaria. The Galileans were pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem to celebrate a festival that remains unnamed in Josephus. To avenge the murder, the Jews in Jerusalem rose up and, led by two brigands, dashed off to Samaria where they burned some villages bordering on the toparchy of Acrabatene (south-east of Neapolis) and massacred their inhabitants “without distinction of age” (War 2:235). Cumanus, taking cavalry and infantry troops with him and arming the Samaritans, marched against the Jews, killing many and taking numerous prisoners. The Samaritans turned to the governor of Syria, Ummidius Quadratus (51-60 C.E.), in Tyre and demanded that the Jews be punished for destroying their villages. The Jewish leaders too went to Quadratus and blamed the Samaritans for starting the conflict. Most of all they put the blame on Cumanus because he neglected to penalize the murderers. While according to War 2:233, Cumanus ignored their entreaties because he had more important matters to attend, according to Ant. 20:119 he had been bribed by the Samaritans, a charge that the Jews leveled against the Samaritans in Ant. 20:127. As discussed, already in Ant. 11:19-20 Josephus states that the Samaritans bribed the Persian satraps. In the end, Quadratus executed the Samaritans and the Jews who had taken part in the uprising and had been arrested by Cumanus. After a second hearing, Quadratus had the leading Jews and Samaritans killed. Other Jews and Samaritans as well as Cumanus and Celer, a military tribune, he sent to Rome, to bring the matter before Emperor Claudius. The latter declares the Samaritans guilty, executes the members of their delegation (“three of their most prominent men,” according to War 2:245), exiles Cumanus, and orders Celer to be returned to Jerusalem, where he was to be dragged around the city and then beheaded. Felix (ca. 52-60 C.E.) was appointed successor to Cumanus. Although Josephus uses both Σαμαρεῖς and Σαμαρεῖται in these passages, from the context it is clear that he means Samaritans, not pagan inhabitants of Samaria. The Galileans were attacked because of religious rivalry, that is, they were on their way to the temple in Jerusalem. Just as Jesus’ envoys could not find a place for him to stay in a village of the Σαμαρῖται “because his face was set toward Jerusalem” (Luke 9:53), so the Galilean pilgrims were attacked by the Samaritans because they too were going to Jerusalem. This serious clash between Samaritans and Jews in the mid-first century C.E. is a sign that the relationship between the two communities was at a low point. But, as already mentioned, Josephus’s statement that the Galileans were in the habit (Ant. 20:118) of passing through Samaria on the way to Jerusalem to take part in festivals in the temple, implies that the incident under Cumanus was an exception. We should therefore not draw the conclusion that unremitting and implacable enmity between them was the norm at this time. In July 67 C.E. the Samaritans clashed once more with the Romans (War 3:307-315). They 30

31

gathered on Mt. Gerizim and “did not move from the spot.” Their unbending stance aroused in the minds of the Romans the suspicion that the Samaritans might intend to revolt. To forestall such an action, Emperor Vespasian sent a large number of cavalry (600 combatants) and infantry (3,000 combatants) to the area, led by the commander of the fifth legion, Sextus Cerealis Vettulenus. Due to the strength of the assembled Samaritans, Cerealis considered it more prudent to surround the base of the mountain with his troops and wait until the Samaritans would surrender. His calculations proved right. Not all Samaritans surrendered, but some died of thirst and others deserted to the Romans on the first day. A formidable heat wave — it was midsummer — found the Samaritans without provisions. Cerealis realized that the rest must also be exhausted, ascended the mountain and invited the Samaritans to capitulate. When they refused, he attacked and killed all of them, 11,600 in all. From the context of this account it can be inferred that Josephus wanted to present another example of an ill-considered action by a group that underestimated the strength of the Romans. The long passage War 3:141-339, describing the siege and defeat of Jotapata (Yodfat) in 67 C.E., is interrupted by descriptions of two other unsuccessful uprisings against the Romans. In War 3:289-306 Josephus tells the story of Japha, a town approximately 15 km south of Jotapata, which, “encouraged by the surprising resistance of their neighbours at Jotapata,” revolted against the Romans and was decisively defeated. According to War 3:307315, the same fate was met by the Samaritans on Mt. Gerizim, who “had learnt nothing from their neighbors’ calamities.” This constellation suggests that the story of the Samaritans on Mt. Gerizim is not directed against them; rather, the moral that Josephus wants to convey is: these disastrous outcomes show that the Romans’ tremendous might must not be underestimated. Implicitly Josephus admits here again that the Samaritans are part of the Jewish people. Does the incident on Mt. Gerizim in 67 C.E. mean that the Samaritans took part in the war between the Jews and the Romans in 66-70 C.E.? As the events around the clashes between Samaritans and Galileans show, the Samaritans too had their grievances against the Romans and may well have been roused to join the Jews in their struggle against the occupiers, but their decisive defeat on Mt. Gerizim undoubtedly put an end to any further participation. This tale of defeat and decimation is Josephus’s last mention of the Samaritans. Even though the numbers of Samaritans killed, 11,600, may be overblown, the disastrous outcome of this episode must have dealt a severe blow to the Gerizim community from which it did not recover for some time. 32

4. Rabbinic Literature As a religious community closely related to Judaism, the Samaritans were, of course, of great interest to the early rabbis, either as opponents in matters of belief and halakhah or as alter ego in contrast to which the rabbis sought to better define their own identity. They are therefore frequently mentioned in the rabbinic literature, i.e., in Mishna, Tosefta, the Jerusalem (or Palestinian) Talmud, the Babylonian Talmud, and in various halakhic and aggadic Midrashim. The basic attitude of the rabbis comes to the fore in the usual term used to refer to the Samaritans in these writings, i.e., the pejorative designation Kutim, derived 33

from the name of one of the cities, Cutha, from which the Assyrians are said, in 2 Kings 17:24, to have imported settlers after the fall of the northern kingdom, as discussed earlier. Much of this vast literature is still an untapped resource when it comes to the study of matters Samaritan. Several factors account for the relatively sparse use of the texts in question for the history of the Samaritans. Primary among them is the methodological difficulty to determine the time frame into which the various traditions are to be fitted. Rabbinic literature evolved through a process of compilation and redaction over a long period of time, involving oral and written stages, and it is therefore difficult to date its components. Most scholars agree on approximate dates for the redaction of the main works, but they also recognize that these works incorporate oral traditions from earlier periods. On the other hand, a saying may be ascribed to a rabbi from an early epoch, but this does not necessarily mean it, in fact, comes from his age. And even if a saying does come from the rabbi to whom it is attributed, it does not mean that he is necessarily its originator, but he may be basing himself on prior authorities. In certain cases, sayings may even have been falsely ascribed to early authors so as to give more weight to an opinion. Another important aspect complicating the use of the material is to ascertain whether a given tradition about the Samaritans reflects a historical event or state of affairs, or merely serves to clarify and illustrate a point about the boundaries of Judaism in the minds of the rabbis. It must also be remembered that partly due to later Christian censorship of Jewish writings, other terms such as goy, i.e., “non-Jew,” “Gentile,” or “Christian,” were sometimes substituted by Kuti, although in reality these texts had nothing to do with the Samaritans. Moreover, the comparison of passages from different rabbinic writings has shown that formulations which the rabbis originally aimed at the pagans were at times transferred to the Samaritans. Furthermore, the view of the Samaritans within rabbinic literature is not uniform. Not only do rabbis disagree with each other over certain questions, but also attitudes towards the Samaritans changed over time. Finally, textual corruptions either in the manuscripts or the printed editions as well as modifications deliberately or unwittingly introduced by copyists are potential sources of difficulties in the interpretation of some passages. But despite all these complicating elements, a number of important contributions to the study of the Samaritans in rabbinic literature have been made by past and present scholars of rabbinics and by historians of the rabbinic period. Early authors such as Israel Taglicht (1888) and Hermann Strack and Paul Billerbeck (1922) collected and listed the rabbinic passages; some have edited, translated and commented on the Minor Talmudic tractate Kutim, as did Raphael Kirchheim (1851), Lazar Gulkowitsch (1925), and Michael Higger (1930); others have discussed the halakhic differences between Jews and Samaritans (Abraham Geiger, 1866); and again others have tried to learn about the final breach between Jews and Samaritans according to rabbinic sources (Isaiah Sonne, 1945) or the origins of the Samaritans in Jewish halakhic writings (Gedaliah Alon, 1947). Recent authors are being attentive to new insights into the nature of rabbinic literature and analyze it — that is, selected portions of it — with contemporary methods that try to date and situate the pertinent sayings as much as possible in their time and social context and thus to come to a better understanding of the significance of the 34

35

rabbis’ pronouncements about the Samaritans. The cardinal questions in this endeavor are: How did the rabbis see the Samaritans — as a part of Judaism or as pagans or as a community in between? Was there a specific time when the attitude of the rabbis towards the Samaritans underwent a change from acceptance to rejection? What can we learn from rabbinic sources about the history, beliefs and practices of the Samaritans in the first millennium C.E.? The replies to these queries will depend to a large extent on how one resolves the fundamental issue: are the accounts about the Samaritans in the rabbinic sources “constructs of ‘Rabbinic mind’ or reflections of social reality?” In the Tannaitic sources of the Mishna and Tosefta, i.e., the sources going back to the early rabbinic teachers, the Tannaim (lit. “teachers”, active approximately from 20 C.E. to 220 C.E.), discussions involving the Samaritans are often used to delimit the boundaries of Judaism. In other words, the early rabbis were not so much concerned with the Samaritans as such, but rather wanted to clarify their own identity by examining to whom exactly the halakhic rulings apply. The Samaritans emerge in the process as an “interstitial” category, neither Jewish nor non-Jewish. In the Jerusalem or Palestinian Talmud, compiled in Galilee in the fourth and fifth centuries C.E., and in the Babylonian Talmud, redacted in Mesopotamia in the third to fifth centuries C.E., the attitude of the rabbis towards the Samaritans changed. The latter are no longer seen as an interstitial group, but as non-Jews, a view that was already adumbrated in the Tannaitic period, as can be seen from t. Terumot 4:12 and 4:14, where Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel states: “A Samaritan is [treated] like an Israelite,” but his son, Rabbi, contradicts him and maintains: “A Samaritan is [treated] like a gentile.” In the minds of the Amoraim (lit. “speakers,” “interpreters”), the framers of the Talmudim, the Samaritans have become corrupted because they worship idols buried on Mt. Gerizim, as stated in y. ʿAbodah Zarah 44d: “They have a kind of dove and they offered it libations”; and similarly in b. Ḥullin 6a. In the same passage in the Babylonian Talmud, the rabbis declared the Samaritans to be complete non-Jews. Whether this is in fact meant in the literal sense of the phrase or whether the rabbis only wanted to say that the Samaritans should be treated as if they were non-Jews is difficult to know. For the latter interpretation speaks of the apparent inclusion of the Samaritans, in the same passage, among apostates, who remain Jews in many respects, although they are in fact treated as non-Jews and at times considered even worse than nonJews. Another view is that the Jerusalem Talmud displays none of the indecisive or even positive positions vis-à-vis the Samaritans found in the Mishna and Tosefta, but views them clearly as non-Jews. The literary nature of many of the stories in the Talmud about the interaction of the rabbis with the Samaritans makes it impossible to treat them as if they were depictions of historical reality. Careful analysis of selected passages in the Jerusalem Talmud, however, has shown that there are “some ‘superfluous details’ … that surely correlate to a certain degree with ‘real life’.” This allows us to learn about a number of practices of the Samaritans in the Amoraic period. Some authors pointed out that there was not a clear-cut shift in the rabbinic attitude towards the Samaritans in the Amoraic period, as was and is assumed by many scholars. Instead, the rabbis’ views regarding the Samaritans changed many times. In later 36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

rabbinic works, a ban was pronounced on the Samaritans. But in spite of this, contacts between the two groups never ceased. As the above remarks demonstrate, in order to make sound methodological use of rabbinic writings for the reconstruction of the beliefs and practices of the Samaritans in Talmudic times and to responsibly assess the Samaritans’ relationship to the Jews in that period, the literary character of the rabbinic works needs to be taken into account and the origin and date of the traditions must be determined as far as possible. It is, therefore, not surprising that no comprehensive study of the rabbinic statements about the Samaritans has as yet been undertaken. Historical critical investigations into select rabbinic passages referring to Samaritans have begun relatively recently and much more needs to be done before a fuller account can be attempted. The small, extra-canonical (i.e., not part of the Talmud) tractate Kutim is devoted specifically to questions relating to the Samaritans. The edition by Michael Higger in Seven Minor Treatises is still valuable, although a new critical edition of the text with variant readings and commentaries has been published in 2010 by Yitzhak Goldstein and Tuvia Katzman. A German translation and a fresh analysis of the tractate was published by Lehnardt (1999). The redaction of Kutim is often dated in the Tannaitic period on the basis of the tractate’s mishnaic Hebrew and the names of the rabbis cited in it, all belonging to the third and fourth generation of the Tannaim, i.e., to the years 80 to 135 C.E. However, linguistic and historical criteria are inadequate in this case because mishnaic Hebrew was used also in tractates which, on the basis of their contents, are to be dated in the postmishnaic period, and the names of the rabbis can only be a secondary criterion because their identification depends on the reliability of the manuscript tradition. To arrive at a more assured dating, the sayings in Kutim must be compared with parallel traditions in other rabbinic works. Such a comparison shows that the tractate is a collection of older traditions, some of which were modified, i.e., precepts previously directed towards pagans and nonJews seem to have been transferred to the Samaritans by taking them out of the original context and replacing the term goyim with kutim. This concentration exclusively on the Samaritans resulted in a greater severity of the older rules. The redactor wanted to show that the Samaritans may know the laws of the Torah and some other customs, but they are no longer regarded as Jews, although they are not pagans either. The tractate seems to date from the time after the redaction of the Babylonian Talmud or, at the earliest, after the redaction process of the Jerusalem Talmud. Kutim begins by declaring that “The Samaritans in some of their ways resemble the Gentiles and in some resemble Israel, but in the majority they resemble Israel.” It then enumerates various rules which are to govern the interactions with the Samaritans. The topics of these regulations range from offerings in the Temple to items sold or not sold to the Samaritans, the prohibition of marriages between Jews and Samaritans, midwifery, circumcision, priests, food prepared by Samaritans — including meat, bread and wine. In the last section, the tractate asks: “When may they be received into the Jewish community?” and answers with the short statement: “When they have renounced Mt. Gerizim and acknowledged Jerusalem and the resurrection of the dead,” and concludes with the 44

45

46

47

48

49

declaration: “From then onwards one who robs a Samaritan is like one who robs an Israelite.” Clearly, the issue of the different holy places is dividing the two communities, but the question what role the belief, or non-belief, in the resurrection of the dead played in the Samaritan religion of antiquity and in the disputes between Samaritans and Jews is difficult to answer. For modern times, i.e., from the 14th century up to the present, the Samaritans’ belief in the resurrection of the dead is well documented. For the rabbinic period we have several texts which discuss their disbelief in it. Apart from the passage in Kutim just quoted, b. Sanhedrin 90b also contends that the Samaritans of the Talmudic times did not believe in resurrection. In addition, the Christian authors Origen (ca. 185–ca. 254), Cyril of Jerusalem (ca. 315–ca. 386), Epiphanius of Salamis (ca. 315-403), Philaster (d. ca. 397), Cosmas Indicopleustes (mid sixth-century), and John of Damascus (ca. 655–ca. 750) explicitly note the Samaritans’ denial of resurrection. According to Epiphanius of Salamis, the sect of the Dositheans, on the other hand, believed in it. A note to the contrary in Photius’s account about Eulogius seems to be a later insertion. As has repeatedly been pointed out, non-belief in resurrection would not exclude the Samaritans from Judaism. The Sadducees, too, did not believe in it and were not counted out of Judaism. It may well be that the rabbinic discussions on this problem were fictional and were due purely to literary exigencies. While the disagreement about the place of worship — Mt. Gerizim or Jerusalem — was the fundamental divisive matter between the two groups, the clause about the resurrection of the dead may have been added in the course of the fixation of the biblical text, when the rabbis felt more and more the need to disprove the Samaritan position that there is no reference to resurrection in the Torah. There are, however, the church fathers’ unequivocal statements regarding the Samaritans’ disbelief in resurrection. If the rabbinic discussions of this matter do not reflect reality, the patristic sources either knew of these fictional disputes, which is doubtful, or they transferred Sadducean views to the Samaritans in the belief that the two are closely related, which is possible. A confused account of the Dositheans is given in Pseudo-Tertullian’s work Adversus omnes haereses, written before the time of Epiphanius and Philaster, who are dependent on this book. There, Dositheus is called a Samaritan, although his heresy is enumerated among Jewish heresies. The Sadducees, in turn, are said to derive from Dositheus. Cosmas Indicopleustes’ description of Samaritan beliefs may well have been influenced by Sadducean views, and John of Damascus repeats what an earlier excerpter of Epiphanius’s work De haeresibus wrote two hundred and fifty years before him. Origen, on the other hand, lived for many years in Caesarea Maritima, a city which had a large Samaritan population at that time, and he had therefore ample opportunity to become acquainted with Samaritan beliefs and practices. He clearly distinguishes between Sadducees and Samaritans and reports in several of his works that the latter did not believe in resurrection. Cyril of Jerusalem also was aware of the difference between Jews and Samaritans and tried to refute the Samaritan denial of resurrection through proofs taken only from the Torah since he knew that they did not accept the Prophets as authoritative. This latter procedure stands in stark contrast to the rabbinic discourse in b. Sanhedrin 90b where a 50

51

52

53

54

passage from Psalm 72:16 was put into the mouth of the “patriarch of the Samaritans” who purportedly introduced his question to R. Meir by this quote from Psalms, saying: “I know that the dead will revive, for it is written, And they [sc. the righteous] shall [in the distant future] blossom forth out of the city [Jerusalem] like the grass of the earth. But when they arise, shall they arise nude or in their garments?” It is, however, possible that the Samaritans made this reference to a part of the Bible which they did not accept because they were arguing with outsiders. Although it seems implausible that Origen and Cyril of Jerusalem are mistaken in what they wrote about the Samaritans’ belief in resurrection, in the last analysis we cannot be sure what the Samaritans’ stance on this issue was. To summarize, the rabbinic writings have a great deal to say about the Samaritans, but careful and circumspect analyses of the traditions are needed if we want to derive from them historically reliable information. 55

56

57

1. For a different view based on the Hebrew text of v. 24, see Magnar Kartveit, “The Origin of the Jews and Samaritans According to the Samaritan Chronicles,” in “Durch Dein Wort ward jegliches Ding!”: 2. Mandäistische und samaritanistische Tagung: Zum Gedenken an Rudolf Macuch (1919-1993) = “Through Thy Word All Things Were Made!”: 2nd International Conference of Mandaic and Samaritan Studies, ed. Rainer Voigt (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2013), p. 146. 2. Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included Under That Title (New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). 3. Cf. Klaus Haacker, “Gottesdienst ohne Gotteserkenntnis: Joh. 4,22 vor dem Hintergrund der jüdisch-samaritanischen Auseinandersetzung,” in Wort und Wirklichkeit: Studien zur Afrikanistik und Orientalistik; Part I: Geschichte und Religionswissenschaft — Bibliographie; Eugen Ludwig Rapp zum 70. Geburtstag, edited by Brigitta Benzing, Otto Böcher, and Günter Mayer (Meisenheim am Glan: Anton Hain, 1976), p. 111 n. 8. 4. Stefan Schorch, “The Construction of Samari(t)an Identity from the Inside and from the Outside,” in Between Cooperation and Hostility: Multiple Identities in Ancient Judaism and the Interaction with Foreign Powers, ed. Rainer Albertz and Jakob Wöhrle (Journal of Ancient Judaism, Supp. 11; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), p. 137. 5. For a discussion, see the section “Mount Gerizim” in the chapter “Archaeological Excavations” and chapter III.6 in Reinhard Pummer, The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism, 129; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009). 6. This is also underlined by Pieter W. van der Horst, “Anti-Samaritan Propaganda in Early Judaism,” in Persuasion and Dissuasion in Early Christianity, Ancient Judaism, and Hellenism, ed. Pieter W. van der Horst, Maarten J. J. Menken, Joop F. M. Smit, and Geert van Oyen (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology, 33; Leuven; Paris; Dudley, MA: Peeters, 2003), p. 140. 7. So Morton Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics That Shaped the Old Testament (New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1971), p. 189. See also Seán Freyne, Galilee, from Alexander the Great to Hadrian, 323 B.C.E. to 135 C.E.: A Study of Second Temple Judaism (University of Notre Dame Center for the Study of Judaism and Christianity in Antiquity, 5; Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1980), p. 275; and Richard J. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews: The Origins of Samaritanism Reconsidered (Growing Points in Theology; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1975), p. 85. See also the following section. 8. Or: “Geron, an Athenian” (cf. Daniel R. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees [Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature (CEJL); Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2008], p. 275). 9. So also Benjamin Edidin Scolnic, “Mattathias and the Jewish Man of Modein,” JBL 129 (2010): 474. Jason of Cyrene, on whose work 2 Maccabees is based, saw Jews and Samaritans as one ethnic group. 10. For the details see Pummer, The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, pp. 14-15. 11. For a recent discussion of such passages see Magnar Kartveit, The Origin of the Samaritans (VTSup, 128; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2009), pp. 109-202; especially ch. 5, “Josephus’ Predecessors.” 12. For a detailed discussion of alleged references to the Samaritans in the Dead Sea Scrolls see Pummer, The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, pp. 18-23. 13. Eileen Schuller, “4Q372 1: A Text About Joseph,” RevQ 14 (1990): 370. 14. Seth Schwartz, “John Hyrcanus I’s Destruction of the Gerizim Temple and Judaean-Samaritan Relations,” Jewish History 7 (1993): 22 n. 18. Dexinger does not think the text is anti-Samaritan. See Ferdinand Dexinger, “Samaritan Origins and the Qumran Texts,” in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects, ed. Michael O. Wise, Norman Golb, John J. Collins, and Denis G. Pardee (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 722; New York: The New York Academy of Sciences, 1994), p. 244. See also Matthew Thiessen, “4Q372 1 and the Continuation of Joseph’s Exile,” DSD 15 (2008): 395. 15. See Shemaryahu Talmon, “A Papyrus Fragment Inscribed in Palaeo-Hebrew Script,” in Masada: Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963-1965: Final Reports (The Masada Reports, 6; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society; Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1999), pp. 138-49; and Shemaryahu Talmon, “A Masada Fragment of Samaritan Origin,” IEJ 47 (1997): 220-32. On the basis of the alleged Samaritan provenance of this fragment, Feldman believes “the most likely conclusion is that the Samaritans were among the revolutionaries who co-operated in the defense of Masada” (Louis H. Feldman, “Josephus’ Attitude Toward the Samaritans: A Study in Ambivalence,” in Josephus, the Bible, and History, ed. Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata [Leiden: Brill, 1989], p. 38). 16. Hanan Eshel, “The Prayer of Joseph, a Papyrus from Masada and the Samaritan Temple on ΑΡΓΑΡΙΖΙΝ” [in Hebrew], Zion 56 (1990): 136. 17. See Pummer, The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, pp. 22-23. 18. Józef Tadeusz Milik, “Les modèles armaéens du livre d’Esther dans la Grotte 4 de Qumrân,” RevQ 15/59 (1992): 337 and 344-45. 19. “Tu sais bien [… Il n’est pas] admissib[le] qu’un homme Kûtéen fût le (premier) responsable [des affaires de] ton [Roy]aume” (Milik, “Les modèles

armaéens,” p. 337). 20. M. G. Wechsler, “Two Para-Biblical Novellae from Qumran Cave 4: A Reevaluation of 4Q550,” DSD 7 (2000): 151. 21. For further details see Pummer, The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, pp. 21-22. 22. See on this issue Pummer, The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, pp. 59-64. For an earlier monograph see Rita Egger, Josephus Flavius und die Samaritaner. Eine terminologische Untersuchung zur Identitätsklärung der Samaritaner (NTOA, 4; Freiburg, Switzerland; Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986). There exist also a number of articles on the subject, such as Richard J. Coggins, “The Samaritans in Josephus,” in Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, ed. Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata (Leiden: Brill, 1987), pp. 257-73; and Feldman, “Josephus’ Attitude.” For references to articles published through 2005, see Alan D. Crown and Reinhard Pummer, A Bibliography of the Samaritans: Third Edition: Revised, Expanded, and Annotated (ATLA Bibliography, 51; Lanham, MD; Toronto; Oxford: Scarecrow, 2005), Subject Index, s.v. “Josephus Flavius.” 23. Steve Mason, Josephus, Judea, and Christian Origins: Methods and Categories (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010), p. 136. 24. Kartveit identifies three origin stories in Josephus (The Origin of the Samaritans, pp. 85-100). 25. See the chapter “Samaritans in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament?” 26. Cf., e.g., Lester L. Grabbe, “Josephus and the Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration,” JBL 106 (1987): 237. 27. See, e.g., James C. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests After the Exile (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004), p. 76. 28. This was underlined by Grabbe, “Josephus and the Reconstruction,” p. 241 n. 39. 29. See also the chapters on “Samaritan Literature” and “The Samaritans Today.” 30. Ventidius Cumanus was procurator of Judea from 48 to 52 C.E. 31. See the chapter “Samaritans and the New Testament” above. 32. Although this report and the one in Ant. 18:85-89 exhibit certain similarities, the differences make it clear that they are not doublets of one and the same event (see Pummer, The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, p. 234). 33. For a recent extensive list of rabbinic passages referring to Samaritans see Maurice Baillet, “Samaritains,” in DBSup 11 (1991): 837-50 (with bibliography and notes). 34. Cf. William Popper, The Censorship of Hebrew Books (Burt Franklin Research & Source Works Series 222, Burt Franklin Judaica Series 6; New York: Burt Franklin, 1968 [orig.: 1899]), p. 59; Sacha Stern, Jewish Identity in Early Rabbinic Writings (Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums, 23; Leiden: Brill, 1994), p. 9; and Andreas Lehnardt, “Das außerkanonische Talmud-Traktat Kutim (Samaritaner) in der innerrabbinischen Überlieferung,” Frankfurter judaistische Beiträge 26 (1999): 118. 35. See Lehnardt’s findings regarding the tractate Kutim in Lehnardt, “Das außerkanonische Talmud-Traktat Kutim,” p. 118. 36. See Lehnardt’s remarks on methodology in Andreas Lehnardt, “Massekhet Kutim and the Resurrection of the Dead,” in Samaritans: Past and Present: Current Studies, ed. Menachem Mor and Friedrich V. Reiterer (Studia Judaica, 53; Studia Samaritana, 5; Berlin; New York: De Gruyter, 2010), pp. 175-92; and in Andreas Lehnardt, “Die Taube auf dem Garizim: Zur antisamaritanischen Polemik in der rabbinischen Literatur,” in Die Samaritaner und die Bibel: Historische und literarische Wechselwirkungen zwischen biblischen und samaritanischen Traditionen = The Samaritans and the Bible: Historical and Literary Interactions between Biblical and Samaritan Traditions, ed. Jörg Frey, Ursula Schattner-Rieser, and Konrad Schmid (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012), pp. 285-302. For examples of analyses of rabbinic traditions see Lawrence H. Schiffman, “The Samaritans in Amoraic Halakhah,” in Shoshannat Yaakov: Jewish and Iranian Studies in Honor of Yaakov Elman, ed. Shai Secunda and Steven Fine (The Brill Reference Library of Judaism, 35; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2012), pp. 371-89. 37. This is the subtitle of Lehnardt’s article, “The Samaritans (Kutim) in the Talmud Yerushalmi: Constructs of ‘Rabbinic Mind’ or Reflections of Social Reality?” in The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture. III, ed. Peter Schäfer (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism, 79; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), pp. 139-60. 38. See Gary G. Porton, Goyim: Gentiles and Israelites in Mishnah-Tosefta (Brown Judaic Studies, 155; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), p. 100 and p. 138 n. 306. For a survey of selected Tannaitic passages see for instance the article by Lawrence H. Schiffman, “The Samaritans in Tannaitic Halakhah,” JQR 75 (1984-85): 323-50. 39. Translations from Jacob Neusner, trans., The Tosefta: Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002). 40. Cf. S. Stern, Jewish Identity, p. 103 and, concerning apostates, pp. 105-113. 41. This is the conclusion at which Lehnardt arrived after analyzing selected passages in the Jerusalem Talmud (“The Samaritans [Kutim],” p. 159). See also Lehnardt, “Die Taube auf dem Garizim,” p. 302 (the Samaritans were clearly seen as non-Jews in every respect at the latest after the completion of the Babylonian Talmud); and Schiffman, “The Samaritans in Amoraic Halakhah.” 42. Lehnardt, “The Samaritans (Kutim),” p. 159. 43. See Schiffman, “The Samaritans in Tannaitic Halakhah,” pp. 388-89. 44. Lehnardt, “The Samaritans (Kutim),” p. 160. 45. See Lehnardt, “Die Taube auf dem Garizim,” pp. 285-86. 46. Lehnardt, “Das außerkanonische Talmud-Traktat Kutim.” A relatively recent English translation can be found in Maurice Simon, trans., Kuthim: On the Samaritans, in The Minor Tractates of the Talmud: Massektoth Ḳeṭannoth, vol. 2, ed. A. Cohen (London: Soncino, 1965), pp. 615-21. Other English translations are James Alan Montgomery, The Samaritans: The Earliest Jewish Sect, Their History, Theology, and Literature (Philadelphia: The J. C. Winston Co., 1907), pp. 197-203; and John 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: Trübner, 1874), pp. 168-72. 47. This analysis was recently undertaken by Lehnardt in his thorough article, “Das außerkanonische Talmud-Traktat Kutim.” 48. See now Lehnardt, “Die Taube auf dem Garizim,” p. 302. 49. See Simon, Kuthim, p. 615. 50. See the discussion in Reinhard Pummer, Early Christian Authors on Samaritans and Samaritanism: Texts, Translations and Commentary (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism, 92. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), pp. 47-50. For the 14th century see Paul Stenhouse, The Kitāb al-Tarīkh of Abū ʾl-Fatḥ: Translated into English with Notes (Studies in Judaica, 1; Sydney: Mandelbaum Trust, University of Sydney, 1985), pp. 132-33. 51. For an analysis of the rabbinic texts see now Lehnardt, “Massekhet Kutim and the Resurrection of the Dead.” 52. For texts and translations see Pummer, Early Christian Authors, pp. 58-59, 62, 71-73 (Origen); pp. 119-20 (Cyril of Jersualem); p. 156 (Epiphanius);

p. 211 (Philaster); pp. 333-35 (Cosmas Indicopleustes); p. 376 (John of Damascus). 53. See Pummer, Early Christian Authors, pp. 146 and 160 (Epiphanius), and p. 427 (Photius); cf. also Stanley Jerome Isser, The Dositheans: A Samaritan Sect in Late Antiquity (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity, 17; Leiden: Brill, 1976), p. 66, for the probable addition in Photius. 54. This is Lehnardt’s view in “Massekhet Kutim and the Resurrection of the Dead,” pp. 186-87. 55. H. Freedman, trans., Sanhedrin, II. The Babylonian Talmud: Translated into English with Notes, Glossary and Indices, ed. I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), p. 607. 56. This was pointed out by Paul Stenhouse, “Reflections on Samaritan Belief in an After-life: Text-proofs for ‘The Appointed day’ in Sam Ms BL Or 10370,” in Samaria, Samarians, Samaritans: Studies on Bible, History and Linguistics, ed. József Zsengellér (Studia Judaica, 66, Studia Samaritana, 6; Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, 2011), p. 252. 57. Stenhouse believes that it is unlikely that the Samaritans denied the resurrection of the dead at a time when the Jews believed in it (“Reflections on Samaritan Belief in an After-life,” p. 250).

V. Archaeological Excavations For a long time scholars had to rely on ancient literary sources for information on the early history of the Samaritans. This situation changed in recent years, thanks to archaeological excavations especially in Samaria. Excavations as well as surveys have modified our understanding of the demographic and economic situation in Samaria from the Iron Age to the Hellenistic and Roman periods. The most important finds were made on Mt. Gerizim itself, but there were also significant discoveries of ancient Samaritan synagogues in the area and of inscriptions in other parts of the lands around the Mediterranean. Especially the discoveries on Mt. Gerizim have changed our view of when the Samaritan temple was built. Until recently, Josephus was our only source, and most authors relied on his account for their reconstructions of the underlying events, notwithstanding the difficulties inherent in his story as discussed in the previous chapter. We now are able to revise Josephus’s description on the basis of the new excavations. In addition, many small objects were unearthed on Mt. Gerizim — from pottery, stone, and glass vessels to weapons, domestic utensils, and jewelry. Additional evidence about the early history of the Samaritans comes from the excavations of Samaritan synagogues, where the unearthing of amulets, oil lamps, and ritual baths (miqvaʾot) adds to our understanding of this period. 1

1. Mount Gerizim Mt. Gerizim’s modern Arabic name is , Jebel eṭ-Ṭur, which is in fact a mixture of Arabic and Aramaic, meaning “Mount The Mountain.” In Samaritan Arabic it is called , Jebel Barik, “Mount of Blessing” (Fig. 1). The mountain is located southwest of ancient Shechem (modern Tell Balaṭah by Nablus) and has two main peaks, the higher rising to 881 m above sea level, and the lower (600 m to the north of it) reaching a height of 831 m above sea level. The latter is called Tell er-Ras (Fig. 2). To the west is a lower hill of 807 m. To the north of Mt. Gerizim lies the 940 m Mount Ebal (Jebel Islamiye in Arabic). Both the city of Nablus (ancient Neapolis) and Tell Balaṭah (ancient Shechem) lie in the pass between the two mountains.

Fig. 1. Mt. Gerizim. General view from the north. (Yitzhak Magen, Mount Gerizim Excavations I, 1)

Mt. Gerizim’s religious significance dates back to pre-Israelite times, as is shown by discoveries from the Middle Bronze Age IIC (1650-1450 B.C.E.) on the northeastern slope. Two limestone capitals and a fragment of a third discovered on the eastern slope of the main peak under a monumental staircase were once thought to come from a (non-Yahwistic) temple of the seventh century B.C.E. (Iron Age II); they were later re-dated to the Persian period. Their original function has been debated — rather than belonging to a cultic installation, they may have pertained originally to a large administrative building. The mountain is mentioned several times in the Bible: Deuteronomy 11:29; 27:4 [SP], 12; Joshua 8:33 [LXX 9:2d]; Judges 9:7 and, indirectly, 9:37; and 2 Maccabees 5:23 and 6:2. It is identified as the mountain on which the blessings were to be pronounced, whereas curses were to be uttered on neighboring Mt. Ebal. The statement in Deuteronomy 11:30, “As you know, they [Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Ebal] are beyond the Jordan, some distance to the west, in the land of the Canaanites who live in the Arabah, opposite Gilgal, beside the oak of Moreh,” gave rise to a dispute about the location of the two mountains in patristic and rabbinic writings. The sixth-century C.E. mosaic map discovered in the church of St. George in Madaba, Jordan, depicts Mt. Gerizim in two locations, one by Jericho, the other by Neapolis. 2

3

4

5

6

Fig. 2. Tell er-Ras as seen from the main peak of Mt. Gerizim. (Reinhard Pummer)

To remove any doubt about the location of the mountain, the Samaritan Pentateuch adds at the end of Deuteronomy 11:30: “opposite Shechem.” Pictorial representations are preserved on Roman coins from the second and third centuries C.E. (Fig. 3). They show on the reverse two peaks, each crowned by a structure. At the foot of the mountain appears a colonnade from which a staircase leads up to one peak, on which stands a Roman-style temple, now identified as the temple built by Emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161) in the second century C.E. The Samaritan sources, too, mention the Roman temple, but ascribe its erection to Emperor Hadrian (117-138 C.E.); according to these sources, it was dedicated to Sapis, a name whose interpretation is uncertain. The temple was still in existence in the fifth century, as is shown by coin discoveries, a notice in Damascius (see below), and possibly also by a passage in the Life of Peter the Iberian by John Rufus. It may still have been remembered in the eighth century. The structure on the second peak depicted on the coins is usually identified as an altar. The staircase is mentioned in patristic sources of the fourth and fifth centuries C.E. According to the Pilgrim of Bordeaux (333 C.E.), 1,300 steps led up to the top of Mt. Gerizim; and according to Epiphanius of Salamis (ca. 315-403 C.E.) there were more than 1,500 steps, the same number as reported by Procopius of Gaza (ca. 475–ca. 538). 7

8

9

10

Fig. 3. Roman Neapolis coin with the main peak of Mt. Gerizim and Tell er-Ras. (Reinhard Pummer)

None of the patristic authors mentions a temple on the mountain. Only the fifth-century C.E. Neoplatonic philosopher Damascius (ca. 480–ca. 550 C.E.), in his Life of Isidorus (preserved in Photius’s Bibliotheca of the ninth century), mentions that the philosopher Marinus of Neapolis maintained that on Mt. Gerizim stood “a most holy sanctuary of Zeus the Highest (Zeus Hypsistos).” The remains of the temple, depicted on Neapolis coins issued in the third century C.E., were excavated between 1962 and 1973; and the excavator, Robert Bull, thought that below the visible remains of the Roman temple (called by the excavator Building A) lay the remnants of the Samaritan temple (called Building B) described by Josephus and referred to in 2 Maccabees 6:2. A reexamination of the site by Yitzhak Magen in the 1980s showed, however, that the so-called Building B was in fact a podium on which the Roman temple was built, and not the Samaritan temple. Instead, the latter must have stood on the higher peak of Mt. Gerizim. As the coins and the notes in patristic sources show, the Roman temple existed until the fifth century C.E., and seems to have been remembered still in the eighth century, judging by what may be its depiction in a mosaic of the Church of St. Stephen in Umm er-Rasas (Castra Mephaon in Greek, Mayphaʿa 11

12

13

in Arabic, and Mephaath in the Bible) in Jordan, southeast of Madaba. Interestingly, the existence of the Roman temple into the fifth century proves that in Palestine pagan shrines were tolerated by the Christians at that time. Before the recent excavations on the summit of the main peak of Mt. Gerizim, only the ruins of the Church of Mary the Mother of God (Theotokos) and the surrounding fortifications were visible. The church was built by Emperor Zeno (474-491 C.E.) after the Samaritan revolt of 484, as reported by several patristic writers. According to the Byzantine historian John Malalas (ca. 490–ca. 575), it replaced a Samaritan synagogue, although another Byzantine historian, Procopius of Caesarea (ca. 500–ca. 554), denies that the Samaritans ever had a building on the summit of the mountain; but Procopius’s statement may have ulterior motives. Emperor Justinian I (527-565 C.E.) enclosed Zeno’s old and inadequate fortifications around the church with another wall. In the eighth/ninth century the church was destroyed. A first excavation of the ruins was undertaken by Alfons Maria Schneider (1896-1952) in 1928, but his work remained unfinished. Renewed and expanded excavations on the main peak of Mt. Gerizim were carried out by Yitzhak Magen from 1984 to 2006. Although the temple itself has not been found so far, the existence of a large precinct or temenos makes it very likely that a temple once existed in this area. In the excavator’s opinion, the temple, which must have stood in the temenos or sacred precinct, was built in the fifth century B.C.E. and rebuilt in the Hellenistic period. In the course of the excavations, remains of numerous buildings came to light that belonged to a large city surrounding the temple. It began to grow in the Hellenistic period, and eventually, i.e., in the second century B.C.E., reached a size of 800 x 500 m, becoming the main city of the Samaritans. It is now certain that the first phase of the sacred precinct dates to the Persian period, and not to the time of Alexander the Great, as Josephus asserted, and many later authors repeated. In the Persian period the temple precinct was about 96 x 98 m in size and was built of local field stones. Adjacent to a large chamber gate (with six or eight chambers) in the northern wall, a sizable (11 x 12 m) building was uncovered; therein excavators found a large number of burned bones, together with a great amount of ashes. Even though later constructions in the Hellenistic and Byzantine periods destroyed much of the Persian period structure, it seems that with its three chamber gates in the north, east, and south, it resembled the temple built by the returnees from Babylon who probably modeled their temple on the plan preserved in the Book of Ezekiel. The gates in the Mt. Gerizim Persian-period precinct must have been similar to those in the temple described in Ezekiel 40:10-16 and 46:1-3. It should be pointed out, though, that Magen assumes that the Persian period temple “was most probably copied at Mt. Gerizim by the Jewish priests who followed the grandson of Eliashib, who was married to the daughter of Sanballat the Horonite (Neh. 13:28).” On the basis of the thousands of pottery vessels and burned animal bones (sheep, goats, cattle, and doves), the coins from the Persian period, and Carbon-14 testing, this phase of the temple has been dated to the mid-fifth century B.C.E. Thus, when Josephus claims that the temple was founded in the time of Alexander the Great, he is mistaken. After the Persian-period temple had existed for 250 years, a new precinct (and temple) was built in the Hellenistic period, i.e., 14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

in the early second century B.C.E. The walls of this second, larger (136 x 212 m) precinct were thicker (2.6 m, i.e., double the thickness of the Persian-period walls) and built of smooth stones brought to the site from some distance; a white temple, built of ashlars, probably stood for approximately ninety years in the center of the precinct. The enlargement included courts for the pilgrims in the east and the south, public buildings, fortifications, and a monumental staircase leading up to a newly built gate in the east, at the foundations of which was an altar, presumably dating from the Persian period. The existence of a “Temple to the Lord” in the Hellenistic period is proven by discoveries made in the excavated area. One indicator is the large number of ashlars with marks of stone masons. These ashlars, the only ashlars discovered on the mountain, were mined away from Mt. Gerizim and brought to it. They must have formed the walls of the temple. The other, even stronger, indication are the fragments of inscriptions found on the mountain. Within the sacred precinct of the Hellenistic period, almost four hundred fragments of inscriptions in palaeo-Hebrew, a mixed script (Aramaic and palaeoHebrew), and in lapidary and cursive Aramaic script were found. In addition, a large number of inscriptions in Greek were discovered, dating from the Hellenistic period, the greater portion from the fourth century C.E., and some from the Byzantine period. A small number of inscriptions in Samaritan script are to be dated to the Middle Ages. Most are votive inscriptions that once may have been incised in the walls of the temple. Because the temple was destroyed, none of the inscriptions were of course found in situ. Nevertheless, almost all the inscriptions in palaeo-Hebrew and Aramaic were found in the area of the sacred precinct. One fragmentary inscription in palaeo-Hebrew script (no. 383) contains the letters of the Tetragrammaton (Fig. 4): 25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

…]

[…

…] h

[…

…]

[…

…] ẎHWH l […

Some palaeo-Hebrew fragments, such as inscription no. 382, speak of priests (Fig. 5): …]

[…

…]ż […

…]

[…

…] priest[…

…]

[ …

…p]riests […

…]

[…

…]r bḥ[…

Fig. 4. Mt. Gerizim — Palaeo-Hebrew inscription, “Yhwh.” (Yitzhak Magen, Mount Gerizim Excavations I, 254, inscription 383)

Fig. 5. Palaeo-Hebrew inscription from Mt. Gerizim, “priest(s).” (Yitzhak Magen)

Inscription no. 384 contains the name Phinehas, a common name among the Samaritan priests from the grandson of Aaron to the present and represented also in other inscriptions from Mt. Gerizim. The same fragment contains the letters , “great,” which may refer to the high priest. Other fragmentary inscriptions include such phrases as “before God in this place,” “before the Lord” (nos. 149-155), or “[That which] Joseph [son of PN] offered [for] his [wi]fe and for his sons [before the Lo]rd in the temple” (no. 150). One inscription in lapidary Aramaic (no. 199) mentions the “house of sacrifice,” the Hebrew equivalent of which is used in 2 Chronicles 7:12 to refer to the temple, and the Aramaic is used in reference to the Yhwh temple in Elephantine, Egypt. It reads: 33

34

35

…]



…] …]

/

[… [



…] and bulls in all [… …

/ […

…sacrific]ed in the “house of sacrifice” [… …]ʾ/znh mhw/rdʾ […

As Magen points out, it is the only inscription mentioning the sacrifice of bulls on Mt. Gerizim. Another pointer towards a ritual site is a small golden bell, which must have been attached to the high priest’s ephod as described in Exodus 28:33-35. The Hellenistic precinct differs from the Persian-period precinct not only in size, but also in style. It is no longer modeled on the Jerusalem temple as was the Persian-period Mt. Gerizim temple according to Magen, but includes Greek architectural features. The core of the earlier structure remained the same, but on the outside additional buildings were constructed: staircases for the visitors to the temple, towers, a fortified complex, large public edifices, and other structures. The city which developed around the sacred precinct in the Hellenistic period, beginning in the late fourth century B.C.E., extends mainly to the south and the west where the mountain slopes gradually downwards. A few buildings were erected to the north, and some were built to the east, where the slope is very steep. There was neither town planning nor a wall around the city. The location of the city on a high summit without much vegetation and without water is another indication that it was built for religious reasons. Its dimensions were 800 x 500 m, i.e., forty thousand square meters, and its inhabitants numbered several thousand. So far, no cemetery which would have served the city was found, but only a portion of the city was excavated. Coins discovered from the early Ptolemaic period show that the city continued to exist even after Alexander the Great’s conquest and destruction of the city of Samaria. The abundance of bronze, silver, and gold coins is a sign of the affluence of its inhabitants. The establishment of the city in the Hellenistic period may have misled Josephus into thinking that the temple was built then. Magen believes that in the Persian period Samaria must have been the political and religious capital of the Samaritans, and, in light of what we now know from the excavations of the large city on the main peak of Mt. Gerizim, it is probable that in the Hellenistic period that city functioned as the center of the Samaritans. It is doubtful whether Josephus knew of the city’s existence. He certainly shows no awareness of particular features of this large settlement which, in his time, had been lying in ruins for approximately two hundred years. A possible reference to it may appear in War 1:63 and Ant. 13:255-256, where Josephus recounts that John Hyrcanus I defeated the Cuthean nation which lives around or near the temple on Mt. Gerizim. However, another interpretation of this phrase is also possible: rather than referring here to the city on the top of Mt. Gerizim, Josephus may simply want to say that the population in the district of Samaria lived, in a general sense, around the temple on the mountain. An alternative explanation of Josephus’s account of the building of the Gerizim temple is that he reduced several phases to one: his first account in Ant. 11:310-311 concerns the first construction phase in the time of Darius II (423-405 B.C.E.), although he confused him with Darius III (335-331), and Ant. 11:321-324 refers to the second phase in the time of Alexander the Great. Thus, the second account may reflect the construction and enlargement of the temple and its precinct and the building of the large city around it in the Hellenistic period. Since Josephus reduced several phases to one, his references to Sanballat in his narrative of what in effect was the second phase cannot be historical. His story about the construction 36

37

38

39

40

of the temple on Mt. Gerizim corresponds in reality to the construction works on Mt. Gerizim in the Hellenistic period, after Alexander’s conquest, under the Ptolemies or the Selucids, and not to the initial construction of the temple. If, indeed, the priests and Levites fled to the city surrounding the temple on the mountain after the loss of the city of Samaria as the capital of the province in 331 B.C.E., the city on Mt. Gerizim must have been built in the late fourth century B.C.E. As to Shechem being the μητρόπολις of the Samaritans in the time of Alexander according to Josephus (Ant. 11:304), it is usually reasoned that Samaritans fled to Shechem when Alexander or his governor, Perdiccas, settled Macedonian colonists in the city of Samaria. Even if this were true, the Samaritans would have settled in Shechem only after Alexander supposedly met them; the usual date for this settlement is 331 B.C.E. Archaeological excavations have shown that there was a 150-year gap in the occupation of Shechem, i.e., from 475 B.C.E. to 325 B.C.E. If this is correct, Shechem could not have been the capital of the Samaritans in the time of Alexander. It is also unlikely that Alexander would have permitted the Samarian refugees to rebuild Shechem as a fortified city after he had expelled them from Samaria. Rather, Josephus probably retrojected the situation as it was at his time back to the time of Alexander. Concerning the destruction of the Gerizim temple, Josephus is also mistaken when he connects it with Antiochus VII Sidetes’ campaign against the Medes in 130 B.C.E., as he does in War 1:62, and with the death of Antiochus in 129 B.C.E., as he does in Ant. 13:254. Again, we now know from archaeology that the temple was destroyed around the year 110 B.C.E. Thus, at the present state of the archaeological excavations, it seems that Josephus was wrong on several counts: the date of the initial construction of the temple on Mt. Gerizim was the fifth century B.C.E., not the late fourth century B.C.E.; the chief city of the Samaritans in the time immediately preceding Alexander the Great was Samaria, not Shechem; after Alexander’s destruction of the city of Samaria, the chief city of the Samaritans was the city on Mt. Gerizim, rather than Shechem; and the destruction of the temple on Mt. Gerizim occurred in approximately 110 B.C.E., not in 130 B.C.E. or in 129 B.C.E. It should be noted that the “Samaritans” referred to by Josephus in this context were, in his mind, the members of the Gerizim community. In the terminology adopted in the present work, they were protoSamaritans, i.e., Yhwh-worshiping inhabitants of Samaria who had their own temple on Mt. Gerizim, but who were not yet separate from the Judean Yhwh worshipers at the time presupposed by Josephus in his account. The Bible (LXX) mentions the Samaritan temple on Mt. Gerizim explicitly only in 2 Maccabees. In 5:23, Antiochus Epiphanes is said to have posted a governor on Gerizim. Although the temple as such is not mentioned in this instance, in the continuation of the narrative both the temple of Jerusalem and that on Mt. Gerizim are to be renamed on the order of Antiochus. In an unambiguous reference to the Samaritan temple, 6:2 states: the temple on Gerizim is to be called the “temple of Zeus the Friend of Strangers.” However, an oblique mention of the Samaritan temple may occur in another book of the Septuagint, in 1 Esdras. Taking into account the Vetus Latina and the Peshitta, the oldest form of 1 Esdras 5:49 LXX seems to refer to two Yhwh temples. According to vv. 46-48, the Israelites 41

42

43

gathered in the square of the first, eastward-facing gateway of Jerusalem and prepared the altar for the God of Israel; the following verse (5:49) relates that the “other peoples of the land” gathered and set up an altar “in their place”: 44

And those of the other peoples of the land came together and set up an altar in their place, because all the peoples of the land were hostile to them [i.e. to the Israelites] and they held sway over them, and they offered sacrifices and whole burnt-offerings to the Lord in the morning.45

Thus, there were two populations in the land, i.e., the Israelites and “the peoples of the land”; both gather to set up an altar, and both offer a sacrifice for Yhwh (5:48, 50-52). The peoples of the land assailed the Israelites and were stronger than the latter, which explains why they were able to build their altar. Hence, 1 Esdras 5:49 explains why there were two competing sanctuaries, one in Jerusalem and the second in the location of the peoples of the land, and, at the same time, it accounts for the Jerusalem Israelites’ refusal to let the peoples of the land take part in the rebuilding of the temple (5:63-70), assuming that the “enemies of Judah and Benjamin” (5:63) are the same as the peoples of the land (5:49). In Ezra 3:3, this reference from 1 Esdras 5:49 was omitted so as not to accentuate the Yhwh sanctuary that was built before the Jerusalem temple was rebuilt. In sum, Schenker concludes that 1 Esdras 5:49 is the oldest mention of an Israelite temple outside of Jerusalem after the Babylonian Exile. The peoples of the land were Israelites who built their temple “in their place,” referring thereby to a location hallowed by tradition. Although “their place” remains unidentified, it is tempting to see here an allusion to Mt. Gerizim. The temple on Mt. Gerizim and the city surrounding it were destroyed by John Hyrcanus I in approximately 110 B.C.E., during his campaign against the Syrian cities, as Josephus relates in War 1:62-63 and Ant. 13:254-256. The Jewish historian, however, does not mention any reasons for John Hyrcanus’s aggression. Later Jewish sources and modern historians have tried to account for the conqueror’s action in different ways, pointing out that both political and religious motivations must have been at play. Thus, for example, John Hyrcanus may simply have continued the conquests begun by Jonathan (160-143 B.C.E.) and Simon (143-134 B.C.E.) because it was desirable to acquire land and people. Or he may have wanted to obliterate the political and religious independence of the Samaritans and subordinate their country to Jerusalem. Neither the temple nor the city was ever rebuilt, but the Samaritans continue to revere Mt. Gerizim as their sacred mountain. However, undeterred by what the literary sources tell us about an ancient temple on Mt. Gerizim, and in spite of the results of the archaeological excavations, and even in the face of what their own chronicles recount, today’s Samaritans deny that at any time there was a legitimate Yhwh temple on the mountain, putting forward alternative explanations for the existing evidence: the literary sources, Josephus and 2 Maccabees, are tendentious and want to prove that the cult on Mt. Gerizim was established later than that in Jerusalem; the remains of the buildings unearthed on Mt. Gerizim are those of administrative structures; and the temple built by the Samaritan high priest ʿAbdal in the 46

47

48

49

sixth century B.C.E. according to Samaritan chronicles was devoid of religious import because God rejected it. Two aspects should be underlined with regard to the Samaritan temple on Mt. Gerizim. First, it was not the erection of the temple that caused the division between Judeans and Samaritans, but most likely its destruction by a Judean ruler. Second, it is improbable that the Yahwistic Samarians had no temple in the city of Samaria despite the fact that no remains of such a temple have been found in the course of the excavations of Samaria-Sebaste. But even if we disregard this possibility, there existed other Yahwistic temples that did not cause divisions, such as the temples in Egyptian Elephantine and Leontopolis, and probably the temple in Khirbet el-Qom (biblical Makkedah) in Idumea (12 km west of Hebron). Today the main Samaritan holy sites are located on the top of Mt. Gerizim. First among them is the “Eternal Hill,” a flat rock formation south of the ruins of the Byzantine church, whose name is derived from Deuteronomy 33:15, where the SP reads the singular “hill” instead of the plural “hills” in the MT. The text is part of Moses’ blessing for Joseph, beginning in v. 13: “Blessed by the Lord be his land, with the choice gift of heaven above,” and continuing in v. 15: “with the finest produce of the ancient mountains, and the abundance of the everlasting hill.” The expression occurs also in Genesis 49:26, where once again the Samaritans read the singular, “Eternal Hill,” whereas the MT reads the plural. In both cases the Samaritan reading is very old, but it is not confined to the Samaritan Pentateuch, since it was found also in Qumran. “Eternal Hill” can also refer to the whole of Mt. Gerizim; in fact, the great Samaritan poet and author Marqe includes it as one of Mt. Gerizim’s thirteen names. The Samaritan liturgy refers repeatedly to the “Eternal Hill” in the meaning of the rock on the summit of Mt. Gerizim. Eventually, Mt. Gerizim was seen as the location where all the important events of the sacred history took place. One of them is Isaac’s sacrifice. In Genesis 22:2, Abraham was tested and told by God to take his son, Isaac, and offer him “in the land of Moriah ( SP),” which the Samaritans identify with the Moreh by Shechem in Genesis 12:6: “Abram passed through the land to the place at Shechem, to the oak of Moreh.” The Altar of Isaac’s Sacrifice, a trench-like depression in the rock, is shown today southeast of the Eternal Hill. The third most prominent site on the summit is the “Twelve Stones of Joshua,” located to the west of the Byzantine church ruins. In Deuteronomy 27:4 (SP) Moses commands the Israelites to set them up on Mt. Gerizim: “So when you have crossed over the Jordan, you shall set up these stones, about which I am commanding you today, on Mount Gerizim, and you shall cover them with plaster.” The MT does not read Mt. Gerizim, but Mount Ebal. The number twelve is probably taken from Joshua 4:20, even though the book of Joshua is not part of the Samaritan scripture. In the course of the excavations of the sacred precinct it was realized that the Twelve Stones may have been part of the western wall of the Holy of Holies of the Persian period temple; they are all that remains of it. Probably to preserve the Holy of Holies, they were left in place when, in the Hellenistic period, the temple was rebuilt. During the three annual pilgrimages performed by the contemporary Samaritans, Isaac’s Altar is one of the stations at which the pilgrims make a halt and pray, and the Eternal Hill is circumambulated about two and a half times at the end of each pilgrimage while a certain 50

51

52

53

54

55

56

prayer is recited seven times. Although neither the Eternal Hill nor the Altar of Isaac venerated by the contemporary Samaritans is in any way associated — physically or in the Samaritan tradition — with the sacred precinct excavated in recent years, for the Samaritans, Mt. Gerizim’s sanctity persists undiminished from the beginnings of their religion up to the present time.

2. Synagogues One of the institutions that Jews and Samaritans have in common since antiquity is the synagogue. But while there is now ample information about ancient Jewish synagogues, especially from the Roman-Byzantine periods, our knowledge of ancient Samaritan synagogues is limited. Until recently, they were attested by scant literary and epigraphic sources and some archaeological finds. Beginning with the 1980s, systematic excavations in Samaria have significantly widened the base of our knowledge. We are now in a position to compare Jewish and Samaritan synagogues of the Roman-Byzantine periods in considerable detail. However, the similarity, or even identity, of Jewish and Samaritan material culture in antiquity makes it at times difficult to assign building remains to the respective communities. In the last analysis, it is above all the location in which they are found, the district of Samaria, that allows us to identify a building as Samaritan. Inscriptions in Samaritan script or the content of Greek inscriptions also permit us to assign a synagogue to the Samaritans. Orientation is another criterion; Samaritan synagogues are oriented towards Mt. Gerizim, whereby the general orientation of the building is crucial. It must be kept in mind, however, that the orientation of a building may be influenced by topographical conditions, making it impossible in certain locations for the builders to orient the synagogue precisely. Moreover, the internal design needs to be taken into account when trying to determine the orientation in the sense of the direction of prayer. Additionally, the absence of depictions of living beings is typical of Samaritan synagogues, since the Samaritans adhere strictly to the biblical interdiction to depict living creatures (Exod. 20:4; Deut. 4:15-18; 5:8); many Jewish synagogues, on the other hand, contain images of persons and animals in their mosaics. Another indication that we are dealing with a Samaritan synagogue consists also of a negative trait, that is, the majority of Samaritan mosaics known so far do not contain images of lulav and ethrog, that is, the three types of branches used by the rabbinic Jews to make a bouquet to be waved during Sukkot, and the one type of fruit, the citron, to be held in the hand. However, except for the location in Samaria, none of the criteria enumerated above, if taken by itself, is decisive. Furthermore, Samaritan synagogues have been identified not only in Samaria, but also in other regions of Palestine and even further afield, that is, in other Mediterranean countries. And in fact, our earliest evidence for the existence of Samaritan synagogues comes from the Diaspora. 57

58

59

60

61

62

a. Diaspora Synagogues The oldest indications for the existence of Samaritan synagogues that we have are two

dedicatory inscriptions found on the Greek island of Delos in 1979-1980. They are engraved on two marble stelae and were discovered close to the eastern shore of the island (Fig. 6). On palaeographic grounds they are dated to the second century B.C.E. Their purpose was to honor two men, both from Crete, who were benefactors of the Samaritan community in Delos. The authors of both inscriptions call themselves “Israelites (in Delos) who make contributions to the sanctuary Argarizein [= Mt. Gerizim] (inscription no. 2: the holy sanctuary Argarizein)” — clearly, they are Samarian Yahwists whose religious center is Mt. Gerizim, that is, Samaritans in our terminology. 63

64

65

66

67

Fig. 6. Delos — overview of the ruins. (Reinhard Pummer)

Inscription no. 1 (Fig. 7): Οἱ ἐν Δήλῳ ’Ισραελεῖται οἱ

The Israelites on Delos who

ἀπαρχόμενοι εἰς ἱερὸν ’Αργα

make contributions to the sanctuary Arga-

ριζεὶν στεφανοῦσιν χρυσῷ

rizein crown, with a gold

στεφάνῳ Σαραπίωνα ’Ιάσο-

crown, Sarapion, son of Jason,

νος Κνώσιον εὐεργεσίας

of Knossos, for his benefactions

ἕνεκεν τῆς εἰς ἑαυτούς.

toward them.

Fig. 7. Delos — Inscription 1. (EfA/Ph. Bruneau)

Fig. 8. Delos — Inscription 2. (EfA/Ph. Bruneau)

Inscription no. 2 (Fig. 8): ’Ισραηλῖται οἱ ἀπαρχόμενοι εἰς ἱερὸν ἅγιον ’Αρ-

The Israelites who make contributions to the holy sanctuary Ar-

γαριζεὶν ἐτίμησαν vac. Μένιππον ’Αρτεμιδώρου Ἡρά-

garizein honor Menippos, son of Artemidoros, of Hera-

κλειον αὐτὸν καὶ τοὺς ὲγγόνους αὐτοῦ κατασκευ-

kleion, both himself and his descendants, for construc-

άσαντα καὶ ἀναθέντα ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων ἐπὶ προσευχῇ τοῦ

ting and dedicating, out of his own funds, to the proseuchē of

[οῦ] ΤΟΝ [---------------------------]

Go[d], the … [(building?)]

ΟΛΟΝΚΑỊṬΟ[----- καὶ ἐστεφάνωσαν] χρυσῷ στε[φά-]

and the walls and the [… , and crown him] with a gold cro[w]n

νῳ καὶ [-------------------------------------]

and […

ΚΑ --

…

Τ --

…

Unfortunately, the area in which the inscriptions were found has not yet been excavated and the archaeological context is therefore unknown. However, there is a clear reference to a synagogue (proseuche) in Inscription 2 quoted above, honoring a certain Menippos of

Herakleion and his family. The inscriptions were found in the vicinity of a structure that usually is thought to have been a Jewish (or, according to some, Samaritan) synagogue, at least in its later phases. On the basis of new fieldwork, it has been argued that the building was erected as a Jewish or Samaritan synagogue in an unknown period before 88 B.C.E., and served as such until the end of the second century C.E. Others have argued that the building never was a synagogue. What is certain, though, is that both inscriptions come from Samaritans in Delos, for whom Mt. Gerizim was sacred. Other Samaritan diaspora synagogues, known from literary and epigraphic sources, date to the fifth and sixth centuries C.E. Palladius (c. 365-425), the historian of early Christian monasticism who lived for many years in Asia Minor, mentions Samaritan and Jewish synagogues in Tarsus in his Dialogue on the life of St. Chrysostom which he wrote in 407/8 C.E. Unfortunately, the phrase is vague and uninformative. In Thessalonica in Greece, a bilingual inscription on a white marble tablet was found in 1953. Lines 1 and 15 are in Samaritan script, reading respectively , “Blessed be our God for ever” and , “Blessed be his name for ever”; lines 2-14, a quotation from Numbers 6:22-27, are in Greek; and lines 16-19, also in Greek, are a blessing on the benefactor, a certain Siricius, his wife and his children; the last sentence wishes prosperity on Neapolis. The plaque was probably once affixed to a wall in a Samaritan synagogue. On palaeographic grounds the inscription is dated to the fourth-sixth centuries C.E. The acclamations εἷς θεός and εὐλογία αὐτῶ occur also in Jewish dedicatory inscriptions. The Greek text of the inscription deviates in several instances from that of the Septuagint. Another inscription, incised in two circles on the fragment of a marble column, was found in Syracuse in Sicily. From two letters of Pope Gregory the Great (ca. 540-604), we know that Samaritans lived in Sicily at the end of the sixth century. The short inscription, dated to the third/fourth century, cites the beginning of Numbers 10:35: “Arise, O Lord, let your enemies be scattered.” Whether the column belonged to a synagogue or to a private house, is difficult to know. Since the contents are apotropaic, i.e., intended to ward off evil spirits and sicknesses, occurring also on amulets, it may have stood at the entrance of a private house. The Ostrogoth king Theoderich refers to a Samaritan synagogue in Rome in a letter written between 507 and 511 C.E. 68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

b. Synagogues in the Land of Israel In the past, more precisely prior to 1948, Samaritan synagogues were known only from literary sources and from architectural fragments engraved with inscriptions in Samaritan script. Today, our knowledge of Samaritan synagogues in the land of Israel has been substantially enhanced by archaeological discoveries. Written sources about Samaritan synagogues include the Samaritans’ own writings, patristic writings, Roman-Byzantine laws, and inscriptions. The information contained in the Samaritan chronicles is unfortunately late, and much of it reflects conditions of the time when a given text was composed rather than the time indicated by the chronicles. The 77

78

insights that we can gain from the patristic sources of the fourth to the sixth centuries are limited and in some cases raise more questions than they answer. The Byzantine laws contain a number of provisions on Jewish as well as Samaritan synagogues for the fifth and sixth centuries. As suggested above, not all inscriptions on fragments of lintels, pillars, or plaques ascribed to the Samaritans were connected with synagogues. The main reason why some seem to have belonged to private buildings is their apotropaic character. A comparison with Jewish synagogue inscriptions shows that here the content is dedicatory rather than apotropaic. Thus, the above described sources are valuable, but much less so than what we have learned from archaeology.

Fig. 9. Distribution map of Samaritan synagogues in the Land of Israel. (Yitzhak Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan, p. 117, Fig. 24)

The first Samaritan synagogue for which more than mere fragments of columns or lintels were found is located outside of Samaria. In the summer of 1948, a mosaic was found in Shaʿalvim, a village on the Jerusalem-Ramla road, which proved to belong to a Samaritan synagogue. Its facade is oriented northeast, i.e., in the direction of Mt. Gerizim. Two 79

inscriptions were discovered, one in Greek and one in Samaritan letters. The Greek inscription, found on the lower of the two excavated floors, mentions the renovation of the “prayer house” (εὐκτήριον); the Samaritan inscription quotes Exodus 15:18 (SP): , “The Lord shall reign for ever and ever.” The fact that the Greek inscription speaks of the “renovation” of the synagogue means that the lower floor belongs to a synagogue which was preceded by an even older building. Pottery from the Roman-Byzantine period found under the mosaic floor shows that the original structure was erected probably in the fourth century; it was most likely destroyed in the sixth century during the time of the Samaritan revolts, although sherds from the Arabic period would indicate that it continued in use beyond the sixth century. In 1975, a second Samaritan synagogue outside Samaria was discovered, this time by the entrance to the Eretz Israel Museum in Ramat Aviv at Tell Qasile. It contains two Greek inscriptions — one dedicatory and the other invoking blessings — and one inscription in Samaritan letters, also dedicatory: “Maxim(us) be remembered, because he was honored. Proxenos (?) be remembered because he was honored.” Unfortunately, only one third of the structure is preserved. Its orientation is east-west, with the entrance in the east. Thus, the building is only approximately orientated toward Mt. Gerizim. Pillars divided it into a wide central nave and two narrow side-aisles. On the basis of pottery and the one coin found during the excavations, the synagogue was at one time dated to the beginning of the seventh century C.E., but recently it has been shown that its establishment must be dated in the late fourth or early fifth century C.E. A further location in which one or more Samaritan synagogues outside Samaria may have existed is Beth Shean (ancient Scythopolis). The synagogue “Beth Shean A” is located on the westernmost hill north of Beth Shean. In a side room, added in the sixth or seventh century C.E., an inscription in Samaritan script, but in Greek language, was discovered, reading “O Lord, help Ephrai[m] and Anan!” Some scholars attribute the building therefore to the Samaritans. However, apart from the script as well as the absence of figures from the mosaic and of the depiction of lulav and ethrog, nothing points to the Samaritan character of the synagogue. The script may be palaeo-Hebrew which was used also by Jews, and mosaics without the depiction of animated beings occur also in Jewish synagogues. Another synagogue located south of Beth Shean and attributed to the Samaritans was discovered in 2010. In a large building, a Greek mosaic inscription was discovered reading [ΤΟ]ΥΤΩΝΟΝΕΩΝ or [ΤΟ]ΥΤΩΝΤΟΝΕΩΝ, dated by the excavators to the end of the fifth century C.E. The reason for identifying the building as Samaritan is the orientation of the front towards the southwest, Mt. Gerizim. However, Jerusalem also is to the southwest of Beth Shean. The excavators read the inscription as T[]OUTON NEON and translate it “This is the temple.” But even if the last word is read as “temple,” this is not a Samaritan peculiarity. The inscription in the Jewish synagogue of Apamea also refers to the building as a naos. In both cases, Beth Shean A and the newly discovered building, discussions continue whether they are in fact Samaritan structures, some scholars affirming it, others doubting it. Another Samaritan synagogue may have stood in Horvat Raqit (Ruqtiyya, in Arabic) on Mount Carmel. The main reason why the building is thought to be Samaritan rather than 80

81

82

83

84

85

86

Jewish is the Greek inscription “God help! One is the only God,” which is more frequent among the Samaritans than the Jews. In Umm al-Zinat, also on Carmel, an inscription in Samaritan letters was found, suggesting that a Samaritan synagogue might have existed at this site. Only indirect evidence, no architectural remains, has come to light for the existence of a synagogue on Mt. Gerizim. Literary sources are ambivalent. As mentioned above, John Malalas claims that the church dedicated to Mary Theotokos was built by Emperor Zeno in place of a Samaritan synagogue, whereas Procopius of Caesarea, in a tendentious and unreliable remark, denies that the Samaritans ever had a sanctuary in this spot. Archaeological evidence, on the other hand, points to the existence of some kind of sacred place on the main summit of Mt. Gerizim in the Roman-Byzantine period. Numerous coins and stone inscriptions in Greek from the late-Roman period (fourth/fifth century C.E.) have been found. The earliest coins date from the reign of Constantine I (306-337 C.E.). It seems that after a gap of four and a half centuries, the Samaritans worshiped again on their sacred mountain. The inscriptions, dated on the basis of palaeography in the fourth and fifth centuries C.E., were of a dedicatory nature intended for a religious site and seem to have originated with pilgrims from different places. The stones on which they were engraved were reused in the building of the church. It is possible that there was another synagogue on Mt. Gerizim, near the staircase going up to the Roman temple on Tell er-Ras. However, the indications here are even more tenuous than in the case of the presumed synagogue on the main peak. One synagogue of which we have scant remains is located in Kefar Faḥma, a village 14 km southwest of Jenin. In 1941, in the area of the former crusader church which serves today as a mosque, a stone was discovered on which is engraved a double door capped by a conch, a motif that is usually interpreted as the depiction of a Torah shrine or a temple facade. A similar stone was discovered in Khirbet Samara, the site of a Samaritan synagogue. Other architectural remains discovered in Kefar Faḥma, including columns, further point towards the existence of a synagogue at this location. The Samaritan sources speak at length of a synagogue on the “Parcel of Land” located in Nablus by the al-Ḫaḍra mosque in the southwestern part of the old city and built, according to Samaritan tradition, by the high priest ʿAqbun. The name “Parcel of Land” is derived from the field which Jacob bought in the city of Shechem and where he pitched his tent and erected an altar to the God of Israel (Gen. 33:18-20). Another name for the site is Ḥuzn Yaʿqub, Arabic for “Jacob’s Mourning,” because it was here, according to Muslim and Samaritan tradition, where Jacob was told of the death of his son Joseph (cf. Gen. 37:34). Some excavations have been carried out on the site, but due to the presence of the mosque they could not be completed. A courtyard, paved with stone slabs and flanked by pillars on two sides, was located west of the mosque; it may have been the atrium of the synagogue. The traces of mosaic floors discovered on one side of the courtyard were of such craftsmanship that the excavator dated the building to the fourth century C.E. Charred sheep bones and pieces of olive wood found in caves carved into the rock may indicate that the Samaritans offered their Passover sacrifices in this place. Several inscriptions or fragments 87

88

89

90

91

92

thereof were found at the site, one containing the Decalogue, another the Ten Words of Creation, and one quoting the Bible. In 1976 another fragment of a Decalogue inscription was found. All were dated in the Byzantine period. Unfortunately, eighty-five percent of the buildings were destroyed by the Israeli army in the Battle of Nablus in April 2002. In the area of Nablus, traces of other synagogues and inscriptions were found, all dating to the Middle Ages or the Mamluk period (1250-1517). A recently (1989-1991) excavated synagogue was located in Ẓur Natan at Ḥorbat Migdal, 8 km south of Tulkarem in northwestern Palestine. It was part of a large complex of buildings from the Byzantine period, called “Area B” by the excavators, and was identified as a Samaritan synagogue for several reasons: three miqvaʾot, a menorah engraved on a basalt grinding stone, and oil lamps decorated with menorot were found. Furthermore, it is known from literary sources that the area was inhabited by Samaritans in the fifth century C.E. Below the complex, Roman buildings from the first/second century C.E. were discovered. The orientation of the building is east-west, with the apse pointing to Mt. Gerizim. The synagogue consists of a main hall with an apse, a narthex, an atrium, and a miqveh on the outside, but originally probably connected with the narthex. The central hall measures 16.5 x 15 m. From the narthex three doors in the west wall gave access to the main hall — a major door in the center and two minor doors on the sides. In front of the main door a mosaic with a dedicatory inscription was found. The floor of the main hall was also covered with multicolored mosaics, but only some traces are left. The north and south walls, i.e., the long walls, of the central hall were lined with a row of tiered benches. In front of the semi-circular apse was a sill with grooves, indicating that a chancel screen must have separated the apse from the main hall. Numerous roof-tiles found on the site make it likely that the synagogue had an A-frame roof. One of the miqvaʾot was located close to the entrance of the synagogue. The erection of the synagogue was dated by the excavators to the fourth/fifth century C.E. It appears to have been destroyed in the fifth or sixth century in the course of the Samaritan revolts and seems to have been rebuilt at the end of the Byzantine period in Palestine. 93

94

Fig. 10. Khirbet Samara synagogue. (Yitzhak Magen)

Another synagogue was excavated in Khirbet Samara (Deir Serur), 15 km southwest of Jenin. It is located within an area of ruins that is larger than 3 hectares (7.4 acres or 30 dunams) and once was probably one of the biggest Roman towns in Samaria, with many public buildings, surrounded by a wall with gates and watchtowers. On the eastern perimeter of the town, a Samaritan synagogue was excavated in 1991 and 1992 (Fig. 10 and Fig. 11). It is orientated west-to-east, i.e., toward Mt. Gerizim, with a slight angle northward toward Mt. Ebal necessitated by the existence of older structures on the same spot. The apse on the east side faces Mt. Gerizim. In addition to the central hall, the building consisted of a narthex, an atrium, a courtyard in the north, and a number of rooms in the south and east. Before the construction of the synagogue, a building and a system of cisterns existed on this site from the second/third century C.E. The atrium was among the structures that were part of this earlier, still unidentified, building. The coins found on the site and the workmanship of the mosaic date the building of the synagogue in the early fourth century C.E. It was probably destroyed during the Samaritan revolts, but the Samaritans seem to have returned to it in the early seventh century and made some changes and additions, including the construction of a miqveh outside the apse (Fig. 12) and of several rooms. The outside dimensions of the nave are 16.4 x 12.7 m. The longitudinal (i.e., north and south) walls were very thick, 2.3 and 2 m respectively, which indicates that they probably supported a barrelvaulted roof. Along these walls were two rows of benches with foot-rests. The floor is covered with a mosaic which, in the second phase of the synagogue, was overlaid with a stone pavement. A gap in the row of seats on the south wall contained a mosaic depicting the Holy Ark in the shape of a temple facade (Fig. 13). This was perhaps the place where the reader or a Torah shrine stood. This mosaic was carefully covered by benches in the second 95

96

stage of construction.

Fig. 11. Khirbet Samara synagogue — reconstruction. (Yitzhak Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan, p. 131, Fig. 23)

Fig. 12. Khirbet Samara synagogue — apse and miqveh. (Yitzhak Magen)

Fig. 13. Khirbet Samara synagogue — mosaic depicting a temple facade. (Yitzhak Magen)

Fig. 14. El-Khirbe synagogue. (Yitzhak Magen)

Fig. 15. El-Khirbe synagogue — reconstruction. (Yitzhak Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan, p. 131, Fig. 23)

The apse was added after the synagogue had been built, but still in the first stage of construction. A sill and, judging from the groove in it, a chancel screen either of stone or of wood must have separated the apse from the hall. Within the apse stood in all likelihood the Torah shrine. A layer of ash suggests that it was burned, probably during the time of the Samaritan rebellions. East of the apse, a stone (88 x 77 cm) with a relief of the Holy Ark was found; it may have belonged to the apse. Of particular interest are the depictions in the high quality mosaic of the central hall — the tesserae are small (about 5 mm) and the images are executed with accuracy and in beautiful colors. It is divided into three squares, although the square closest to the entrance is not preserved. The middle square contains the depiction of a Torah shrine, shaped like a temple facade with four columns and a gable with a conch in it. In front of the door of the shrine hangs a curtain that is fastened around the left column. The eastern square would have contained a dedicatory inscription in the center. In the medallions on the outside of the squares are depicted empty bird cages, a tripodal candelabrum, jugs, goblets, palm branches, sheaves of wheat or barley, grapevines, clusters of grapes, citrons, and branches with fruits. The mosaic on the south wall, which later was covered with benches, also depicts the Torah shrine. It too has the shape of a temple facade with four

columns and a gable with a conch. Its curtain is fastened around the left column. Behind the curtain, a double-door with two rings and a lock can be seen. The colors and the designs give a three-dimensional impression. The first Samaritan synagogue to be discovered in Samaria (in 1990) is situated about 2.5 km southwest of Samaria-Sebaste (modern Sebastiya) in El-Khirbe (Fig. 14 and Fig. 15). The site extends over 1 hectare (2.5 acres or 10 dunams) and was possibly a private Roman agricultural estate of the second century C.E., which included an oil press and a mausoleum (Fig. 16). As in the case of Khirbet Samara, the identifying feature which led to the discovery was the orientation toward Mt. Gerizim: the entrance faces the mountain, which can be seen in the distance. In constructing the synagogue, the Samaritans reused materials from the earlier Roman buildings. The synagogue was built in the fourth/fifth century C.E., renovated at the end of the sixth or the beginning of the seventh century, and abandoned in the eighth century. It was located outside the settlement. Six miqvaʾot were also discovered on the site (Fig. 17).

Fig. 16. El-Khirbe — remains of mausoleum. (Reinhard Pummer)

The synagogue consists of a nave, a long room on the north side, a courtyard on the south, and a courtyard at the entrance. The nave measures on the outside 14 x 12 m. The long walls are again very thick: 1.75 m (north) and 1.8 m (south); the short walls are about 90 cm only. Along all walls, including the wall with the entrance, plastered stone benches were installed to form two rows of seats, an upper and a lower row. The benches on the south side were removed when an additional wall was built in the course of the renovation, apparently to give support to the barrel-vaulted roof. On the north side, an entrance leads into the long room; the floor of the entrance is covered with a multicolored mosaic containing an inscription. The 97

mosaic in the nave is also multicolored and measures 9 x 5 m. The tesserae are larger than those in Khirbet Samara — 8-10 mm.

Fig. 17. El-Khirbe — miqveh. (Yitzhak Magen)

Much of the mosaic, unfortunately, is not preserved. Besides geometrical ornaments and plant motifs, the mosaic depicts the Torah shrine, a table with vessels and breads, the menorah, an incense shovel (maḥta), tong-like objects, and trumpets (Fig. 18). The Torah shrine has, again, four columns, a gable, and in it a conch; its curtain is fastened on a column to the right hand side. The height of the menorah is 1.8 m. Seven inscriptions were discovered in the synagogue, six in the mosaic and one on the lintel of the entrance. Of the six inscriptions in the mosaic, three come from the first stage of the synagogue and three from the second. All are in Greek; some are only partially preserved. The earlier inscriptions are honorific, the later are invocations of God. Inscriptions of the first group presumably honor donors and their family members, although only formulae of blessings and personal names are preserved. Thus, inscription 1 reads: “Prosper, Marinus, with your children!” From the location where this inscription was placed, it appears that Marinus was the founder of the building. His name is also inscribed on the facade of a burial cave at Raqit: “Tomb of Marinus.” A sample of the second kind of inscription is inscription four: “Only God, help Sophronius [son] of Frontius!” In the Samaritan settlement of Qedumim, approximately 10 km west of Nablus, only a wall and parts of a mosaic are left of what once seems to have been a synagogue. Inscriptions and architectural remains found in a number of other locations in Samaria also point to the existence of Samaritan synagogues in these places. A Samaritan settlement existed there from the third to the eighth century C.E. 98

99

Fig. 18. El-Khirbe — central carpet of the mosaic floor. (Yitzhak Magen)

The discovery and excavation of Samaritan synagogues in Samaria put their study on a totally new footing. Although the number of excavated Samaritan synagogues is small in comparison to the Jewish synagogues unearthed in Judea and elsewhere, and the state of preservation of the Samaritan buildings varies, the picture we now have of these edifices has substantially improved what we knew before the recent excavations. The continued existence of Samaritan synagogues is known from patristic writings, Roman-Byzantine laws, and the Samaritan chronicles, although so far only a few traces of medieval synagogues have been discovered, in particular in the above-mentioned al-Ḫaḍra mosque. It was a Samaritan synagogue, originally built in the fourth century C.E. according to Samaritan sources and archaeological excavations, rebuilt in the twelfth century, damaged by the Crusaders and the Mongols, and finally expropriated by the Muslims in the thirteenth century. Today, the Samaritans have one synagogue on Mt. Gerizim, two synagogues in Ḥolon, and one in Nablus. The present building of the synagogue on Mt. Gerizim dates from 1964. Nablus had a very old synagogue, located in the west of the city in the Samaritan neighborhood, next to the Yasminah neighborhood, which was damaged in the strong earthquake (magnitude 6.2) of July 1927. However, the Samaritans continued to worship in it, and only in 1947 was it partially repaired. But then a new synagogue was built further to the west which was used until 1998, when the Samaritans of Nablus moved to Kiryat Luza, the Samaritan settlement on Mt. Gerizim (Fig. 19). Thus, this synagogue is no longer in use, and all the scrolls and books have been transferred to the synagogue on Mt. Gerizim (Fig. 20). In the mid-1960s, a synagogue was built in Ḥolon (Fig. 21). But with the recent increase in population it became too small to hold the entire congregation, so a temporary second synagogue was established. Similarly, the synagogue on Mt. Gerizim has become too small for certain occasions. When on Passover, Maṣot, and Shavuot both communities — the Kiryat Luza community and the Ḥolon community — pray together, space is at a premium. Some members of the congregation have therefore proposed the building of a second 100

101

102

103

synagogue on Mt. Gerizim and a third synagogue in Ḥolon. And in fact, the front page of issue 1190-1191 of A.B.–The Samaritan News (dated May 29, 2015) announces that the Israelite Samaritan Committees of Mt. Gerizim and of Ḥolon have agreed to cooperate in building a second synagogue on Mt. Gerizim. 104

Fig. 19. Kiryat Luza — the Samaritan settlement Luza on Mt. Gerizim. (Bible Walks)

Fig. 20. Interior of Mt. Gerizim synagogue. (Bible Walks)

3. Amulets and Oil Lamps In the course of archaeological excavations in Palestine, objects from the Roman-Byzantine period with inscriptions in Samaritan script or in Greek have come to light which are usually interpreted as amulets, i.e., articles which are used to protect their wearers from evil or to ensure good luck on account of the text written or engraved on them. Recently, Yitzhak Magen has expressed doubts that the Samaritans used amulets. The reasons he gives for this view are that the Samaritans, in his opinion, did not believe in magic and observed the biblical law which forbids the making of such items: “You shall not make for yourself an idol” (Exod. 20:4; cf. Deut. 4:15-19). Here, we should keep in mind that it is a general human fact that the prohibition of making or using something does not mean it was ipso facto not made or used. Even if the Samaritans of antiquity believed that the Torah prohibits the production and wearing of amulets, Samaritans could, and obviously did, and still do, produce and use them. Christian Morgenstern’s famous dictum: “Was nicht sein darf, kann nicht sein” (That which must not be, cannot be) does not apply in life as lived by human beings. Ascribing a strong influence of biblical injunctions on the actual behavior of people, Magen believes that these objects may have been used as jewelry rather than as amulets; at the same time, he believes they were of a purely religious significance. We should also take into account that the biblical injunctions would have applied as well to Jews, but it is well known that the belief in magic among Jews was widespread. And despite the fact that the Rev. Christian Fallscheer, a missionary of the Church Missionary Society in Palestine, was told by the Samaritan high priest Jacob b. Aaron b. Salama in the late 1800s that, for the Samaritans, charms “are forbidden by the law, and not to be used by their own people, but by strangers,” it stands to reason that, just like the Jews, the Samaritans, too, made amulets for their own use. But if these pendants and bracelets were indeed amulets, it is also true that at least some amulets were made by them for non-Samaritans — Jews, Christians, Muslims — as is still the case in modern times. So far, no Jewish counterparts to these Samaritan objects — oval bronze pendants in most cases — have come to light, although the texts incised on the Samaritan amulets occur also in Jewish amulets. 105

106

107

108

109

110

Fig. 21. Synagogue in Ḥolon. (Ori Orhof)

The materials of which the amulets were made in the Roman-Byzantine time are bronze, hematite and other materials. As to their shapes, they are oval and square pendants or they have the form of octagonal finger rings and of bracelets. The inscriptions range from biblical quotations to illegible characters. Among the biblical passages most quoted, in Samaritan script, are Exodus 15:3, 26; 38:8; Numbers 10:35; 14:14; and Deuteronomy 6:4; 33:26. Especially the last mentioned verse, “There is none like God, O Jeshurun,” occurs on many specimens. The Greek inscriptions are similar to the Greek inscriptions found in Samaritan synagogues: “One God who defeats the evil,” “One God, help Markian.” It is of course possible that in addition to the bronze amulets the Samaritans also used amulets made of leather or papyrus which did not survive due to weather and soil conditions. Today’s Samaritans certainly produce paper and wood amulets. Some of the inscriptions incised on amulets also adorned clay oil lamps. The use of Samaritan script proves that they were Samaritan. The following are samples of inscriptions found on clay lamps: “There is none like God, O Jeshurun” (Deut. 33:26) on the nozzle of a lamp dating from the fifth century and discovered in Caesarea. On three lamps appears the non-biblical phrase “Blessed be his name forever.” Another short text, “Arise,” appears on the nozzle of a lamp discovered in Netanyah; the word is most likely taken from Numbers 10:35: “Arise, O Lord, let your enemies be scattered, and your foes flee before you.” A lamp found in Beth Shean bears the text: “It is set apart for destruction (Deut. 7:26); nothing planted, nothing sprouting (Deut. 29:23).” All these texts occur also on amulets. Among the symbols appearing on some lamps are the menorah, the shofar, the showbread table, and the firepan. Obviously, lamps displaying these symbols but without Samaritan writing may also have belonged to Jews. 111

112

113

While the evidence for the production of oil lamps ceased after the Byzantine period, that of amulets continued throughout the centuries and remains alive today.

4. Ritual Baths — Miqvaʾot A practice that Jews and Samaritans had in common in antiquity is the construction and use of miqvaʾot (literally: gatherings [of water] or ritual baths). In Second Temple Judaism miqvaʾot were used to achieve or maintain ritual purity. They were plastered pools, built into the ground, with steps for entering and leaving the water, and were installed in houses or close to olive and wine presses, synagogues, and the Temple Mount. Archaeological excavations have uncovered hundreds of miqvaʾot in Judea, the Galilee, and the Golan. They varied in size, the average being 2 x 4 m, and in the arrangement of the steps, some having only one set, others two sets. The number of miqvaʾot declines after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 C.E. Rabbinic writings contain detailed instructions concerning the requirements for miqvaʾot, although these regulations reflect a later stage; the Second Temple installations are different in certain respects from those described in the rabbinic sources. Miqvaʾot are an institution that the Samaritans seem to have taken over from Judaism. Judging by the Samaritans’ later history and observances as well as Jewish sources, like Jews, the Samaritans were careful to observe the purity regulations set out in the Bible (above all in Lev. 11–17 and Num. 19, but also in Lev. 5:2-3; Num. 31:19-20, and Deut. 14:3-21; 23:10-15; 24:8; 26:14). Immersion in the miqveh restores ritual purity to someone who has become ritually impure through contact with corpses, certain sicknesses, and discharges from the genitals, especially, but not only, menstruation and child birth. The Bible speaks of washing and immersion in water to attain ritual purity (e.g., Lev. 14:8-9; 16:23-28; 22:6) but does not give any instructions about special installations to be used for this purpose. Thus, the idea of the miqveh as a special immersion pool for purification developed later in Judaism, probably in the late second or early first century B.C.E. Yitzhak Magen conjectures that miqvaʾot were forced on the Samaritans by John Hyrcanus I and Alexander Jannaeus in the period between the destruction of the Gerizim temple in approximately 110 B.C.E. and Pompey’s subjugation of Judea in 63 B.C.E. No miqvaʾot were discovered on Mt. Gerizim, which means that the use of them began only after the destruction of the temple. For the time in which the temple was standing, the seven large cisterns near the sacred precinct and the bathtubs (Fig. 22) found in almost all the private houses on the mountain may have been used in the purification rituals, as are the bathtubs in the houses of the modern Samaritans. The Bible refers to cleansing one’s body in water, but does not mention specific installations corresponding to later miqvaʾot. Unfortunately, we have no early written sources about the institution of purification baths among the Samaritans. Samaritan medieval Chronicles mention miqvaʾot, especially in connection with Baba Rabba. Rabbinic sources raise the question whether Samaritan ritual baths comply with rabbinic regulations, some rabbis affirming, others denying it (see, e.g., t. Miqvaʾot 6:1; y. ʿAbodah Zarah 44d). The excavations of Samaritan miqvaʾot from the Roman and Byzantine period have shown that their construction did conform to the Jewish laws regulating the layout of ritual immersion pools: they were cut into the rock and were fed from “living” water, i.e., natural water 114

115

116

117

coming from a spring or from rainwater.

Fig. 22. Bathtub from building A of the city on Mt. Gerizim. (Reinhard Pummer)

A number of ritual baths were discovered in Qedumim, El-Khirbe, Khirbet Samara, Ḥorbat Migdal and other places in Samaria. Their structures and sizes vary, but all possess the essential features. In Qedumim, six miqvaʾot were unearthed, three in residential areas and three in connection with oil presses (Fig. 23). Their dates range from the first to the eighth century C.E. In El-Khirbe, five miqvaʾot were found. An L-shaped ritual bath, probably from the sixth century, was found behind the synagogue, although the excavators conjecture that it was not related to the synagogue. In Ḥorbat Migdal several ritual baths were discovered, two in the vicinity of the synagogue and two in connection with the oil press. They date from the Byzantine or early Islamic period. 118

119

Fig. 23. Olive press in Qedumim. (Reinhard Pummer)

Other than the Jews, the Samaritans retained the use of miqvaʾot by the synagogues into the Byzantine times, but eventually they discontinued their use altogether. Today they perform the required ablutions in their bathtubs at home, as mentioned. In sum, Samaritan studies were substantially enriched by the discoveries made in the course of archaeological excavations and surveys undertaken in the last several decades. No doubt, further discoveries are to be expected that will supplement or maybe even substantially alter what we know so far. 1. For a description of these objects, with drawings, see Yitzhak Magen, Mount Gerizim Excavations, vol. 2: A Temple City (Judea & Samaria Publications, 8; Jerusalem: Staff Officer of Archaeology — Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria; Israel Antiquities Authority, 2008), pp. 209-23. 2. Cf. Eckart Otto, Jakob in Sichem. Überlieferungsgeschichtliche, archäologische und territorialgeschichtliche Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte Israels (Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament, 110; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1979), pp. 150-58. 3. Ephraim Stern and Yitzhak Magen, “Archaeological Evidence for the First Stage of the Samaritan Temple on Mount Gerizim,” IEJ 52 (2002): 49-57; Magen, Mount Gerizim Excavations, vol. 2, p. 153; and Oded Lipschits, “The Origin and Date of the Volute Capitals from the Levant,” in The Fire Signals of Lachish: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Israel in the Late Bronze Age, Iron Age, and Persian Period in Honor of David Ussishkin, ed. Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Naʾaman; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), p. 207. In his opinion, the capitals originally belonged to a public building of the ninth century and were brought to Mt. Gerizim in the Persian period. 4. See Jürgen Zangenberg, “The Sanctuary on Mount Gerizim: Observations on the Results of 20 Years of Excavation,” in Temple Building and Temple Cult: Architecture and Cultic Paraphernalia of Temples in the Levant (2.-1. Mill. B.C.E.): Proceedings of a Conference on the Occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the Institute of Biblical Archaeology at the University of Tübingen (28-30 May 2010), ed. Jens Kamlah and Henrike Michelau (Abhandlungen des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, 41; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012), pp. 402-03, as surmised by Lipschits, “The Origin and Date of the Volute Capitals from the Levant,” p. 207. 5. The reading “Gerizim” is found also in the new fragment published by Charlesworth, the Old Latin codex 100, and the Greek Papyrus Giessen. 6. See the chapter on “Samaritans in the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament?” 7. For a recent discussion and photographs see Jane DeRose Evans, “From Mountain to Icon: Mount Gerizim on Roman Provincial Coins from Neapolis Samaria,” Near Eastern Archaeology 74 (2011): 170-82. Fig. 3 above depicts a coin issued by the Roman emperor Marcus Julius Philippus Augustus, called Philip the Arab, who ruled from 244 to 249 C.E. His bust is depicted on the obverse of the coin; the reverse, seen in Fig. 3, shows the double-peaked Mt. Gerizim supported by an eagle, with the temple built by Antoninus Pius on the larger peak (see George Francis Hill, Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Palestine [Galilee, Samaria, and Judaea] [A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum, 27; Bologna: A. Forni, 1965 (orig.: 1914)], p. 69 and pl. VII, 9; Yaʿakov Meshorer, City-Coins of Eretz-Israel and the Decapolis in the Roman Period [Jerusalem: The Israel Museum, 1985], p. 52, n. 147; Yitzhak Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan [Judea & Samaria Publications, 7; Jerusalem: Staff Officer of Archaeology — Civil Administration of

Judea and Samaria; Israel Antiquities Authority, 2008], p. 51). 8. Paul Stenhouse, The Kitāb al-Tarīkh of Abū ʾl-Fatḥ: Translated into English with Notes (Studies in Judaica, 1; Sydney: Mandelbaum Trust, University of Sydney, 1985), p.159; Theodorus Guilielmus Johannes Juynboll, Chronicon Samaritanum, Arabice conscriptum, cui titulus est Liber Josuae. Ex unico codice Scaligeri nunc primum edidit, Latine vertit, annotatione instruxit, et dissertationem de codice, de chronico, et de quaestionibus, quae hoc libro illustrantur, praemisit Th. Guil. Juynboll (Lugduni Batavorum: S. & J. Luchtmans, 1848), ch. 47; and Elkan Nathan Adler and Max Séligsohn, “Une nouvelle chronique samaritaine,” REJ 45 (1902): 82-83. 9. According to this source, the wealthy fifth-century Roman pilgrim Poimenia demolished the idol on Mt. Gerizim that was still being worshiped by the inhabitants of that region (see Cornelia B. Horn and Robert R. Phenix Jr., eds. and trans., The Lives of Peter the Iberian, Theodosius of Jerusalem, and the Monk Romanus (Writings from the Greco-Roman World, 24; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), p. 61. 10. See below. 11. For the texts and translations of the respective passages see Reinhard Pummer, Early Christian Authors on Samaritans and Samaritanism: Texts, Translations and Commentary (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism, 92; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), pp. 112-13 (Pilgrim of Bordeaux), p. 180 (Epiphanius), p. 231 (Procopius of Gaza), p. 429 (Damascius). 12. Bull did not produce a final report, but wrote articles in various publications. For the latest account see Robert J. Bull, “Ras, Tell Er-,” OEANE 4 (1997): 406-09, with a bibliography of his earlier publications. He concludes that building complex B “was part of the Samaritan temple that Josephus … notes was built on Mt. Gerizim and modeled after the Jerusalem temple.” Bull put forward the same claim again in 2010 (“The Altar of the Almighty Is Located in Tel Er Ras in [sic] Mount Gerizim,” A.B.–The Samaritan News 1075 [28.10.2010]: 81-84); and 2012 (“The Ancient Israelite Altar Found in Tel Elras [sic] on Mount Gerizim,” A.B.–The Samaritan News 1115-1116 [13.7.2012]: 92-96). 13. For a thorough, illustrated description and a discussion of its identity see now Yitzhak Magen, Flavia Neapolis: Shechem in the Roman Period (Judea & Samaria Publications, 11; Jerusalem: Staff Officer of Archaeology — Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria; Israel Antiquities Authority, 2009), vol. 1, pp. 237-57. 14. See Noël Duval, “Le rappresentazioni architettoniche,” in Umm al-Rasas - Mayfaʿah I: Gli scavi del complesso di Santo Stefano, ed. Michele Piccirillo and Eugenio Alliata (Jerusalem: Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, 1994), p. 179; and M. Piccirillo, “Le iscrizioni di Um Er-Rasas - Kastron Mefaa in Giordania I (1986-1987),” Liber Annuus 37 (1987): 199. 15. See the respective texts and translations in Pummer, Early Christian Authors (John Malalas — texts 124 and 125, Procopius of Caesarea — text 134). 16. Cf. A. M. Schneider, “Römische und byzantinische Bauten auf dem Garizim,” ZDPV 68 (1951): 211-34. Schneider also realized that the Roman temple stood on Tell er-Ras, and that the Samaritan temple probably lies under the Theotokos church. 17. For a plan of the excavations on Mt. Gerizim see Yitzhak Magen, Haggai Misgav, and Levana Tsfania, Mount Gerizim Excavations, vol. 1: The Aramaic, Hebrew and Samaritan Inscriptions (Judea & Samaria Publications, 2; Jerusalem: Staff Officer of Archaeology — Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria; Israel Antiquities Authority, 2004), p. 2 and the foldout plan after p. 272. For an interactive plan see http://www.biblewalks.com/Sites/MountGerizim.html. 18. In the late 1970s and early 1990s, some scholars surmised that the Persian period sanctuary on Mt. Gerizim was not a temple, but an altar. This suggestion has been revived recently by Jürgen Zangenberg (“The Sanctuary on Mount Gerizim: Observations on the Results of 20 Years of Excavation,” in Temple Building and Temple Cult: Architecture and Cultic Paraphernalia of Temples in the Levant (2.-1. Mill. B.C.E.): Proceedings of a Conference on the Occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the Institute of Biblical Archaeology at the University of Tübingen (28-30 May 2010), ed. Jens Kamlah and Henrike Michelau [Abhandlungen des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, 41; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012], p. 409), who, moreover, concludes from the absence of houses surrounding the sanctuary in the Persian period that it was a pilgrimage center and “no permanent cult was performed there, but that worshipers and perhaps also part of the cult personnel came to the sanctuary only at particular moments” (p. 407). See now Reinhard Pummer, “Was There an Altar or a Temple in the Sacred Precinct on Mt. Gerizim?” in JSJ (forthcoming). The Samaritans up to this day deny that there ever was a legitimate temple on Mt. Gerizim (see below in this chapter). 19. For the following see Yitzhak Magen, “The Dating of the First Phase of the Samaritan Temple on Mount Gerizim in Light of the Archaeological Evidence,.” in Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E., ed. Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Rainer Albertz (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), pp. 157-211; Yitzhak Magen, chs. 2 and 3 in Mount Gerizim Excavations, vol. 2, entitled respectively “The Sacred Precinct” (pp. 95137) and “The Sacred Precincts at Mount Gerizim and in Jerusalem” (pp. 139-64); and Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan. 20. For a plan of the sacred precinct from the Persian and Hellenistic periods see Magen, Misgav, and Tsfania, Mount Gerizim Excavations, vol. I, p. 5. 21. Magen, Mount Gerizim Excavations, vol. 2, p. 149. On p. 98, Magen writes: “In the first phase of construction, the precinct and temple were probably copies of those in Jerusalem.” Magen refers several times to Josephus’s statement to that effect in Ant. 11:310; 13:256; War 1:62-63. On these passages see Reinhard Pummer, The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism, 129; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), pp. 110-11. 22. Magen, Mount Gerizim Excavations, vol. 2, pp. 146-47. 23. Some of Magen’s reconstructions have been questioned by Anne Katrine de Hemmer Gudme, Before the God in This Place for Good Remembrance: A Comparative Analysis of the Aramaic Votive Inscriptions from Mount Gerizim (BZAW, 441; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2013), p. 67, who notes that “Magen’s assertion that the Persian period sanctuary contained three gates is a hypothesis only, and a hypothesis at that, which seems more than a little influenced by a reading of the Book of Ezekiel.” 24. Magen, “The Dating of the First Phase of the Samaritan Temple,” pp. 163-64; Magen, Mount Gerizim Excavations, vol. 2, pp. 167-69. 25. Magen, “The Dating of the First Phase of the Samaritan Temple,” pp. 163-64; Magen, Mount Gerizim Excavations, vol. 2, pp. 98 and 176. 26. As in the case of the Persian-period precinct, Zangenberg thinks that the Hellenistic precinct consisted “only of an open piazza with an altar” and “that Mount Gerizim continued as a ‘sanctuary without a temple’” (Zangenberg, “The Sanctuary on Mount Gerizim,” p. 411). 27. Magen, Mount Gerizim Excavations, vol. 2, pp. 121-22. 28. Magen, Mount Gerizim Excavations, vol. 2, p. 154. 29. For the details see Magen, Misgav and Tsfania, Mount Gerizim Excavations, vol. 1; this is the editio princeps of the inscriptions, but the final publication is yet to appear. On the Aramaic and Hebrew inscriptions see Jan Dušek, Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions from Mt. Gerizim and Samaria between Antiochus III and Antiochus IV Epiphanes (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East, 54; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2012), a thorough discussion of the scripts and the historical context of the inscriptions. For a comparison with Aramaic inscriptions from other contexts see Gudme, Before the God in This Place. 30. Magen, Misgav and Tsfania use a different terminology for the scripts, calling palaeo-Hebrew “neo-Hebrew” (Mount Gerizim Excavations, vol. 1, p.

30; and Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan, p. 231); but see Jan Dušek, “Ruling of Inscriptions in Hellenistic Samaria,” Maarav 14 (2007): 45 nn. 15 and 16; and Dušek, Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions from Mt. Gerizim, p. 5. 31. Most remain unpublished. Some were published in Magen, Mount Gerizim Excavations, vol. 2, pp. 246-49. 32. See Magen, Misgav, and Tsfania, Mount Gerizim Excavations, vol. 1, pp. 261-64. 33. On the whole, the name Phinehas appears in five inscriptions: no. 24 (lapidary Aramaic); 25 and 61 (cursive Aramaic); 384 and 389 (palaeo-Hebrew). 34. Dušek, Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions from Mt. Gerizim, p. 58. 35. Bezalel Porten and Ada Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt: Newly Copied, Edited and Translated into Hebrew and English, vol. 1: Letters (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, 1986), 4:9:3. 36. For an illustration in color see Magen, Mount Gerizim Excavations, vol. 2, pl. XVIII; Magen discusses it on pp. 156-57. 37. See now the detailed description in Magen, Mount Gerizim Excavations, vol. 2, pp. 3-93. 38. Magen’s estimate of 10,000 appears too high (see Zangenberg, “The Sanctuary on Mount Gerizim,” p. 409, n. 45). 39. Magen, “The Dating of the First Phase of the Samaritan Temple,” p. 182. 40. This is the view of Jan Dušek, Les manuscrits araméens du Wadi Daliyeh et la Samarie vers 450-332 av. J.-C. (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East, 30; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2007). 41. See Nancy L. Lapp, “The Stratum V Pottery from Balâṭah (Shechem),” BASOR 257 (1985): 25; and Nancy L. Lapp, Shechem IV: The PersianHellenistic Pottery of Shechem/Tell Balâţah (Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2008), pp. 1, 3, 15, n. 4. 42. See the earlier section “Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Writings” in the chapter “Samaritans in Jewish Writings of Antiquity.” 43. For the following see Adrian Schenker, “Nach dem Exil wurden im Land Israel zwei Tempel errichtet. Ist der Bericht 1 Esdr 5:49 vom Tempelbau der Völker des Landes die älteste literarische Erwähnung des Tempels in Samarien?” in Textual Criticism and Dead Sea Scroll Studies in Honour of Julio Trebolle Barrera: Florilegium Complutense, ed. Andrés Piquer Otero and Pablo A. Torijano Morales (JSJSup, 157; Leiden: Brill, 2012), pp. 303-16. 44. Schenker points out that the Greek συνήχθησαν occurs with the meaning “to gather,” Latin “convenire,” also in 1 Esdr. 5:46 (VL 47). 45. Translated from Schenker, “Nach dem Exil,” p. 307: “Und es kamen zusammen die von den andern Völkern des Landes, und es errichteten einen Altar an ihrer Stätte denn es standen in Feindschaft zu ihnen und es beherrschten sie alle die Völker des Landes, und sie brachten das Schlachtopfer und Brandopfer dem Herrn in der Frühe.” 46. Schenker does not offer a guess at the identity of this place but concludes with the remark that the historians now have to examine the historical plausibility of this note from the fourth century B.C.E. (the presumed time of origin of 1 Esdras) in 1 Esdr. 5:49 (Schenker, “Nach dem Exil,” p. 315). 47. For an analysis of these passages see Pummer, The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, pp. 200-10. Some scholars point out that Josephus does not explicitly state that the temple was destroyed, but only captured (αἱρέω in Greek) and may have been deserted (cf. Magnar Kartveit, “The Origin of the Jews and Samaritans According to the Samaritan Chronicles,” in “Durch Dein Wort ward jegliches Ding!”: 2. Mandäistische und samaritanistische Tagung: Zum Gedenken an Rudolf Macuch [1919-1993] = “Through Thy Word All Things Were Made!”: 2nd International Conference of Mandaic and Samaritan Studies, ed. Rainer Voigt [Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2013], p. 102). However, archaeological excavations show that the city on the peak of Mt. Gerizim perished in a fiery conflagration (Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan, pp. 25-29); thus the temple must have been destroyed at the same time. 48. See the discussion in Pummer, The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, pp. 209-10; Timothy Wardle, The Jerusalem Temple and Early Christian Identity (WUNT, 2.291; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), pp. 114-20. 49. Knoppers points out that, “For John Hyrcanus, exterminating the Mt. Gerizim temple not only fulfilled the centralization mandate (Deut 12:1-13:1) but also consolidated political, sacerdotal, and economic power in Jerusalem” (Gary N. Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans: The Origins and History of Their Early Relations [New York: Oxford University Press, 2013], p. 214). 50. For details and references see Reinhard Pummer, “The Mosaic Tabernacle as the Only Legitimate Sanctuary: The Biblical Tabernacle in Samaritanism,” in The Temple of Jerusalem: From Moses to the Messiah: Studies in Honor of Professor Louis H. Feldman, ed. Steven Fine (Brill Reference Library of Judaism, 29; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2011), p. 130, n. 35. 51. Both these aspects were rightly emphasized by Gary N. Knoppers, “Samaritan Conceptions of Jewish Origins and Jewish Conceptions of Samaritan Origins: Any Common Ground?” in Die Samaritaner und die Bibel: Historische und literarische Wechselwirkungen zwischen biblischen und samaritanischen Traditionen = The Samaritans and the Bible: Historical and Literary Interactions between Biblical and Samaritan Traditions, ed. Jörg Frey, Ursula Schattner-Rieser, and Konrad Schmid (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012), pp. 122-23; and in Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans, p. 122. Finkelstein thinks the reference to “YHWH of Samaria” in the inscriptions from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud may refer to a temple of Yahweh in the Samarian capital (Israel Finkelstein, The Forgotten Kingdom: The Archaeology and History of Northern Israel [Ancient Near East Monographs, 5; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013], pp. 137, 139, 149). 52. Knoppers thinks that despite the fact that the Gerizim temple was not the first Yahwistic temple in the Samaria region, “there is little doubt that the erection of a Yahwistic temple on Mt. Gerizim in the Persian period was a highly significant historical development,” although it did not “cause a precipitous and permanent split between Yahwistic Samarians and Yahwistic Judeans” (Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans, p. 122). 53. Cf. Stefan Schorch, Die Vokale des Gesetzes. Die samaritanische Lesetradition als Textzeugin der Tora. 1. Das Buch Genesis (BZAW, 339. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2004), pp. 239-40. 54. On Marqe see in the later chapter “Samaritan Literature.” 55. For a discussion see the chapter on “The Samaritan Pentateuch.” 56. Magen, Mount Gerizim Excavations, vol. 2, pp. 113-14. 57. For a comprehensive account of Samaritan synagogues both in Palestine and in the diaspora see Reinhard Pummer, “Samaritan Synagogues and Jewish Synagogues: Similarities and Differences,” in Jews, Christians, and Polytheists in the Ancient Synagogue: Cultural Interaction During the GrecoRoman Period, ed. Steven Fine (Baltimore Studies in the History of Judaism; London; New York: Routledge, 1999), pp. 118-60; for synagogues in Palestine see Yitzhak Magen, “Samaritan Synagogues” [in Hebrew], in The Samaritans, ed. Ephraim Stern and Hanan Eshel (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2002), pp. 382-443; and Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan, pp. 117-80. 58. See the monumental work by Lee I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2000); and, for the early period, Anders Runesson, Donal D. Binder, and Birger Olsson, The Ancient Synagogue from Its Origins to 200 C.E.: A Source Book (Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, 72; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2008).

59. All the information known up to the mid-1970s was meticulously collected, described and discussed in Gottfried Reeg, Die antiken Synagogen in Israel (Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B (Geisteswissenschaften) Nr. 12/ 2; Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert, 1977), which is still a useful source. 60. Cf. Reinhard Pummer, “How to Tell a Samaritan Synagogue from a Jewish Synagogue,” BAR 24, no. 3 (May/June 1998): 24-35. 61. On the problem of synagogue orientation — in this case, of Jewish synagogues — see Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, p. 303. 62. See the chapter below on “Samaritan Rituals and Customs.” 63. For the publication and discussion of the inscriptions see Philippe Bruneau, “‘Les Israélites de Délos’ et la juiverie délienne,” Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 106 (1982): 466-504. 64. For the location at which the inscriptions were found see the map in Bruneau, “‘Les Israélites de Délos’,” p. 466. 65. Bruneau dates inscription no. 2 to the third century B.C.E. 66. άπάρχομαι can mean “to offer the firstlings or first fruits,” but also generally, “to offer, dedicate” (see Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, and Henry Stuart Jones, comps., A Greek-English Lexicon. With Supplement 1968 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), p. 181; and Gerhard Delling, “ἀπαρχή,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964], vol. 1, pp. 484-85). 67. For a thorough recent discussion see Jan Dušek, Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions from Mt. Gerizim and Samaria between Antiochus III and Antiochus IV Epiphanes (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East, 54; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2012), pp. 75-79. 68. Monika Trümper, “The Oldest Original Synagogue Building in the Diaspora: The Delos Synagogue Reconsidered,” Hesperia 73 (2004): 513-98. 69. Lidia Domenica Matassa, “The Myth of the Synagogue on Delos,” in SOMA2004; Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology: Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Meeting of Postgraduate Researchers; School of Classics Trinity College Dublin, 20-22 February 2004, ed. Jo Day et al. (BAR International Series, 1514; Oxford: Archaeopress, 2006), p. 113. 70. See Pummer, Early Christian Authors, p. 213. 71. For the text and references to discussions of the inscription see Denis Feissel, Recueil des inscriptions chrétiennes de Macédoine du IIIe au VIe siècle (Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, Supplément 8; Athens: École française d’Athènes; Paris: diffusion de Boccard, 1983), pp. 240-42. 72. As pointed out in B. Lifshitz and J. Schiby, “Une synagogue samaritaine à Thessalonique,” RB 75 (1958): 375. 73. See the discussion and references cited in Reinhard Pummer, “The Greek Bible and the Samaritans,” REJ 157 (1998): 269-358. 74. See Vittorio Morabito, “The Samaritans in Sicily and the Inscription in a Probable Synagogue in Syracuse,” in New Samaritan Studies, ed. Alan D. Crown and Lucy Davey (Sydney: Mandelbaum, 1995), pp. 237-58; and Vittorio Morabito, “Les Samaritains de Sicile,” in Études sémitiques et samaritaines offertes à Jean Margain, ed. Christian-Bernard Amphoux, Albert Frey, and Ursula Schattner-Rieser (Histoire du Texte Biblique, 4; Lausanne: Zèbre, 1998), 195-201 (Morabito here thinks the inscription may date from the second century). See, however, Joseph Naveh, “Did Ancient Samaritan Inscriptions Belong to Synagogues?” in Ancient Synagogues in Israel: Third–Seventh Century C.E. Proceedings of Symposium, University of Hafia [i.e. Haifa], May 1987, ed. Rachel Hachlili (BAR International Series, 499; Oxford: B.A.R., 1989), pp. 61-63. 75. On this question see Naveh, “Did Ancient Samaritan Inscriptions Belong to Synagogues?” 76. For the text see Pummer, Early Christian Authors, pp. 243-44. 77. For a discussion see Pummer, “Samaritan Synagogues and Jewish Synagogues: Similarities and Differences,” pp. 118-60. A lavishly illustrated recent description is contained in Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan, pp. 117-80. 78. See the chapter on “Samaritan Literature,” below. 79. For a new plan of the building see Ronny Reich, “The Plan of the Samaritan Synagogue at Shaʿalvim,” IEJ 44 (1994): 228-33. 80. The English translation by Tsedaka reads: God shall reign “and the world is witness” (Benyamim Tsedaka, ed. and trans., The Israelite Samaritan Version of the Torah: First English Translation Compared with the Masoretic Version [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013], p. 162). On this verse see now Stefan Schorch, “In aeternum et ultra: Die Vorstellung eines Zeitenendes nach Gen 8,22 und Ex 15,18,” in Nichts Neues unter der Sonne? Zeitvorstellungen im Alten Testament: Festschrift für Ernst-Joachim Waschke zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. Jens Kotjatko-Reeb et al.; BZAW, 450; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014), pp. 378-83. Schorch sees here and in Gen. 8:22 “eschatologische Textspuren.” 81. See Dan Barag, “Shaalbim,” NEAEHL 4 (1993): 1338. 82. See Asher Ovadiah, “The Greek Inscription from Tell Qasile Re-Examined,” IEJ 37 (1987): 36-39. 83. Oren Tal and Itamar Taxel, Samaritan Cemeteries and Tombs in the Central Coastal Plain: The Archaeology and History of the Samaritan Settlement Outside Samaria (ca. 300-700 CE), Ägypten und Altes Testament 82 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2015), pp. 177, 209-10 and 211 for a plan of the synagogue. 84. See Joseph Naveh, “A Greek Dedication in Samaritan Letters,” IEJ 31 (1981): 220-22. 85. See the discussion in Pummer, “Samaritan Synagogues and Jewish Synagogues,” pp. 131-32; and Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, p. 199, n. 19. Doubts as to the Samaritan character have also been expressed by Chad S. Spigel, Ancient Synagogue Seating Capacities: Methodology, Analysis and Limits (Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum, 149; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), p. 164. 86. Cf. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, p. 242; B. Lifshitz, Donateurs et fondateurs dans les synagogues juives. Répertoire des dédicaces grecques relatives à la construction et à la réfection des synagogues (Cahiers de la Revue Biblique, 7; Paris: J. Gabalda, 1967), p. 41; David Noy and Hanswulf Bloedhorn, eds., Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis, vol. 3: Syria and Cyprus (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism, 102; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), p. 98. On the approximation of the synagogue to the temple see Steven Fine, ed., Sacred Realm: The Emergence of the Synagogue in the Ancient World (New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press; Yeshiva University Museum, 1996), p. 31. So far, the find has not yet been fully published; for a short description see http://antiquities.org.il. 87. See Shimon Dar, with contributions by Baruch Arensburg, et al., Raqit: Marinus’ Estate on the Carmel, Israel (BAR International Series, 1300; Oxford: Archaeopress, 2004), pp. 120-151; and Leah Di Segni, “Two Greek Inscriptions at Horvat Raqit,” in Raqit: Marinus’ Estate on the Carmel, Israel, ed. Shimon Dar (BAR International Series, 1300; Oxford: Archaeopress, 2004), pp. 196-98. Oren Tal has argued in several publications that the phrase Εἷς θεὸς μόνος is an exclusively Samaritan formula (see most recently Oren Tal, “A Bilingual Greek-Samaritan Inscription from Apollonia-Arsuf/Sozousa: Yet More Evidence of the Use of the ΕΙΣ ΘΕΟΣ ΜΟΝΟΣ Inscriptions of Palestine,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 194 [2015]: 173). 88. See Zvi Ilan, Ancient Synagogues in Israel [in Hebrew] (Tel Aviv: Ministry of Defence Israel, 1991), p. 229. 89. See Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan, pp. 118-22. 90. See Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan, pp. 123-24.

91. See on the building of this synagogue by ʿAqbūn, Stenhouse, Kitāb, pp. 232-36; Adler and Séligsohn, “Une nouvelle chronique samaritaine,” REJ 45 (1902): 232-34; and Adler and Séligsohn, “Une nouvelle chronique samaritaine,” REJ 46 (1903): 129. Abū l-Fatḥ speaks of eight high priests by the name ʿAqbūn, whereas the Tūlīda knows of five; Stenhouse believes the builder of the synagogue was the sixth (or the fourth, according to the Tūlīda) (Paul Stenhouse, “ʿAqbon,” in A Companion to Samaritan Studies, ed. Alan D. Crown, Reinhard Pummer, and Abraham Tal [Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1993], pp. 20-21). The synagogue was damaged by the Crusaders, but in the twelfth century Ab Gillūga, mentioned in several Samaritan chronicles (not to be identified with the liturgical writer of the same name; see the chapter “Samaritan Literature”), built a new one. See also the full report in Reeg, Die antiken Synagogen, 644-56. 92. See the description in J.-A. Jaussen, Coutumes palestiniennes I. Naplouse et son district (Paris: Librairie orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1927), pp. 15254. 93. On the ten words which God spoke at the creation see James Alan Montgomery, The Samaritans, the Earliest Jewish Sect: Their History, Theology and Literature (Philadelphia: The J. C. Winston Co., 1907), p. 274 and pl. 2. 94. See the “Report of the Destruction to Palestinian Institutions in Nablus and Other Cities (Except Ramallah) Caused by IDF Forces Between March 29 and April 21, 2002,” p. 4: “Al-Khadra Mosque (more than 1000 years old), was 85% destroyed. The beautifully sculpted and inlaid mihrab was destroyed. The IDF used bulldozers with drill and other attachments” (http://www.jnul.huji.ac.il/ia/archivedsites/gushshalom010204/www.gushshalom.org/terror/report1.html). See also Alain Gresh and Dominique Vidal, The New A-Z of the Middle East (London: I. B. Tauris, 2004), p. 171. 95. Spigel maintains a guarded position as to the Samaritan character of the building (Spigel, Ancient Synagogue Seating Capacities, p. 268). 96. Spigel estimates a seating capacity of 205-223 worshipers in the first phase and 215-271 in the second. This varies from Magen’s estimate of 120 persons. However, Spigel assumes a number of worshipers “sitting on the floor or standing” and the use of portable benches (Spigel, Ancient Synagogue Seating Capacities, pp. 266-67). In his recent book, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan, Magen states that “the maximum capacity of the synagogue was approximately eighty people” (Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan, p. 147). 97. Spigel estimates a seating capacity of 185-233 persons for the first phase of the synagogue and 134-82 for the second phase. His population estimate for both phases of the settlement is 50-75 persons. The building would therefore have had enough seats for the whole population (Spigel, Ancient Synagogue Seating Capacities, pp. 195-97). Another estimate for a possibly Samaritan synagogue in Raqit (on Mt. Carmel, district of Haifa) is given in Dar, Raqit, p. 136: “The overall length of the benches in the hall is approximately 40 m, i.e., providing seating for eighty people (according to 0.50 m per person). Hence, the synagogue could seat the entire estimated population of Raqit … : owners, labourers, daily workers, and perhaps even guests from neighbouring estates.” 98. See Itzhak Ben-Zvi, The Book of the Samaritans [in Hebrew], rev. ed., ed. Shemaryahu Talmon (Jerusalem: Yad Itzhak Ben-Zvi, 1970), pp. 165-201; and Reeg, Die antiken Synagogen. 99. See below. 100. Epiphanius, Palladius, John Malalas and Procopius of Caesarea (for texts and discussion see Pummer, Early Christian Authors). 101. It was established as a mosque in approximately 1290. Pringle collected and discussed all the information on the building, with copious references to primary and secondary literature (Denys Pringle, The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: A Corpus. Volume II: L-Z (Excluding Tyre) [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998], pp. 111-15). 102. See Daniel H. K. Amiran, E. Arieh, and T. Turcotte, “Earthquakes in Israel and Adjacent Areas: Macroseismic Observations Since 100 B.C.E.,” IEJ 44 (1994): 277-78. 103. On Luza see below, the section “The Modern Period” in the chapter “The Samaritans in History.” 104. See A.B. Services [Benyamim Tsedaka], “Are the Samaritans in Need to [sic] a Second Synagogue in Mount Gerizim?” A.B.–The Samaritan News 1086-1087 (20.5.2011): 77-80. 105. For an inventory see Reinhard Pummer, “Samaritan Amulets from the Roman-Byzantine Period and Their Wearers,” RB 94 (1987): 251-63. See now also Ronny Reich, “Samaritan Amulets from the Late Roman and Byzantine Periods” [in Hebrew], in The Samaritans, ed. Ephraim Stern and Hanan Eshel (Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi, Israel Antiquities Authority, Staff Officer for Archaeology — Civil Administration for Judea and Samaria, 2002), pp. 289309; and Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan, pp. 249-56. For a discussion see Reinhard Pummer, “Bronze Pendants, Rings and Bracelets with Samaritan Writing from the Byzantine Period: Amulets or Religious Jewelry?” in The Samaritans: History, Texts and Traditions, ed. Stefan Schorch (Studia Judaica, 75, Studia Samaritana, 8; Berlin: De Gruyter, forthcoming). 106. Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan, pp. 249, 255. 107. See Gideon Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic: A History (Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008). 108. As reported by Claude Reignier Conder, “Samaritan Customs,” PEFQS (Oct.-Dec. 1887): 235. 109. For two modern amulets, made in 1977 and 1984, respectively, and sold to Christians, see the photos and discussion in Reinhard Pummer, The Samaritans (Iconography of Religions 23.5; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1987), p. 27 and pl. III b and c. See also Fig. 42 in the chapter “The Samaritans Today.” For amulets dated from the twelfth to the nineteenth century see Moses Gaster, “Samaritan Phylacteries and Amulets,” in Studies and Texts in Folklore, Magic, Mediaeval Romance, Hebrew Apocrypha and Samaritan Archaeology. Vol. I, pp. 387-461 (English translation); vol. III, 109-30 (text) (New York: Ktav, 1971). It should be pointed out that some authors misrepresented (in part via citations not from my own article, but from secondary sources) what I said about the use of amulets by non-Samaritans. I clearly stated that they “have been and are being worn by non-Samaritans too, and at certain times maybe only by the latter.” See also my article “Amulets” in A Companion to Samaritan Studies, ed. Alan D. Crown, Reinhard Pummer, and Abraham Tal (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1993), p. 14. 110. Cf., e.g., Joseph Naveh, “Lamp Inscriptions and Inverted Writing,” IEJ 38 (1988): 36-43, pl. 8 E and G, pl. 9. 111. For a metallurgical analysis of some amulets see now Dana Ashkenazi, “Archaeometallurgical Characterization of Samaritan Rings and Amulets and Other Artifacts Made of Copper Alloys,” in Samaritan Cemeteries and Tombs in the Central Coastal Plain: Archaeology and History of the Samaritan Settlement Outside Samaria (ca. 300-700 CE), by Oren Tal and Itamar Taxel (Ägypten und Altes Testament, 82; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2015), pp. 229-49 and Dana Ashkenazi, Itamar Taxel, and Oren Tal, “Archaeometallurgical Characterization of Late Roman- and Byzantine-Period Samaritan Magic Objects and Jewelry Made of Copper Alloys,” Materials Characterization 102 (2015): 195-208. 112. For a catalogue of Samaritan oil lamps with inscriptions see Dan Barag, “Samaritan Writing and Writings,” in From Hellenism to Islam: Cultural and Linguistic Change in the Roman Near East, ed. Hannah M. Cotton, Robert G. Hoyland, Jonathan J. Price, and David J. Wasserstein (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), pp. 305-11.

113. On the problematic designation “Samaritan” for many of these oil lamps see Yitzhak Magen, “ ‘Samaritan’ Oil Lamps,” in The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan, by Yitzhak Magen (Judea & Samaria Publications, 7; Jerusalem: Staff Officer of Archaeology — Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria; Israel Antiquities Authority, 2008), pp. 243-48. 114. For a discussion of miqvaʾot among the Samaritans see now Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan, pp. 183-96. 115. Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan, pp. 186, 194. 116. Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan, p. 184. 117. Stenhouse, Kitāb, pp. 183-84; and the Chronicles dependent on Abū l-Fatḥ. 118. Cf. Yuval Peleg and Uzi Greenfeld, “Ritual Baths in Samaritan Settlements in Samaria” [in Hebrew], Judea and Samaria Research Studies 16 (2007): 291-98. 119. See Yitzhak Magen, “Qedumim – A Samaritan Site of the Roman-Byzantine Period,” in Early Christianity in Context: Monuments and Documents, ed. Frédéric Manns and Eugenio Alliata (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 38; Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1993), pp. 167-80; and by the same author in the same volume, “The Ritual Baths (Miqvaʾot) at Qedumim and the Observance of Ritual Purity Among the Samaritans,” pp. 181-92.

VI. Samaritan Sects As surprising as it may sound from a contemporary standpoint where the Samaritans number only about eight hundred individuals who can ill afford not to be united in their faith, there was a time when they were not a homogeneous community but were divided into different sects, deviating from each other in some of their beliefs and practices. Samaritan chronicles as well as early Christian and Arabic sources all contain descriptions of or short hints at the existence of such sects. Unfortunately, these records are often very difficult to decipher as to their exact meaning, and most were written long after the time in which the sects were active. In addition, the accounts are frequently tendentious, and some are based on earlier sources quoting these sources with more or less accuracy. It is therefore difficult for us to gain a reasonably faithful picture of Samaritan sects, their origin, history and beliefs, and, in fact, the unknown far surpasses the known in this case. 1

1. Samaritan Sources The relatively best “documented” sectarian leader was a man by the name Dositheus, called Dusis in the Samaritan sources. He became the eponymous founder of the sect of the Dositheans. Another, earlier sect was called “the Dustan.” Unfortunately, both the chronology and the terminology in the Samaritan sources are confused. Abu l-Fatḥ and a short note in Chronicle Adler, derived from Abu l-Fatḥ’s chronicle, contain descriptions of the Dustan sect that are inserted between their accounts of the rule of the Jewish king ʿArqia (maybe John Hyrcanus, i.e., second century B.C.E.), and that of the coming of Alexander the Great, i.e., the fourth century B.C.E. (in this order!). Among the Samaritan sources, Abu l-Fatḥ gives the most detailed account of the Dustan sect. The followers were called by that name, he says, “on account of their changing the Feasts and the Truth.” Possibly, Abu l-Fatḥ read “Darastan,” derived from darasa, “to efface.” He claims that its members disagreed in many respects with the main body of the Samaritans and enumerates as examples fourteen instances of mostly halakhic matters: they regarded every well into which a dead reptile had fallen as impure; they counted the time of impurity for a menstruating woman from the morning after the onset of the menstruation; they forbade the consumption of eggs except for those found inside a slaughtered bird; they considered every dead snake unclean; they deemed the shadow of the tomb unclean, and everybody whose shadow fell on the tombs was unclean for seven days; they forbade the use of “Blessed be our God forever” and replaced “Yhwh” with “Elohim”; they claimed God is to be worshiped in Zawila “until the time came for him to be served on Mount Gerizim”; they changed the calendar, counting for every month thirty days; they abolished the feasts and the blood sacrifices and the portion (due to the tribe of Levi); they counted the “fifties” (Omer) from the day after Passover, like the Jews; they allowed their priests to enter a house that was suspected of uncleanness as long as they did not speak; they decided whether a house bordering an unclean house was clean on the basis of whether a clean or an unclean bird alighted on it; they did not permit the eating and drinking from copper and glass vessels on Sabbath, but “only from vessels that cannot be purified once they become unclean”; and 2

3

they did not feed their animals on Sabbath, but prepared food and water for them on Friday. Abu l-Fatḥ then adds that they disagreed also over many other matters of faith and law and established their own synagogues and appointed their own priests, including a high priest. Their first high priest was the son of the high priest of the mainstream Samaritans; his name was Zarʿa (Ezra?). He had been ostracized by the other Samaritans because “they had found him with a sinful woman.” He is said to have written a book “in which he defamed all the High Priests,” and “there was no one wiser than he in his day.” The Dosithean sect is placed by the Samaritan sources in the time after the death of Baba Rabba (although in Abu l-Fatḥ the description of the sect is interrupted by a short chapter on Simon Magus). The Tūlīda, in a brief remark, mentions the arrival of a Dustis ben Pilpeloy ( ) in the time of Baba Rabba’s brother ʿAqbun. He was not a member of the Samaritan people but descended from the multitude that came up from Egypt with the Israelites, a remark which is found also in Abu l-Fatḥ. In Chronicle Adler he is called Dusis, and in Abu l-Fatḥ Dusis son of Fufali. Again, Abu l-Fatḥ has the most detailed account and is the source of Chronicle Adler’s report. Abu l-Fatḥ’s narrative begins with the statement that Dusis committed adultery with the wife of a Jew. When the Jewish leaders tried to kill him, he asked them for clemency and proposed to go to Nablus and turn the House of Ephraim into a sect. The Jews agreed and Dusis went to the village of ʿAskar where he befriended a pious and learned judge named Yaḥdu. After a prolonged period of abstinence from bread and the first born of animals, both went to Nablus where they feasted. Yaḥdu fell asleep intoxicated. Dusis, playing a trick on him, had Yaḥdu almost convicted for having had intercourse with a prostitute. Dusis’ ruse was, however, uncovered and he fled to a place named Shuwaika where he stayed with the widow ʾAmintu, telling her that he was the son of the high priest. Throughout the time he stayed in her house he was writing books. But eventually he realized that even after a long time the high priest ʿAqbun was still looking for him to punish him for what he did to Yaḥdu. Before leaving for another place, Dusis instructed the widow to tell everybody who comes for him that they must immerse themselves in a pool before they can read what he has written. He left to live in a cave where he died of starvation and was eaten by dogs. When ʿAqbun found out where Dusis had lived, he sent his nephew Levi and seven other men to bring Dusis back so he could have him killed. On instruction from the widow, the six men immersed themselves one by one in the pool and on emerging from it each proclaimed: “My faith is in you, Lord, and in Dusis your servant.” Levi could not believe what happened and decided he too would go in, but the same occurred to him — he announced: “My faith is in you, Lord, and in Dusis your prophet. Woe upon us, we have persecuted the prophet of God, Dusis.” When they looked at Dusis’ writings they realized that he had made many changes in the Torah, just like Ezra. They memorized everything and returned to Nablus. On a feast day, Levi was called upon to read from the Torah in front of the congregation. Substituting certain words with those changed by Dusis and defending the latter as God’s prophet, he was attacked by the other Samaritans and stoned to death by the Field of Joseph. Levi’s companions kept quiet but gained other converts to Dusis. Eventually they became very numerous and decided to move to “a village near Jerusalem out of fear of the Samaritans.” 4

5

6

They stayed there “for years until the Samaritans stopped trying to kill them.” Levi was venerated as their first martyr who died for his belief in Dusis. Their beliefs and practices included the following: they were convinced that the dead would rise soon; they cut their hair and prayed standing in water; on Sabbath they did not go from house to house and did not even take their hands out of their sleeves; they prepared the dead so that they could rise quickly by burying them with a staff in their hands and shoes on their feet. After a story about Simon the Magician, Abu l-Fatḥ returns to his account about the sects, enumerating several more. Depending on how the various subdivisions are counted, there were seven, eight, or nine, all derived from the teachings of Dusis, although each sect interpreted the teachings differently. It is difficult to know which, if any, part of these accounts contains historically reliable information. They were written hundreds of years after the fact and contain not only obvious legendary features, but also topoi known from other, non-Samaritan sources. To some degree they may also reflect conditions that prevailed in later centuries. A source that has preserved eyewitness accounts from the early Muslim time in Palestine up to and including the first third of the tenth century (the time of the Caliph al-Raḍi, 934940 C.E.) is The Continuatio of the Samaritan Chronicle of Abū l-Fatḥ, preserved in a manuscript copied in 1523-1524. It contains several short passages about the Dositheans. When the Caliph Harun al-Rashid (786-809 C.E.) died, hostilities broke out between the followers of Muḥammad al-Amin (809-813 C.E.) and those of Muḥammad al-Maʾmun (813833 C.E.), causing in their wake not only looting and killing in the whole empire, but also quarrels and violence among the local elements. Some of the rebels “plundered and killed, burned villages, looted the synagogues and burned the meeting place of the Dositheans in Arsuf [because] they could not enter into it.” The burning of Dosithean synagogues is also reported for the reign of Ibrahim al-Muʿtaṣim (833-842 C.E.). During the plunderings by the rebel Abu Ḥarb al-Mubarqaʿ al-Yamani in the 840s, the Samaritan leader Asasabi “pledged the Samaritans in oath in front of Mt. Gerizim and made it known that they would not eat with the Dositheans, drink with them, marry them or give [their children] in marriage to them.” During the caliphate of al-Mutawakkil (847-861 C.E.) the high priest of the Samaritans, as the result of a major clash with the Dositheans, excommunicated the latter: they were excluded from the recitation of the Torah and the high priest decreed that the Samaritans “should not give or take [anything] from them ever and that no one should eat with them or drink with them.” Also in the reign of al-Mutawakkil, another violent incident involving the Dositheans took place, but due to the careless style in this part of the text it is difficult to identify the parties involved. In conclusion, the Dositheans are attested up to the ninth century in this collection of Samaritan reports. What emerges from these narratives is that they had synagogues, that Muslim rebels attacked them at times of unrest, and that the mainstream Samaritans distanced themselves from them in no uncertain terms. 7

8

9

2. Muslim and Karaite Sources Muslim sources that mention the Dositheans are the Persian historian Abu-l ʿAbbas Aḥmad b. Yaḥya b. Jabir al-Baladhuri (died 892) and the historian and geographer Abu al-Ḥasan ʿAli

b. al-Ḥusain b. ʿAli Masʿudi (died 956 C.E.). Al-Baladhuri, in his work Futuḥ al-buldan (Conquests of the Countries), writes: “The Samaritans are Jews and are divided into two classes, one is called ad-Dustân [Dositheans] and the other al-Kûshân.” No other information is given. This passage from al-Baladhuri is quoted by al-Masʿudi in his work Muruj adh-dhahab wa maʿadin al-jawhar (The Meadows of Gold and Quarries of Jewels). He adds that one sect believes in the eternity of the world and other dogmas which, for the sake of brevity, he does not mention. Whether he really knew more than al-Baladhuri is questionable. Another Muslim author, Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Karim al-Shahrastani (1076 or 1086-1153) mentions in his description of the Samaritans that they are “divided into Dūstāniyya (who are the Al-fāniyya) and the Kūstāniyya.” He explains that “Dūstāniyya” means “the scattered lying sect,” and “Kūstāniyya” means the “Truthful Community.” As opposed to the true believers, the Dustaniyya “assert that rewards and punishments are in this world” in addition to disagreeing “on the [basic religious] ordinances as well as on religious laws.” The founder of the Dustaniyya was a man named al-Alfan who lived about a century before the Messiah, i.e., Jesus. The division of the Samaritans into the two groups of the Kushan and Dustan is also mentioned by the Karaite author Abu Yusuf Yaʿqub al-Qirqisani (died 937 C.E.) in his work Kitab al-anwar wal-maraqib (Book of Lights and Watchtowers): “They [the Samaritans] are divided into two groups: one is called Kushan, and the other Dustān. One of the two groups does not believe in life after death.” It is unlikely that Qirqisani was personally acquainted with the Samaritans since every time he mentions them, he specifies “it is said of them.” In view of the scant and confusing information contained in these sources, scholars have had recourse to the reports contained in early Christian writings which were authored closer to the time of the origin of the sects and hopefully would add more precise details. 10

11

12

13

3. Patristic Sources Among the oldest patristic sources that mention the Dositheans is Hegesippus. Born in Palestine and author of five books of Memoirs against the gnostics among the Christians, written in approximately 180, he describes Dositheus and the Dositheans as one of the Jewish sects. Since only fragments of Hegesippus’s work are preserved in Eusebius’s Historia ecclesiastica it is difficult to extract more information. A short mention of Dositheus the Samaritan occurs in Pseudo-Tertullian (second-third century). Dositheus is listed there too among heretics from Judaism. It is said of him that he was the first to reject the prophets “as not having spoken with the Holy Spirit.” In reality, all Samaritans rejected the prophetic books of the Jewish Bible. Origen (ca. 185–ca. 254), dating Dositheus the Samaritan in the time of the apostles and of Simon Magus, writes that the Dositheans are named after him. Like Simon the Magician, Dositheus performed magic and considered himself either the “Son of God” or the “Christ prophesied by Moses.” The latter may be a reference to Deut. 18:15: “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brethren — him shall you

heed.” Dositheus was able to find followers among the Samaritans, who preserved books he had written and had myths about him, including the one claiming that he was still alive. Their number was not greater than thirty, the same number given in the Clementine Recognitions, where Dositheus had thirty disciples. Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260–ca. 340) states that Dositheus appeared after the time of Jesus and persuaded the Samaritans that he was the prophet whom Moses predicted. He notes that the Dositheans were one of three Samaritan sects that was still in existence in his time. The Clementine Recognitions are an apocryphal work, ascribed to Clement I, the second or third bishop of Rome after Peter. They were authored presumably around 350 C.E. either in Syria or in Palestine. Dositheus is again mentioned together with Simon, although he is not counted among the Samaritans. The latter are said to have been prevented by his wickedness from believing that Jesus is the Messiah. Epiphanius of Salamis (ca. 315-403) mentions the Dositheans as one of four Samaritan sects, the other three being the Essenes, the Sebuaeans, and the Gorothenians. The Dositheans follow the same customs as the Samaritans, but in addition they do not eat meat and frequently fast; some are celibate; and, as opposed to the mainstream Samaritans, they believe in the resurrection of the dead. Dositheus himself was a convert from Judaism, motivated by resentment because his ambitions for the highest rank among the Jews were thwarted. He withdrew to a cave and died from self-imposed fasting. Jerome (ca. 347 or 348–420) makes only two short remarks applicable to Dositheus. In one he takes the sixth husband of the Samaritan woman at the Well to mean “the error of Dositheus”; in the second, Dositheus is characterized as a Jewish heretic from the time before Christ who is the leader of the Samaritans and rejects the prophets. The ninth-century polymath Photius (ca. 810–ca. 895), in his work Bibliotheca, quotes from the sixth-century bishop, abbot and patriarch of Alexandria, Eulogius. In his now lost work Ruling Against the Samaritans, Eulogius states that the Samaritans were divided into factions that quarreled with each other. Some maintained that Joshua the son of Nun was the prophet foretold by Moses in Deut. 18:15, others that he was Dosthes or Dositheus who was a Samaritan by race and lived at the same time as Simon Magus; this group was called the Dosthenoi. Dositheus had contempt for the prophets of God and the Patriarch Judah. He referred all the prophecies to himself, including the attributes of divinity. He introduced changes in Moses’ Octateuch and composed works of his own. Furthermore, he rejected the resurrection. Eulogius’s polemics seem to reflect Dosithean beliefs in sixth-century Alexandria. Although the patristic accounts of Dositheus and the Samaritan sects date from an earlier period than those of the Samaritan sources, they present their own difficulties. Their interest, first of all, is not in the Samaritan sects as such, but rather in the origins and growth of heresies within Christianity. Second, it is questionable whether any of the church fathers, with the possible exception of Eulogius, personally knew Samaritan sectaries. But Eulogius’s writings are known only indirectly through Photius who may have summarized rather than quoted verbatim Eulogius’s words and, in addition, may have drawn on other sources as well

as inserted his own comments. Both the Samaritan and the patristic sources contain fictitious elements, and their authors at times tried to fit their descriptions of the sects into preconceived schemata. Thus, after all is said and done, we are left with precious little information about the Samaritan sects. In some rabbinic sources there are hints that the rabbis were aware of the existence of sects among the Samaritans. One such passage is contained in the so-called Spanish redaction of the ninth-century work Halakhot gedolot, first edited by Ezriel Hildesheimer. It speaks of the Sebuaeans ( ), mentioned also by Abu l-Fatḥ in the time of Baba Rabba as well as by Epiphanius in the 370s C.E., and decrees that no proselytes may be accepted from them. There are also passages in which the names Rabbi Sbyyh and Rabbi Dwstʾy occur. It should be noted, however, that the name “Dositheus” and its equivalents (e.g., Dosetai, Dosai, Dosa, Theodotus, Theodotion, Nathanael) are frequent in antiquity. A question that seemingly receives different answers in the sources discussed here is whether the Samaritan sectarians believed in the resurrection of the body or not. According to Epiphanius they did, according to Eulogius they did not. But the short note in which Eulogius states this seems to be an addition to the text, either by Photius or by a later author, since it has no connection to the immediate context preceding and following this sentence. In conclusion, it is certain that the Samaritans in antiquity were not a monolithic community but comprised several factions. The Dositheans were one of them, but there probably were also subgroups that differed in various practices from each other. Dositheus had the reputation of being able to work miracles and to have written down his ideas. A plausible time for his activities is the early first century C.E., although the origin of the sect probably goes back to an earlier time, Dositheus eventually becoming its eponymous founder and most prominent representative. He also appears to have applied Deut. 18:15 to himself, i.e., he saw himself as the prophet like Moses, whose return was expected by his disciples. As to the final fate of the sects, some authors think the Dositheans and other sectarian groupings disappeared or were absorbed into the mainstream Samaritan community by the fourteenth century. Abu l-Fatḥ’s accounts speak of them in the past tense and he ends his discussion of the sects thus: “Because of them, terrible afflictions and grave sins and divisions and hatred which can serve no good purpose, came upon the Samaritans.” When the Samaritans were asked by European scholars in the early nineteenth century about the Dositheans, they answered in a letter, written on January 1, 1811, that they are mentioned in their old books, but presently not one person of this sect is found among them. And this remains so until today. 14

15

16

17

18

1. For detailed discussions of the issues involved see Stanley Jerome Isser, The Dositheans: A Samaritan Sect in Late Antiquity (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity, 17; Leiden: Brill, 1976). 2. Paul Stenhouse, The Kitāb al-Tarīkh of Abū ʾl-Fatḥ: Translated into English with Notes (Studies in Judaica, 1; Sydney: Mandelbaum Trust, University of Sydney, 1985), pp. 109-111. The narrative in the Chronicle Adler is based on Abu l-Fatḥ. See Elkan Nathan Adler and Max Séligsohn, “Une nouvelle chronique samaritaine,” REJ 45 (1902): 72-73. 3. Cf. Adler and Séligsohn, “Une nouvelle chronique samaritaine,” REJ 45 (1902): 72 n. 5, following Antoine-Isaac Silvestre de Sacy, Chrestomathie arabe, ou, Extraits de divers écrivains arabes, tant en prose qu’en vers, avec une traduction française et des notes, à l’usage des élèves de l’École royale et spéciale des langues orientales vivantes, 2e ed. corr. et augmentée (Paris: Imprimerie royale, 1826), vol. 1, p. 335. 4. See Stenhouse, Kitāb, p. 111. 5. For the text see Moshe Florentin, The Tulida: A Samaritan Chronicle: Text, Translation, Commentary (In Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Yad Yitzchak Ben Zvi; The Rabbi David Moshe and Amalia Rosen Foundation, 1999), p. 92.

6. See Stenhouse, Kitāb, pp. 211-19 and pp. 223-30, and Adler and Séligsohn, “Une nouvelle chronique samaritaine,” REJ 45 (1902): 225-27 and 230-31. 7. Milka Levy-Rubin, The Continuatio of the Samaritan Chronicle of Abū l-Fatḥ al-Sāmirī al-Danafī (Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam, 10; Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press, 2002), pp. 69-70. 8. Levy-Rubin, The Continuatio, p. 87. 9. Levy-Rubin, The Continuatio, p. 94. 10. Philip Khûri Hitti, trans., The Origins of the Islamic State, Being a Translation from the Arabic, Accompanied with Annotations, Geographic and Historic Notes of the Kitâb Futûḥ al-Buldân of al-Imâm abul-l ʿAbbâs Aḥmad ibn-Jâbir al-Balâdhuri, vol. 1 (Columbia University Studies in the Social Sciences, 163; New York: AMS Press, 1968; orig. 1916), p. 244. 11. Steven Mark Wasserstrom, “Species of Misbelief: A History of Muslim Heresiography of the Jews” (Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto, 1985), p. 399 (translation), p. 392 (text). See also Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Karim Shahrastani, Livre des religions et des sectes (Traduction, avec introduction et notes, par Daniel Gimaret et Guy Monnot, Collection UNESCO d’oeuvres représentatives, série arabe, 1986), vol. 1, pp. 609-10. 12. Bruno Chiesa and Wilfrid Lockwood, Yaʿqūb al-Qirqisānī on Jewish Sects and Christianity. A Translation of “Kitāb al-anwār,” Book I, With Two Introductory Essays (Judentum und Umwelt, 10; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1984), p. 133. 13. For the texts and translations see Reinhard Pummer, Early Christian Authors on Samaritans and Samaritanism: Texts, Translations and Commentary (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism, 92; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002). 14. See Ezriel Hildesheimer. ed., Sefer Halakhot Gedolot: Ad fidem codicum edidit, prolegomenis et notis instruxit, vol. 1 [in Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Mikize Nirdamim, 1971), p. 522; Stenhouse, Kitāb, p. 182. 15. See Yeshayahu Gafni, “The Relations Between the Jews and the Samaritans in the Period of the Mishnah and the Talmud” [in Hebrew] (Master’s thesis, Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1969), pp. 87-88; and Andreas Lehnardt, “Massekhet Kutim and the Resurrection of the Dead,” in Samaritans: Past and Present: Current Studies, ed. Menachem Mor and Friedrich V. Reiterer (Studia Judaica, 53, Studia Samaritana, 5; Berlin; New York: De Gruyter, 2010), p. 178. 16. So Isser, The Dositheans, p. 164. 17. Stenhouse, Kitāb, p. 230. 18. Antoine-Isaac Silvestre de Sacy, “Correspondance des Samaritains de Naplouse, pendant les années 1808 et suiv,” Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la bibliothèque du roi et autres bibliothèques 12 (1831): 127.

VII. The Samaritans in History For the Samaritans the beginning of their history coincides with the origin of the Israelites since they consider themselves the authentic bearers of the biblical tradition from which the Jews deviated in the days of the priest Eli. From an outsider’s point of view, the history of the Samaritans as defined in this work begins in the second century B.C.E. when, according to the present state of our knowledge, the Israelites of the former northern kingdom began to go their separate way. Prior to that time, the Samaritans, together with the Jews of Judea, were part of the common Israelite tradition. From the second century B.C.E. onward, the Yahwistic Samarians worshiped exclusively on Mt. Gerizim, spurning Mt. Zion and its temple. As discussed earlier, most scholars believe that the last straw which brought about the division was the destruction of the Gerizim temple by John Hyrcanus. 1

2

1. Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods Very limited information is available about the Samaritans in the Hellenistic-Roman period. What the Samaritan chronicles say about this time was written long after the events, is interwoven with clearly legendary material, and reflects the times of the compilers. Thus, it is difficult to assess the historical value of these accounts. Of the non-Samaritan sources, it is above all Flavius Josephus who writes about the Samaritans at that time. But as we have seen, his narratives must be used with caution because of his aims in writing his main works and because of his bias against the Samaritans. Another source for this time, the New Testament, implies that there was animosity between Jews and Samaritans. At the same time it sees both groups as members of the same religion. The infrequent and short references to Samaritans in the New Testament allow us only small glimpses into their history in the first/second century C.E. In the case of the rabbinic traditions, we have a similar situation to the works of Josephus. These traditions were written by groups hostile to the Samaritans; additionally, many are difficult to date. Apocryphal/deuterocanonical writings contain only short remarks, which are subject to different interpretations. A new source of information, shedding much needed fresh light on the Hellenistic period, is the inscriptions unearthed recently in Greece (Delos) and on Mt. Gerizim. In view of the paucity of information, many authors have resorted to a selective use of Josephus, paraphrasing his accounts and adding information from other available sources. As becomes clear from the above discussion of Josephus and the other works relevant for the early period, many scholars make a cautious use of these writings to draw at least a rough outline of early Samaritan history, all the while keeping in mind that the resultant sketch rests on texts penned to a large extent by the Samaritans’ detractors. The history of the proto-Samaritans as depicted by Josephus was discussed in connection with Josephus’s works and the archaeological excavations on Mt. Gerizim. The latter suggest that the temple was first built in the fifth century B.C.E., and the city around it in the late fourth century B.C.E. Both the temple and the city existed until they were destroyed by John Hyrcanus at the end of the second century B.C.E., although it is unknown whether there was a

gap in the settlement on Mt. Gerizim between Alexander’s conquests and Ptolemy I’s reign (305-282 B.C.E.). The Delos inscriptions from the second century B.C.E. testify to the diaspora Samaritans’ self-understanding as Israelites who see the sanctuary on Mt. Gerizim as the place to which contributions are to be sent. As discussed in the chapter on “Archaeological Excavations,” dedicatory inscriptions from the Hellenistic period were among the discoveries from Mt. Gerizim, testifying to the cultic function of the buildings on it. At the beginning of the second century B.C.E., during the reign of Antiochus III the Great (223-187 B.C.E.), Palestine passed from the Ptolemies to the Seleucids. In 2 Maccabees, the Gerizim temple is mentioned in the reign of Antiochus IV in the same breath as the Jerusalem temple, without the Jewish author expressing any hostility against it. Josephus’s account of the Samaritans’ dealings with this king are again characteristic of his approach to the Samaritans. For the time immediately following John Hyrcanus’s destruction of the Gerizim temple, an event known from Josephus and inferred from the charred remains of the buildings on the mountain, no further information on the fate of the Samaritans is known. From archaeological excavations we know that the city surrounding the temple on the top of the mountain was also destroyed at that time, although Josephus does not mention it and, in fact, seems to have been ignorant of its existence. He next refers to the Samaritans briefly in connection with Herod’s wife Malthace who, he claims, was a Samaritan. Apart from this note, he describes several incidents that happened under the Roman procurators: the incident with the human bones in the temple area, the conflict with Pontius Pilate, the killing of Galileans on their way to Jerusalem, and the massacre of Samaritans on Mt. Gerizim. Did the Samaritans participate in the Bar-Kokhba revolt of 132-135 C.E.? This question has been debated in the scholarly literature. Some authors conclude that the Samaritans did not become involved in the revolt; others believe that at least some of them fought Hadrian at the same time as the Jews, albeit on their own; still others emphasize that the Samaritans had no reason to revolt and therefore did not participate in the Jewish uprising. The last opinion is the most plausible. It must be emphasized, however, that both Samaritan and nonSamaritan sources for this period are too late to provide a reliable answer to the question; in particular, the narratives of the medieval Samaritan chronicles and the fifth-century Jewish midrashim about Hadrian are legendary. Emperor Hadrian issued a general ban on circumcision either in the late twenties of the second century C.E. or during the Bar-Kokhba revolt. His successor, Antoninus Pius, repealed it, at least for certain groups, including the Jews and the Egyptians. According to Origen, it was not revoked for the Samaritans, who were ready to die rather than to leave their newborn sons uncircumcised (Contra Celsum 2.13). In 194 or 197 C.E., during the reign of Septimius Severus (193-211), Jews and Samaritans are thought to have tried to rebel, as is briefly mentioned in the chronicle of Eusebius and Jerome (Iudaicum et Samariticum bellum motum), as well as in Orosius (Iudaeos et Samaritas rebellare conantes) who used this chronicle. Several Christian writers after him 3

4

5

6

7

8

9

repeat this claim. But no other source, be it Roman or Jewish, refers to such hostilities. It is therefore unlikely that there was a war involving the two groups at that time. Around the year 300, the head of the rabbinical academy at Caesarea, Rabbi Abbahu (ca. 270-320), forbade the consumption of Samaritan wine. According to the Talmud (y. ʿAbodah Zarah 44d), when Emperor Diocletian (284-305) came to Israel, he decreed that all people must offer libations, except the Jews. The Samaritans obeyed the emperor’s ordinance and made a pagan libation; their wine was therefore forbidden to Jews. Clearly, this is a polemical text whose historicity is doubtful. Rabbi Abbahu is well known for his polemics against sectarians. It was he who decreed that the Samaritans should be deemed Gentiles. 10

11

2. Late Roman and Byzantine Periods The Samaritan chronicles place the great Samaritan leader and reformer Baba Rabba about the time of the beginning of the Christian rule in Palestine. The accounts of him are to be found in the Tūlīda, the Samaritan Book of Joshua, the Kitāb al-Tarīkh of Abu l-Fatḥ, and in Chronicle Adler. He is said to be the firstborn son of the high priest Nathaniel, and “a powerfully built man, of awe-inspiring appearance; a man of zeal and holy spirituality.” Nothing is known about him from external sources. His name means “Great Gate” and may point to an affinity with such early heavenly “gates” or “doorkeepers” as Gilgamesh, Enkidu, and Tammuz, or to various Islamic and Jewish holy men who bore this title. In addition, the stories about Baba Rabba contain legendary material that draws on and blends various Jewish, Christian, and Muslim traditions. In view of these particulars, the question has been raised whether Baba Rabba is a legendary or a historical figure. Most scholars assume that he was a historical personality, and the stories of at least some of his achievements have a basis in fact. Some then proceed to give an account of the events in Baba Rabba’s time, as if the historicity of his accomplishments and reforms were firmly established. As in the case of Josephus for an earlier epoch, the Samaritan chronicles are our only source for this period of Samaritan history, and at least a few elements — such as the existence of certain synagogues said to have been founded by Baba Rabba — may have been corroborated by archaeological excavations. Nevertheless, caution must be exercised. As already stated, and as will be seen below, much of what is contained in these traditions cannot have happened as described and either reflects later situations or is due to the imagination of scribes. According to the chronicles, then, Baba Rabba’s activities were preceded by a period of persecution of the Samaritans — hardships, inflation, and killings, as Abu l-Fatḥ notes. The time was the reign of Alexander, possibly referring to Severus Alexander (222-235), although some authors prefer to identify Abu l-Fatḥ’s Alexander with Caracalla (211-217). In any event, Baba believed that these calamities were brought on the Samaritans because they were not devoted enough to God. He therefore reopened all the synagogues, assembled the congregation, and read the Law, and they prayed to God. He also assembled the few priests and wise men who were left after the persecution and sent them into the towns to teach the people the Law and have them maintain the synagogue service. Whoever “does not observe (the Law) nor act according to this command with which I have commanded you — I will have him killed.” Further, Baba chose seven wealthy and learned men and gave them the 12

13

14

15

title ḥakakima (ḥukmaʾ in Stenhouse’s translation); three were priests and four laymen. Each one was assigned his own territory. One of them was the priest ʿAmram Ḍarir, the father of Marqe. With this measure Baba Rabba strengthened the lay element. Lay Israelites now had to carry out the duties of the priests except for carrying the Holy Book. These included conducting the synagogue service, the performance of circumcision, and the supervision of the priests. Baba Rabba is also said to have built a purification pool on the periphery of Mt. Gerizim so that the worshipers could purify themselves “at prayer times, that is, before the rising of the sun, and its setting.” He also built a prayer house opposite Mt. Gerizim. In addition, he built eight synagogues in smaller villages. He then divided the “land of Canaan” into twelve districts and assigned leaders to each of them. Next, he successfully fought several wars against the Romans and defeated the Ishmaelites when they invaded Palestine. When the Jews planned to have him assassinated, he was able to evade their machinations, capturing and killing the plotters. More Jews were killed by him when they set fire to a large area of crops. Then follows the legend of Baba Rabba’s nephew Levi. Abu l-Fatḥ himself introduces it with a cautionary note: He has read the story in an old Hebrew chronicle and “decided to include it in this Chronicle in case someone not coming across it [in Abu l-Fatḥ’s work] should think that I was not aware of it.” Levi was to be sent to Constantinople to study Christian theology and return as a Christian priest. This disguise would enable him to destroy the copper Bird Talisman in the church on Mt. Gerizim which, every time a Samaritan ascended the mountain, screeched out “Hebrew.” Levi did as planned, and after thirteen years, having “reached the very pinnacle of power,” returned as a high prelate of the Christian church with the king and the army of Byzantium. On his arrival in Nablus he was not recognized by Baba Rabba, and the Samaritans feared him as a representative of the institution that wanted to kill them on account of their worship of an unseen and immaterial God rather than of idols and icons. When he and all his retinue ascended Mt. Gerizim, the Bird kept on screeching “Hebrew.” Announcing that this was patently absurd since no Samaritan was on the mountain, he ordered that it be smashed to pieces. During the night, Levi made himself known to Baba Rabba and the other Samaritans who rejoiced in the reunion. In a massacre, organized by Levi and Baba Rabba, the Samaritans killed all the Byzantines on Mt. Gerizim and in the surrounding villages, “sparing not a single one of them.” They also destroyed the Byzantine churches and demolished them completely. Subsequently, Baba Rabba made war on and killed the Byzantines who came up from the coast, routed the army of King Severus, and defeated all his enemies. At the end of the legend, Abu l-Fatḥ again emphasizes that he found it in one of his sources, and “God knows more about what is hidden.” “After all this King Philip sent important legates to Baba Rabba” who brought a letter inviting him to come to Constantinople. Baba Rabba obliged and was never again to leave the city, but died there with his son Levi at his side. Levi returned to Nablus where he, too, soon died. It is possible that these accounts of Baba Rabba’s battles with the Byzantines preserve 16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

memories, albeit in a jumbled form, of the Samaritan revolts known from the writings of Byzantine authors. Before the clashes between the Samaritans and the Christians in the Byzantine period, however, the Samaritans experienced a period of peace and growth in the fourth century C.E. Apparently they were able to rebuild their sacred precinct on the mountain in the time of Constantine I (306-337 C.E.), as suggested by Greek inscriptions discovered on Mt. Gerizim. These inscriptions display no traces of Christian influence, and were dated on palaeographic grounds to the time preceding the building of the church on Mt. Gerizim. Moreover, the Samaritans began to build impressive synagogues in Samaria at that time, making use of the stones that were taken from destroyed Roman buildings, including temples. Early Christianity in Palestine was still weak and, if we are to believe the biographer of Barṣauma of Nisibis, around 400 C.E. Jews and Samaritans were liable to persecute the Christians. The situation changed when Byzantine emperors began to issue laws against their non-Christian subjects. Most of the laws were not directed specifically against the Samaritans, but included the Jews and the idolaters. But while the Samaritans revolted several times against the empire, only two Jewish uprisings took place in the time between the Bar-Kokhba revolt and the Muslim conquest, one of which is not well documented at all. Possibly the Jews in Palestine revolted under Emperor Constantius II (337-361) in the so-called Gallus Revolt of 351 C.E., named after the Caesar of the East, Gallus, a nephew of Emperor Constantius II. Due to the scant sources, the motives of the uprising are unknown as are the consequences, and it is not even certain that there was a Jewish revolt under Gallus. Writing four and a half centuries after the event, the church father Theophanes Confessor (759/760-818) mentions that the Jews killed many aliens, both pagans and Samaritans. The Jews instigated no further insurrections until the year 614 C.E. when, in the course of the Byzantine-Sassanid War, Jews from Persia together with Persian troops marched on Palestine. They were joined by Jews from Palestine, and in 614, they conquered Jerusalem. For several years the Jews ruled over the city, but soon after the conquest, probably in 617, the Persians returned the city to the Christians. The Samaritans are mentioned specifically in a law of 404 C.E., issued by Emperor Honorius (395-423) in his own name and in that of Emperor Arcadius (395-408), and preserved in Codex Theodosianus 16.8.16: “We order that the Jews and the Samaritans, who delude themselves with the privilege of the Executive Agents, shall be deprived of any State office.” It seems that this was not a general law against Jews and Samaritans holding the office of Executive Agent, but was directed at specific cases where such Agents abused their privileges. A law promulgated in 426 in the name of Emperor Valentinian III (425-455) and Emperor Theodosius II (408-450), preserved in Codex Theodosianus 16.8.28 and reissued, slightly revised, in 527 or 528 in Codex Justinianus 1.5.13, decrees that Jewish and Samaritan converts to Christianity must not be disinherited; and if such converts had killed their parents or grandparents they still had the right to inherit a certain portion, although they were subject to punishment. The salient portion of the law reads: 24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

If a son, a daughter, or a grandson, one or many, of a Jew or of a Samaritan, shall cross over in a better judgment from the darkness of their proper superstition to the light of the Christian religion, their parents, namely father and mother, grandfather or grandmother, shall not be permitted to disinherit them or pass them over in their will, or leave them anything less than they could obtain if they were called to inherit an intestate.32

In 438, Theodosius II in his own name and in that of Valentinian III issued a law (Theodosius II, Novella 3) in which Jews and Samaritans were forbidden to hold offices in the Imperial administration: “no Jew, and no Samaritan, nor any one constant in either of these laws, should accede to honours and dignities, to none of them shall be opened an administration with public obedience, neither shall he serve as Protector.” Those who steal themselves “into offices of honour shall be considered, as before, of the lowest condition, even though he had obtained an honorary dignity.” Furthermore, “no synagogue shall be erected in a new building, granting leave to prop up the old ones which threaten immediate ruin.” Should someone construct a new synagogue, he “shall be deprived of his work and fined fifty gold pounds.” It was also forbidden, on punishment by death and confiscation of property, to convert anyone, slaves or free persons, “from the cult of the Christian religion to an abominable sect and rite.” This law is a repetition of earlier laws, a sign that in practice the injunctions were ignored. The already mentioned Theophanes Confessor, however, recounts that in 442 C.E. the Jews of Chalcopratea, a district of Constantinople, did build a new synagogue which was confiscated by Emperor Theodosius II and his sister Pulcheria and converted into a church. Nevertheless, in 527 C.E. these and other already promulgated laws had to be reenacted. In that year, the Emperors Justin I (518-527) and Justinian I (527-565) issued a law (Codex Justinianus 1.5.12), again directed at heretics, pagans, Jews, and Samaritans. It decreed, “We intend not only that what was already laid down in the laws shall be recalled and made firmer through this present law, but also that more shall be declared.” And further, “We order, therefore, that none of the above-mentioned [heretics, etc.] shall share in any honour whatsoever, nor shall he put on an official belt, neither civil nor military, nor belong to any office.” The law explicitly states that members of these groups are barred from acting as lawyers. It also states that in case of a dispute between parents over the education of their children, the will of the Christian parent prevails if only one of them is Christian. Parents whose children have converted to Christianity must provide them with the necessities of life even though they disapprove of their children’s choice. The right of Orthodox children to inherit from their heretical, Jewish, or Samaritan parents was also regulated in the law preserved in Codex Justinianus 1.5.13, between 527 and 528. Codex Justinianus 1.5.17, a law promulgated between 527 and 529, decrees that “Samaritans’ synagogues are to be destroyed and, if they shall try to build others, they are punished. They are not able to have successors by testament or by intestacy, except orthodox persons, and do not give donations or otherwise alienate to persons not orthodox.” Between 527 and 534 a law was promulgated that forbade pagans, Jews, Samaritans, and “anyone who is not Orthodox” to possess Christian slaves. It is partly preserved in Codex Justinianus 1.10.2. If a non-Orthodox person does own a Christian slave, the latter is to be freed and the owner is to give a certain sum of money to the treasury. 33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

Samaritans are also included in a law from the year 531, in which heretics of various kinds as well as Jews and Samaritans are disqualified from testifying in court against Orthodox litigants (Codex Justinianus 1.5.21). But while heretics and Jews were allowed to testify in lawsuits between heretics or Jews, Samaritans, together with Manichaeans, Borborites, pagans, Montanists, Tascodrogits, and Ophites, were not allowed to do so. In addition, members of these groups were barred from any other legal actions. Justinian dealt with this matter again in a law of the year 537 (Novellae, No. 45), which decreed that Jews, Samaritans, and heretics “shall not be freed from the Curial Order on pretext of their superstition; not only shall they be subjected to the Curial Liturgies, they shall also not enjoy their privileges.” At this time, the duties of the curials, members of the local administration, had become a heavy burden. The work (leitourgia) to be performed by them included the running of the municipal councils as well as duties towards the Empire, such as the collection of taxes. A law from the year 545 (Novellae, No. 131) forbade the conveyance of properties on which a church stood, to Jews, Samaritans, pagans, and heretics. The prohibition to construct new synagogues was reiterated; although only the Jews are mentioned in this text, the Samaritans were most likely included. At the request of Bishop Sergius of Caesarea, Justinian, in Novella 129 from the year 551, eased the legal burdens imposed on the Samaritans in previous legislation. In this Novella he gave them permission to make wills, give and receive legacies, grant freedom to slaves, make donations, and enter into contracts as they wish. Still, the law maintains that Christian heirs and Samaritans are not in the same category. If a Samaritan should die intestate and have Christian children or other near relatives who are of the true faith, they alone can be heirs. In the preamble to the law, the emperor characterizes the Samaritans as having been of “ferocious character, and enemies of the Christians, … whose pride was excessive.” The fact is that there were several Samaritan uprisings, some before Novella 129 was issued and some after that. But rather than the ferocious nature of the Samaritans, it was the Christian authorities’ hatred for non-Christians that drove them to these actions. Apart from the medieval Samaritan chronicles, several church fathers give accounts of the rebellions, above all John Malalas (ca. 490–ca. 575), Procopius of Caesarea (ca. 500–ca. 554), and the Chronicon Paschale (early seventh century). The first uprising occurred in the reign of Emperor Zeno, probably in the year 484. According to Malalas, the Samaritans killed many Christians, destroyed churches, and crowned a certain Justasas as their leader, who presided over (or attended) chariot races in Caesarea. While the Christian sources call him a “bandit chief,” the Samaritans seem to have seen him almost as a king. And, in fact, he did use a crown which, after his defeat, was sent, together with his severed head, to the emperor. Considerable forces were needed to put down the uprising. After the suppression of the revolt, Emperor Zeno replaced the Samaritan synagogue on Mt. Gerizim with a church dedicated to Mary the Mother of God (Theotokos). Procopius’s description of the events differs from Malalas’s in several respects, some of which resembles the account of the revolt in 529. Some scholars have therefore questioned 43

44

45

whether there was in fact a revolt under Zeno, and think it more likely that there were two riots, one in Neapolis and one in Caesarea. The majority of authors, however, speak of two revolts, one under Zeno and one in 529. Before we come to the revolt of 529, we must briefly mention a smaller disturbance under Zeno’s successor, Anastasius I (491-518 C.E.), recorded by Procopius of Caesarea. Procopius tells of a number of Samaritans who, incited by a woman, scaled the steep slope of Mt. Gerizim, entered the church, and summoned their fellow Samaritans in the city. The latter, however, were too afraid of the soldiers posted on the mountain and did not join the instigators, who were arrested and executed by the governor of the district (Procopius, De aedificiis 5.710-13). Much more serious were the uprisings under Emperor Justinian I (527-565 C.E.). The first such rebellion broke out in 529 C.E. The most detailed account of it appears in John Malalas; among the other extant sources the most important are the writings of Procopius of Caesarea and Cyril of Scythopolis (ca. 525–ca. 558). However, there are some discrepancies between Malalas’s account and those of other authors with regard to the date (June or September 529) and place of the outbreak (Scythopolis or Neapolis). In any event, it seems it was in Scythopolis where the uprising gradually began in April-May 529, and subsequently it moved to Neapolis. The Samaritans attacked Christians and Jews, setting many parts of Scythopolis on fire, burning numerous estates and churches, and crowning one of theirs by the name of Julian. At the chariot races in Caesarea, held in the presence of Julian, a Christian won. When Julian heard this he took it as a bad omen for himself and had the victor beheaded. He also mistreated the bishop of the city. In a battle, the governor of the district finally defeated Julian and his forces. Julian and twenty thousand Samaritans were killed (Julian’s severed head was sent to the emperor in Constantinople), many others fled, and twenty thousand boys and girls were taken as booty and sold as slaves in Persia and in the area of the Red Sea. Although these numbers are clearly inflated, the Samaritans no doubt were dealt a severe blow. But so were the Christian landowners because of the devastation of the estates, as Procopius, a landowner himself, remarks. On the other hand, Cyril, as a monk, puts the emphasis on the destruction of churches and other buildings because he wants to underline the importance of Sabas, the highly respected aged patriarch of Scythopolis who had intervened with the emperor in Constantinople on behalf of those who were seriously affected by the devastations caused by the Samaritan revolt. Another revolt erupted in July 556. Our main source of information is again Malalas in his Chronographia (18.487.10-488.3). This time, Samaritans and Jews made common cause. Although Malalas does not state the reasons for the revolt, it can be deduced from the actions of the rebels that it was the discriminatory policies of the government against non-Christian religions. Novella 129, issued by Justinian in 551, had lightened the burden of the Samaritans, but it seems that this was too little too late. The uprising started in Caesarea, not in the heartland of the Samaritans, possibly because Justinian had strengthened the fortifications on Mt. Gerizim. Jews and Samaritans attacked the Christians and the government in the city, killed the governor, Stephanus, and looted his property. When the emperor was informed of these events, he ordered the governor of the East, Amantios, to 46

47

48

49

quell the uprising. Amantios “hanged some, beheaded others or cut off their right hands, and confiscated others’ property.” Small wonder that Malalas ends his account with the statement: “There was great fear in the city of Caesarea and the eastern regions.” During these difficult times, some Samaritans — how many is impossible to know — converted to Christianity. Many, however, did so only outwardly. Emperor Justin II (565578), the son of Emperor Justinian, in his Novella 144 of the year 572, laments this situation in the Preface: 50

We are constantly occupied, as the Most Pious Emperor, Our Father was, in attempts to turn the Samaritans from their heresy and their unreasonable errors to lead them in a better path, and to cure their souls of the diseases with which they are afflicted; but, in most instances, We have not succeeded in accomplishing what We have long attempted. For several of them are so devoted to their insane beliefs that, after having become worthy of being baptized, they have again accepted the evil doctrines which they once renounced; and have induced others to embrace the same heresy with equal ardor.51

Justin II decided, therefore, to reissue and amend the laws issued by his father, forbidding that Samaritans inherit from or bequeath property to other Samaritans, except in the case of the children of farmers; the latter were allowed to inherit land, but they had to continue to cultivate it. This exception was based on the need for agriculture in the regions where Samaritans lived and for the taxes that these farmers had to pay. Samaritans were also prohibited from holding public office or teaching young persons. Those who had received baptism but went back to practicing their former religion were to be sentenced to exile for life, as were Christians who gave them protection. No Samaritan was allowed to hold a Christian as slave; should he buy one, he must set him free. There were forced conversions of Samaritans under Emperor Maurice (582-602), according to the late-seventh-century author John of Nikiu, and under Emperor Heraclius (610-641), according to Maximus the Confessor (ca. 580-662). Heraclius, however, expressed the fear that the forced converts, not having embraced the faith sincerely, would present a danger to others who were truly Christians but might be persuaded by them to apostatize. The result of the oppressive legislation by the Byzantine authorities and the rebellions by the Samaritans in the fifth and sixth centuries was that at the end of the Byzantine period the Samaritans were left diminished in numbers and unable and/or unwilling to mount further resistance.

3. Early Muslim Period Although many Samaritans had perished in the revolts against the Byzantine overlords, and an unknown number had converted (or were forcibly converted) to Christianity, a considerable Samaritan population remained on the eve of the Muslim conquests of SyriaPalestine in the early seventh century. Our sources for this period — apart from the Samaritan chronicles, there are the Christian Greek and Syriac sources and the Muslim Arabic writings — are ambiguous about the role played by the Samaritans in the course of

the Muslim conquest. Some ancient writers claim that the Samaritans fought on the side of the Byzantines, others that they were spies and informers for the Muslims. An illustration of the Samaritans’ hatred against the Byzantines at the time of the Muslim conquest is the story, written between 631 and 638, of a soldier who, together with his unit, transferred the relics of Anastasius the Persian from Persia to the monastery of Anastasius in Palestine, taking up quarters for the night with a Samaritan villager on his way through Samaria. The author of the account hardly finds enough words to describe the appalling nature of this Samaritan. Not only does Psalm 54:16 (LXX; “iniquity is in their dwellings, in the midst of them”) apply to him, but he ascribes to the host also a diabolic character: the devil had taught him how to prepare poison which, mixed into the food of the soldier, caused his left cheek to twist totally out of shape “so that his mouth almost touched his left ear.” Several Syriac sources, on the other hand, describe Samaritans fighting the Arabs on the side of the Byzantines. They report the killing of thousands of Samaritans in battle; sometimes they are said to be villagers, at other times members of the army. At the siege of Caesarea, which still had a large Samaritan population, tens of thousands reportedly died. The siege probably began in 634 and continued sporadically until the city capitulated in 641 or 642. The above-mentioned historian Abu-l ʿAbbas Aḥmad b. Yaḥya b. Jabir al-Baladhuri, in his work Futuḥ al-buldan (Conquests of the Countries), claims that the conquering Muslims found in Caesarea “700,000 [sic] soldiers with fixed stipends, 30,000 Samaritans and 20,000 Jews…. It [Caesarea] was guarded every night by 100,000 men stationed on its wall.” These figures are obviously inflated, either to point up the achievement of the conquerors or to account for the drawn-out siege; they probably should be divided by one hundred. The city was eventually taken, thanks to a Jewish informer. Later in the same work, al-Baladhuri remarks that the Samaritans were spies and guides for the Muslims in the time of Abu ʿUbaidah b. al-Jarraḥ (583-638), a companion of Muḥammad and commander of Muslim armies. As a reward, they were exempt from the land tax. It should be pointed out that from Arab and Greek sources we know that other indigenous people also functioned as spies and informers for the Muslims. In the case of the Samaritans, the double role which they played during the early days of the Muslim conquest of Palestine — fighters on the side of the Byzantines and spies for the Muslims — is not difficult to understand: on the one hand, it would have been impossible for them to resist the call to arms by the still powerful Byzantine Empire, and, on the other hand, the many repressive measures imposed on them by the Byzantines must have made the Muslims appear as liberators. The Samaritans give a different account of the conquest of Caesarea. According to the Continuatio of Abu l-Fatḥ’s chronicle, the Byzantines inadvertently left open a small door in the northwest corner of Caesarea whose existence was unknown to the Muslims. When a dog went out through it, the Muslims saw it and followed the dog to the gate, rode into the city, and captured it. Muḥammad as well as the Umayyads treated the Samaritans well according to the Samaritan chronicles, and Samaritan sources speak favorably about Muḥammad. The Tūlīda says of Muḥammad that he did good to the Samaritans. Similarly, according to the Kitāb alTarīkh of Abu l-Fatḥ, Muḥammad made a treaty with the Samaritans guaranteeing them, their 52

53

54

55

56

children, their possessions, and their synagogues safety and promising them amicable treatment. This information is repeated in the New Chronicle or Chronicle Adler. Of course, it may well be that the Samaritans tried to win the favor of the Muslims among whom they lived when these chronicles were composed. The Kitāb al-Tarīkh, in fact, ends with the following flattering statement: 57

58

59

I have heard a saying from al-Ḥakīm who had it [on] the authority of the writer of the tradition namely the most learned Fāḍal al-Wajūd al-Shaikh Nafīs al-Dīn ʾAbī al-Mufarraj bin Kitār, that it was said in a tradition of the ancestors concerning Muḥammad, “Muḥammad was a good and mighty person because he made a treaty of friendship with the Hebrew People.”60

Notwithstanding the inclination to ingratiate themselves with the Muslims to receive better treatment at their hands at the time of the composition of the chronicles, the Samaritans, like the Jews, had more than enough reasons to take the side of the Muslims against the Christians in the early days of the Muslim conquests. To those who had experienced the iron yoke of the Byzantines, the newcomers looked like saviors. Guarantees of safety for life and possessions would have been an additional powerful incentive to aid the conquerors in their undertaking. Muḥammad is depicted in a favorable light also in the Continuatio: The prophet of Islam did not cause anyone distress throughout his life. He would present his belief before the people, accepting anyone who came to him, [yet] not compelling one who did not.61

This positive picture of Muḥammad existed despite a passage in the Qurʾan that was held against the Samaritans by many subsequent Muslim authors. In Sura 20:85, 87 and 89, the Qurʾan mentions a man called “al-Samiri,” who is said to have enticed the Israelites to build and worship a calf — a story clearly reminiscent of the biblical account about a calf fashioned from the gold of the Israelites (Exod. 32). It is first recounted in Sura 7:148-157 and, with some variation, in Sura 20:85-97. In Sura 20:85 God says to Moses: “We have tested thy people in thy absence: The Sāmirī has led them astray.” Al-Samiri had suggested to the Israelites to throw their ornaments into the fire from which he extracted a calf that lowed, and they worshiped it as a god, although “It could not return them a word (for answer), and … it had not power either to harm them or to do them good” (20:89). Aaron had already warned them not to do such a thing. When Moses confronted al-Samiri, the latter replied: “I saw what they saw not, so I took a handful (of dust) from the footprint of the Messenger, and threw it (into the calf): Thus did my soul suggest to me” (20:96). Moses sends him away and tells him that his punishment in this life will be that he will say “Touch me not!” (20:97). Muslim commentaries on the Qurʾan (tafasir) have traditionally identified al-Samiri with the Samaritan as he is known in Jewish and Christian sources. Later, the account was expanded by various Muslim authors. Non-Muslim scholars have advanced a variety of hypotheses as to how a Samaritan came to be associated with the story of the Golden Calf. The Samaritan’s call to others: “Touch me not!” is an echo of the Samaritans’ avoidance of 62

63

64

contracting impurity through touching outsiders, as the church fathers Origen and Eusebius (ca. 260–ca. 340) had noted, and as Samaritan halakhah enjoins. But what is considered a duty by the Samaritans is depicted in the Qurʾan as punishment. In the early eleventh century, the important Muslim scholar Abu Rayḥan al-Biruni (973-1048) reports that the Samaritans were called lamisasiyya, from the Arabic la misasa, “Touch me not!” Later, Muslim authors quoted this Qurʾanic passage in their letters of appointment given to the head of the Samaritan community, using the text to denigrate the Samaritans. Thus, in his handbook of secretaryship, the fifteenth-century Muslim scholar Abu l-ʿAbbas Aḥmad al-Qalqashandi (1355-1418) quotes a document containing instructions for the leader of the Samaritans and adds that the community is to be confronted with their terrible wrongdoings; but because there is no hope that they will change, they must be directed to abide carefully by their own legislation. The leader is to give judgment and to look after their marriage and testamentary agreements and their synagogues. The Umayyad caliphs (ruled from 661 to 750 C.E.) are praised by the Continuatio and are said to rule “according to what he [Muḥammad] enjoined upon them; they did no more or less, and did not harm anyone.” Although the Samaritans living in Caesarea and other cities on the coast felt threatened by the conquerors to such an extent that they fled to Byzantium, those living inland felt safer. The situation worsened, however, with the coming to power of the ʿAbbasids in 750 C.E. Conditions became particularly bad in the days of ʿAbd al-Wahhab b. Ibrahim, governor of Palestine during the rule of his uncle, the caliph Abu Jaʿfar ʿAbd Allah al-Manṣur (754-775). Taxes were increased sharply and ʿAbd al-Wahhab collected hefty fines for actions that were instigated by himself, such as the burning of Christian buildings by Samaritans and vice versa. The reigns of subsequent ʿAbbasids — Muḥammad al-Mahdi (775-785), his son Abu Muḥammad Musa al-Hadi b. al-Mahdi (785-786), his brother Harun al-Rashid (786-809), and his successors — were also filled with calamities for the Samaritans. According to al-Baladhuri, early in the reign of Harun al-Rashid the Samaritans’ land became crown-land: 65

66

67

68

69

There was in Palestine in the early part of the caliphate of ar-Rashîd a devastating plague which in some cases would attack all the members of a household. As a result, their land was rendered waste and useless. Ar-Rashîd put it in charge of some who cultivated it and [by gifts] attracted the farmers and tenants into it, thus making it crown domains. In these places the Samaritans lived. One of those villages called Bait-Mâma, which lay in the district of Nâbulus and whose inhabitants were Samaritans, made a complaint in the year 246 [A.H. = 860 C.E.] to the effect that they were poor and unable to pay the five-dînâr kharâj [land tax], upon which al-Mutawakkil gave orders that it be reduced again to three.70

The Samaritans’ misery was increased not only through natural catastrophes, such as earthquakes, droughts, and locusts, but also through Muslim intertribal warfare which brought with it looting, the burning of houses, and the raping of non-Muslim women. Many people fled from their villages to the mountains. Some, including family members of the priests, resorted to extreme acts, such as prostitution, to procure money. The Chronicle mentions the priest of ʿAskar, a village in the vicinity of Nablus, who wanted to kill his daughter because she did not “guard her honor.” When the villagers did not let him, he sent her away and thus “kept the Word of Almighty God: ‘And remove it from your midst’,” the

latter presumably intended as a quote from the Bible. Around the year 830 C.E., a rebel by the name Ibn Firasa terrorized the Samaritan population by trying to convert them to Islam. He starved and imprisoned them, and forced them to pay if they wanted to circumcise their sons. The Continuatio notes: “Many people abandoned their religion,” although it adds that “many [others] showed endurance and patience until relief came from God.” This was the first attempt at forced conversion of large numbers of Samaritans. In fact, Ibn Firasa seems to have intended to convert all of them. And he did this despite the policy of the central government to allow non-Muslims who had received divine revelation — people of the book (ahl al-kitab) — to retain their religion. Under the caliph Jaʿfar al-Mutawakkil (reigned 847-861), the situation for non-Muslims deteriorated further. Among other restrictions, he issued decrees that all non-Muslims must wear distinctive clothing, must not “wear a garment with an embroidered edge,” and must not ride a horse or hold an administrative position. Even the graves that resembled Muslim graves had to be destroyed; thus, the grave of Nethanʾel, the former leader of the Samaritan community, was destroyed. Moreover, every non-Muslim had to “affix to his door a wooden idol bearing the label of ‘idol’.” This would have been tantamount to idolatry in the eyes of the Samaritans, who, therefore, tried to avert this calamity from themselves. Through the good offices of a rich man, the Samaritans of Palestine were given permission to use the image of a candelabrum instead. However, their co-religionists in the province of Jordan were not as lucky and had to put up the same image as all the other non-Muslims. Rising prices due to food shortages meant that many were starving. To avoid the paying of the polltax (jizya) levied on dhimmis, i.e., protected non-Muslims in a Muslim-ruled country, numerous Samaritan families converted to Islam. The chronicler expresses his sorrow over the loss of so many families in these words: “How many left their faith as a result of the terrible rise in prices, and because they were exhausted by the jizya! Many sons and families who left the faith were lost.” Thus, it was hunger that caused a mass conversion at this juncture; people no longer could bear the hardships and chose the only way out — conversion which freed them from the poll tax. But even in these hard times, some endured and remained faithful to their religion. Another instance of mass conversion occurred in connection with an internal quarrel in the Samaritan community shortly before 878 C.E. In a dispute about the succession of the head of the Samaritans, one of the contenders was said to have bribed the local governor. When the majority of the population rejected the governor’s decision to make him the head, the governor punished the Samaritans severely which led many to leave their religion. As in the previous incident of mass conversion, here too it is not a question of force, but of desperation in the face of harsh economic circumstances. Levy-Rubin concludes that there were probably other cases in later times since the situation of the community did not change substantially. Compared to the Jewish and Christian communities facing the Muslim conquerors, the Samaritans were in a much more precarious position due to their fate in the Byzantine period. The revolts and the imperial legislation left them in a numerically, economically, and, no doubt, psychologically weakened state and unfit to cope with extreme economic deprivation experienced at the hands of Muslim rulers. 71

72

73

74

75

76

77

The situation did not change to the better under the caliph Aḥmad b. Ṭulun (868-884). The Continuatio paints a different picture of this ruler from the one that has prevailed to the present in the western literature. In 878 C.E., on his march from Syria to Egypt, he forced the population in Palestine to provide for his troops. Villages were looted, women were defiled, “and great affliction came upon the people.” After Ibn Ṭulun had conquered Damascus and Ashkelon, he again crossed Palestine, “oppressed the people, and commanded that provisions be brought to him and to the troops who were with him … and that draught animals [likewise be brought] to every camp.” The chronicler summarizes: “He oppressed the people in every way,” as did the governor appointed by him. A group of Samaritans was even deported by ship to Egypt. Under a later governor, Iṣbaʿ, the chronicle notes, “many of the Samaritans abandoned their villages” because of the repressive measures against them. For the tenth century C.E., the Continuatio contains a note which seems to refer to the switch from Aramaic to Arabic in the reading of the Pentateuch, although the text in this part of the chronicle is not clear. The leader of the Samaritans at that time, Darta, may have been related to the prominent tenth-century Samaritan author Ṭabia b. Darta, the author of the treatise on the Samaritan punctuation marks, The Rules of Ibn Darta Regarding the Reading. 78

79

80

81

82

83

4. Crusader Period The almost two hundred years between 1099, when the Crusaders reached Palestine, and 1291, when ʾAtlit (south of Haifa) and Acre, the last Frankish base in the Holy Land, were relinquished, were for the Samaritans a much less trying time than the preceding period. Clearly they were among the smaller groups of the population subdued by the Crusaders. It has been estimated that the local subjects of the Franks comprised approximately 500,000, the Muslims accounting for 75-80 percent. Samaritans were living in Nablus, Caesarea, Ashkelon, Gaza, Acre, and Damascus. Arabic, Christian, Jewish, and Samaritan sources contain some information about the cities and numbers of Samaritans in the area of Syria in the Crusader period. Among these sources, the Itinerary of the twelfth-century Jewish traveler Benjamin of Tudela (1130-1173) provides the most detailed information. According to this author, in approximately 1170 C.E., about one thousand Samaritans ( ) lived in Nablus, two hundred in Caesarea, three hundred in Ashkelon, and four hundred in Damascus. It is unclear whether the number one thousand for Nablus refers to individuals or to households. The latter understanding may be supported by the statement of the twelfth/thirteenth-century Persian traveler Abu l-Ḥasan ʿAli al-Harawi (ʿAli of Herat) who noted in 1173 that the “Samaritans are very numerous in this town.” The Arab geographer Shams al-Din al-Ansari al-Dimashqi (1256-1327) relates that after the end of the Crusader period, one thousand Samaritans lived in Nablus: “In no other city are there as many Samaritans as there are here, for in all the other cities of Palestine together there are not of the Samaritans a thousand souls.” It is interesting to note that Benjamin of Tudela encountered approximately twelve hundred Jews in Palestine at that time which would mean that there were more Samaritans in twelfth-century Palestine than Jews. Very little information is available about the fate of the Samaritans under Frankish rule. Although the period was mainly peaceful for the Samaritans, there were of course occasional 84

85

86

87

88

89

90

attacks. Thus, in 1113 C.E., the Turkic military leader Mawdud of Mosul destroyed Nablus. In 1137, under Bazwash of Damascus, the Muslims descended upon the city, captured several hundred Samaritans, and transported them to Damascus. Nothing is known of their further destiny. In 1184, Saladin made a raid on Nablus, taking not only booty but also Frankish and Samaritan prisoners. The Franks overran Nablus for the last time on October 30, 1242. Despite these calamities, the general situation was such that the Samaritans were able to produce literary works, such as the oldest part of the chronicle Tūlīda which was completed in 1149. They also continued to write copies of the Torah. Moreover, the Samaritans from the various communities, including Egypt, were free to celebrate Passover on Mt. Gerizim. According to Samaritan sources, it was even possible to restore synagogues and to build a new one. Abu l-Fatḥ’s chronicle, though, curses the Franks for destroying installations, including a prayer house, that had been built by Baba Rabba. The Samaritans also participated in supervisory positions in the economic life of the Frankish rulers, such as functioning as market overseers and as magistrates. It has been conjectured that the Samaritans apparently did not suffer under the rule of the Crusaders because of the favorable depiction of one of their members in the parable of the Good Samaritan in the New Testament, although their small numbers and “their pronounced submissiveness” may also have played a role. 91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

5. Mamluk Period The rule of the Crusaders in Palestine came to an end with the fall of Acre to the Mamluks in 1291. Already in the battle of ʿAyn Jalut in Galilee in 1260, the Egyptian Mamluks had defeated the Mongols who had invaded Syria and made raids into Palestine; Nablus, together with Syria, came again under the rule of a Muslim dynasty. The Mamluks were in control of Palestine until 1516, when the Ottomans defeated them. Similar to the Crusader period, primary sources about the life of the Samaritans under the Mamluks are sparse. Even from the late Samaritan chronicles very little information can be gleaned. The little that is reported speaks of violent actions against Samaritans and Christians. Thus, for the high priesthood of ʿAmram b. Itamar (1254/55-1268/9), Chronicle Adler reports a siege of Shechem and the killing of a great number of its inhabitants; many men and women were imprisoned — among them Uzzi, the high priest’s son — and transported to Damascus. But the Samaritans of Damascus paid a high ransom for them, enabling their return to Shechem. In the high priesthood of Joseph b. Uzzi (1290-1308/9), the Muslims expelled all the Christians from Shechem and all the other cities and destroyed their churches. They also took from the Samaritans the synagogue on the “Parcel of Land” and demolished all their buildings. The Samaritans composed many elegies to mourn the loss. The reports of Muslim, Christian, and Jewish geographers and travelers provide another source of information. They contain interesting details about Nablus, the numbers of the Samaritans, opinions as to their origin, and — sometimes polemical or, in any case, distorted — descriptions of some of their beliefs and customs; but they say very little about how the members of the community fared at the hands of the Mamluks. The Samaritan population had shrunk considerably to several thousand, or fewer. A short remark by the above-quoted 99

100

101

Muslim geographer Shams al-Din al-Ansari al-Dimashqi seems to hint at the Samaritans’ attempt to get along with the Muslims as the dominant power in the country: “It is said that when a Muslim, a Jew, a Samaritan and a Christian come together on the road the Samaritan will take company in preference with the Muslim.” In the fourteenth century, Samaritans lived not only in Nablus but also in Alexandria, Cairo, Gaza, Sebaste, and Damascus, albeit not in great numbers in any of these cities. According to Rabbi Isaac ben Joseph b. Chelo, in 1334 there were “few real Jews at Nablus, but many Samaritans. They are Cuthim, and come from Cutha, a city of Iraq…. Though they rigorously observe the law of Moses, an idol in the form of a pigeon has been found among them.” The Jewish traveler Meshullam of Volterra recounts that by the last quarter of the fifteenth century (1481), the community in Alexandria no longer existed, but in Cairo he counted fifty Samaritan householders. According to him, “the Sultan has placed over the Jews, the Karaïtes, and the Samaritans, a Jewish lord, rich and learned and much honoured.” Besides characterizing the Samaritans as idolaters, Meshullam claims that they have an altar on Mt. Gerizim and carry a golden dove on their thrice-yearly pilgrimages and place it on the altar. “They live in a quarter of their own, and they have a Synagogue of their own, and they keep Sabbath till midday, and then they profane it.” Slightly later than Meshullam, another Jewish traveler, Obadiah da Bertinoro (in his letters written between 1487 and 1490), recounts that there are fifty Samaritans living in Cairo. They “are the richest of all the Jews …, and fill most of the higher offices of state; they are cashiers and administrators; one of them is said to have a property of 200,000 pieces of gold.” Similar to Meshullam, he notes that they have “only the five books of Moses, and their mode of writing differs from ours — the sacred writing.” He then vents his displeasure on the Samaritans: “they are an abomination to the Jews because they offer up sacrifices and frankincense on Mount Gerizim. Many of them left Cairo with us to bring the passover-sacrifice to Mount Gerizim, for they have a temple there; they celebrate the Sabbath from midday of Friday till the midday of Saturday.” Concluding his short account, he claims that there are very few Samaritans “in existence now: it is said scarcely 500 families in all the world.” A question occupying Muslims for a long time was whether the Samaritans qualify as “protected people” (dhimmis) and must therefore pay poll-tax (jizya). The most complete discussion in the classical period is to be found in the work Aḥkam Ahl al-Dhimma (The Laws Pertaining to the Protected People) by the Muslim theologian and mystic Shams al-Din Abu Bakr Muḥammad Abi Bakr al-Zarʿi b. Qayyim al-Jauziyya (1292-1350). He first surveys the opinions of a number of Muslim scholars — most were for the inclusion of the Samaritans, but some were against it — and then strongly disagrees with those who do not count the Samaritans among the protected people. If the Zoroastrians are included, he argues, despite their fire-worship, dualism, and other deviant beliefs and practices, the Samaritans certainly qualify: 102

103

104

105

And on the other hand, not to take jizya from the Sāmira, even though they believe in Mūsā and Torah; and bind themselves to it; believe in the resurrection, heaven and hell; and pray the [fixed daily] prayers of the Jews; and fast their fasts and follow their general path; and recite the Torah; and proscribe what is proscribed to the Jews in the Torah and do not disagree with the Jews about the Torah nor about Moses, even if they do diverge [from the rest of

the Jews] concerning belief in the prophets, for the Sāmira do not believe at all in any prophets except Moses, Aaron, Joshua and Abraham. They [also] disagree over the qibla, for the Jews pray towards the Holy Temple, while the Sāmira pray towards Mt. ʿAzūn in the district of Nāblūs. They assert that this is the qibla towards which God commanded Moses to pray (and that they are correct in their location of this and the Jews are wrong); and that God ordered David to build the Holy Temple at Nāblūs, which, according to them, was the mountain on which God spoke to Moses. David defied Him, and he built it at Īliyā: but he transgressed and sinned in that. Their language is close to the language of the Jews, but is not exactly the same. They have many groups which branched off from two groups: Dustaniyya and Kustaniyya. The Kustaniyya affirm the final reckoning and the resurrection of bodies, and Paradise and the Fire; the Dustaniyya assert that reward and punishment occur in this world. There is much disagreement among them on statutory injunctions. This community is one of the smallest communities in the world and one of the most foolish, and most opposed to other communities, and most burdened with encumbrances and fetters. And if I wished to denote their relationship to the Jews, it is as the Rāfiḍa [the Shīʿites] are to the Muslims. This community did not arise in Islamic times, rather it is a community to be found before Islam and before Jesus. Then the Companions conquered the great metropolises and agreed to impose it [jizya] on them [the Samaritans], as did the imāms and caliphs after them, and not to impose it on them is merely to allow them to persist in error: this is something that cannot be.106

Ibn Qayyim summarizes in this passage the information and views on Samaritan beliefs and practices that were current among Muslim scholars at that time, concluding that they are close enough to those of the Jews so that the Samaritans are protected people and have to pay the poll-tax. Despite their small numbers and periods of hardship in the Mamluk period, the Samaritans’ literary activities continued throughout this era. Scribes copied the Torah, especially in Damascus, but also in Nablus, Gaza, Cairo, and other cities. In the midfourteenth century Abu l-Fatḥ wrote his chronicle, and the first part of the Samaritan Book of Joshua was composed. On August 24, 1516, the rule of the Mamluks came to an end when the Ottoman Sultan Selim I (1512-1520) defeated the Mamluks in the battle of Marj Dabiq, north of Aleppo. In a short time, the Ottomans were to become the ruling power in Greater Syria, Egypt, and the Hejaz.

6. Ottoman Period The Ottoman Turks ruled Palestine from 1516 to 1918. By the time of the Ottoman conquest, the Samaritans had shrunk to a mere five hundred individuals in all, living in Cairo, Gaza, Damascus, and, above all, in Nablus. Thanks to the availability of official Ottoman documents — taḥrir registers (records of the tax-paying populations, lands, crops, and revenues), firmans (decrees of the ruler), and fatwas (rulings on Islamic legal issues) — we have actual numbers for Palestine in the sixteenth century and information about the relationship between the ruling Muslims and the Samaritans. For the year 1538/9, twenty-nine Samaritan households and four bachelors who paid taxes were registered in Nablus; in 1548/9 there were thirty-four households and one bachelor, and in 1596/7 only twenty households are listed. If each household consisted of six persons, the number of Samaritans in Nablus in 1538/9 would have been 178 (i.e., 2.61 % of the population ); in 1548/9, 205 (0.87 % of the population); and in 1596/7, 120 (2.36 % of the 107

108

109

110

111

112

population). In Gaza, in 1525/6 there were twenty-five Samaritan households or 150 individuals (2.80 % of the population); in 1538/9, fifteen persons (sic) (0.88 % of the population); in 1548/9, eighteen households and two bachelors, i.e., 110 individuals (0.8 % of the population); in 1556/7, eighteen households or 108 individuals (0.81 % of the population); and in 1595/6, eight households or forty-eight individuals (0.578 % of the population). In 1596/7, five households are listed for Safed, i.e., thirty individuals. In addition, in the late fifteenth century, Cairo had a population of approximately three hundred Samaritans, and some Samaritans lived in Damascus. The total number of Samaritans in the sixteenth century was therefore approximately 1,400 individuals. For tax purposes the Samaritans were seen by the Ottoman authorities as part of the Jews. Many were employed as government officials in charge of finances, especially in Damascus. Numerous complaints about their treatment of the taxpayers were addressed in firmans. An example of such a firman is the following, issued on October 10, 1565: 113

114

115

116

117

118

Order to the Beglerbeg of Damascus and Cadi of Damascus: You who are the Cadi have sent a letter and have reported that, since the [members of the] community known as Samaritans (Sāmirī) who belong to the Jews [can] write Arabic and know the siyāḳat [script] and the ways of [keeping official] registers, the intendants (emīn) and su-başıs engage [them] as their clerks. As they (the Samaritans) are a wicked and mischievous group of people, they practice [various] kinds of tricks and deceit on the Muslims and are the cause of their (the Muslims’) property being taken away without any reason. For fear of them the poor subjects (reʿāyā) and fellahin render service to the aforesaid. [In your opinion] it is necessary to prevent them (the officials) [from employing them]. Now, My noble consent is not [given] to a single individual of the said community henceforth coming into the service of intendants and su-başıs and being taken [along] with [them] and allowed to travel about in their service. I have commanded that when [this firman] arrives you shall duly issue orders in this matter so that henceforth neither the intendants and tax-collectors (ʿummāl) nor the su-başıs of a beglerbeg or begs and other commissioners (mübāşir) shall employ anyone of the Samaritans in clerical work or other functions connected with the affairs of the Muslims. Thus, if in future it is learnt that a single individual of that community is employed in that way in your province, your excuse will not be accepted and you will be [held] responsible. Accordingly you shall not let a minute pass [before] executing My order. You shall write [down] and report, by name, those who do not obey. Some time ago a noble firman was already sent to you in this matter.

From the repeated issues of such orders to Damascus it becomes clear that these firmans were in practice not followed. Ottoman documents show that even towards the end of the seventeenth century Samaritans still filled the positions of government officials. Other matters which displeased the Muslims were the wearing of head covers by the Samaritans that were to be worn only by Muslims. Thus, one firman states: The Samaritans and Christians in the province of Damascus dress like Muslims. They buy pieces of fine muslin (dülbend), get them dyed yellow, and wind them round their heads as turbans, thereby causing annoyance to the Muslims. Henceforth this is to be strictly forbidden.119

Fatwas given at the beginning of the eighteenth century provide further information about the Samaritans in the Ottoman period. Thus, in approximately 1700, the mufti (legal scholar) of Jerusalem was asked whether the Samaritans, who have been living for a long 120

time in Nablus, are a People of the Book; whether marriage with them is permitted; whether animals slaughtered by them may be eaten; and whether they are protected people if they pay the poll-tax so that they may not be fought against, their property may not be looted, and their wives may not be abducted. Later fatwas address more detailed questions: May the Samaritans build high houses or enter mosques? May Muslims visit with them and wash their dead? May a Samaritan wear silken garments or use gold and silver vessels? Questioners also asked repeatedly whether it is true that the Samaritans worship a calf, as is generally believed, and what is the meaning of their religious custom of burning the shoulder of the slaughtered animals. In reply, all fatwas conclude that the Samaritans belong to the People of the Book; they believe in the Torah, although in some details theirs differs from that of the Jews, and they are convinced that their text is more accurate than the Jewish and Christian versions; their prophet is Moses; they believe in the resurrection of the dead and in heaven and hell; and they confess the unity of God. One fatwa even claims that the Samaritans acknowledge that Muḥammad is a prophet, albeit one who was sent to the Arabs. All other questions — except for the worship of the calf — are answered in the affirmative. The Muslim scholars reject indignantly the supposition that the Samaritans worship a calf. They explain that this folk-belief arose from the passage in the Qurʾan (Sura 7:148-157 and 20:85-97) in which al-Samiri is said to have made the “Golden Calf.” Maybe, the scholars note, the latter belonged to a tribe from which the Samaritans descended, but otherwise alSamiri has nothing to do with them. The Samaritans, too, see the making of the “Golden Calf” as a grave sin of the Israelites for which they were duly punished. In any case, the scholars add, the story of the “Golden Calf” took place before Moses received the revelation. After that, the Israelites showed sincere remorse. The custom of the burning of the shoulder of the slaughtered animals had spawned the popular view among Muslims that a Jewish woman had tried to kill Muḥammad with a poisoned shoulder. In remembrance of this event and out of hatred for the Prophet, the Samaritans, so it was believed, do not eat the shoulder but burn it. The scholars, however, try to correct this misconception. Referring to stories from the life of the Prophet, Old Testament pericopes, and Jewish exegetical tradition, and combining the accounts in Numbers 23–24 (Balaam), 25 (Phinehas), and Deuteronomy 18:3 (portions of the sacrifice to be given to the priests), they claim that shoulder, jowls, and stomach are to be given to a descendant of Phinehas. If the Samaritans cannot do that, they must burn the shoulder. The Muslim scholars’ knowledge of traditional Jewish exegesis is so exact that it has been conjectured that it can only come from renegades. According to the Samaritan chronicles, early in the Ottoman period, namely in A.H. 1033, i.e., 1624 C.E., the line of Aaronite high priests, believed to have descended from Aaron through Eleazar, Phinehas, and Abisha, came to an end. Since 1624, all high priests are priests of the branch of Uzziel ben Kohat, the grandfather of Aaron. The chronicles also record that under the rule of Sultan Meḥmet IV (1648-1687) and Sultan Suleiman II (16871691) the Muslims oppressed the Samaritans, pillaged the house of the high priest, and took away their bath. At that time, the district of Nablus was semi-autonomous and was ruled by 121

122

123

the indigenous families of the Tuqan and Jarrar. They are said to have seized many Samaritan houses, vineyards, fields, olive groves, and other possessions, and forcefully converted many of the Samaritans. At the beginning of the eighteenth century, the Samaritan community in Egypt ceased to exist. In Palestine the Samaritans were almost all concentrated in Nablus; only a few lived in Gaza and Jaffa. A bright spot in the generally dismal fate of the Samaritans was the activity on their behalf by one of their illustrious scholars by the name Ibrahim b. Yaʿqub b. Murjan (Ab Sikwa) al-Danfi, called Ibrahim al-ʿAyya, who lived from c. 1710 to 1783. Not only was he a gifted author of grammatical treatises, scriptural commentaries, and liturgical poetry; he was also secretary to the head of the Tuqan family in Nablus. As such he was able to intervene on behalf of his co-religionists. Chronicle Adler narrates his accomplishments in this regard: he repaired the tombs of the high priests Eleazar son of Aaron, his brother Ithamar, and Eleazar’s son Phinehas, all located in ʿAwarta south of Nablus. He also restored the synagogue in Nablus, and he bought from the Arabs a plot of land on Mt. Gerizim on which the Samaritans could offer their Passover sacrifices. Although other similarly influential Samaritans were able to help their community, thanks to their positions, the situation of the Samaritans in the eighteenth century remained precarious. Their subordination is patent in the following decree from 1772: 124

125

126

127

128

129

1. They are to be distinguished (from the Mohammedans) by dress. Their turbans must be made of coarse stuff, and of a black colour. They must also not be allowed to wear any garment that becomes men of education or men of high rank. None of their apparel may be made of valuable stuffs, such as silk, fine cloth, or even fine cotton. 2. They are to be distinguished in riding. They are not allowed upon any account to ride upon horses; only upon asses. They must not use saddles, but pack-saddles. But let it be noticed that they are not allowed to ride even upon asses, except urgent business call them out of the city. Whenever they pass by a mosque, they must alight, and walk in the same path as the beast. Old shoes are to be suspended over their shoulders, with bells attached. 3. They are not allowed to sit near where the Mohammedan governor may be; and should any one be elevated above a Mohammedan, the governor must punish him. 4. They are not allowed to build their houses high, nor too near a Moslem house. Thus, they are not to enjoy the privileges (of Mohammedans) unless they profess that God is the only God, and Mohammed is his prophet.130

Difficult as the situation was for the Samaritans in the eighteenth century, worse awaited them in the nineteenth century. Nablus was governed by prominent Arab families who often had Samaritans work for them as bankers and other officials. As such, not only were they able to acquire a certain wealth, but they were wont to become victims of the governors’ greed, subject to physical and fiscal harassments. In a letter sent in 1810 by the high priest Salama b. Ṭabia (in office 1784-1855) to the French senator and one- time bishop of Blois, Henri Grégoire (1750-1831), the author writes that the “nations,” i.e., the Muslims, tyrannize them, use violence against them, prevent them from ascending Mt. Gerizim, and collect from them contributions. He concludes: “We are unhappy and poor; we lament the past centuries, the tabernacle and its exaltation.” Since 1785, they had not been able to offer sacrifices on Mt. Gerizim but had to offer them in the city. Only in 1832 could they resume their pilgrimages to their holy place. A vivid picture of some of the events during the early nineteenth century can be gained from the memoirs of the Samaritan Jacob esh-Shelaby ( ), who was born in 1817/18 and died in 1889/90. They were collected 131

132

133

and translated into English by the British diplomat Edward Thomas Rogers. Jacob belonged to the Danfi family, a large and old clan mentioned for the first time in the Tūlīda in a seventh-century context. In the eleventh century its name appears in a document from the Cairo Geniza. Members of the family lived not only in Nablus where they owned property, but also in Cairo, Gaza, Jaffa, and Damascus. Some of them were traders; others were officials in the service of the governor during the Ottoman period. Jacob’s grandfather, Joseph b. Shelaby, was inspector and manager of the government treasury in Nablus; his brother Jacob was a rich merchant; and his second brother, the youngest, ʿAbd al-Samiri, was secretary of the government stores in Nablus. The grandfather served twenty-seven governors in the course of his lifetime. After his death in 1805, a relative took over the treasury. But he had been in office for only a few years when he was killed by the newly appointed governor. Jacob’s brother ʿAbd al-Samiri then took over the administration of the treasury, “and with it the care of the whole Samaritan community, which had been reduced almost to penury.” Intrigues, briberies, murders, rivalries between the leading clans, the succession of governors and their effects on and consequences for the Samaritans of Nablus are all described in detail by Jacob. In one incident that occurred in the 1840s, a Samaritan widow had been enticed by influential Muslims to convert to Islam. The Muslim legal scholars, the ulama, demanded that her son and daughter, who remained Samaritans, also be converted to Islam. Through imprisonment, threats, and beatings they were able to convert the fourteen-year-old boy, but the girl died from fear of the torture that awaited her. After that, the ulama demanded that the governor put to death all Samaritans if they did not agree to accept Islam because, so the ulama claimed, they were irreligious, “not even believing in any one of the five inspired books,” i.e., the Torah, the New Testament, the Psalms, the Prophets, and the Qurʾan. All attempts by the Samaritans to show that they did believe in the Torah failed because the Muslim scholars were not familiar with Hebrew. Only a written declaration from the chief rabbi of the Jews in Jerusalem — and a sum of money — saved them. Despite the less than cordial relations between Samaritans and Jews, he testified “That the Samaritan people is a branch of the Children of Israel, who acknowledge the truth of the Tora,” and, Jacob adds: “This document, backed by pecuniary presents, appeased the fury of the fanatics.” From 1848 to 1851, Jacob esh-Shelaby was treasurer and superintendent of stores in the district of Jenin, and relatives of his were officials in Nablus at the same time. In 1851, unfounded accusations of financial impropriety were leveled against them by a governor who wanted to take revenge on the associates of the previous governor who had been a friend and protector of the Samaritans. Jacob himself was imprisoned and beaten. With the help of a file and an iron hook smuggled into the prison by his mother, he was able to escape, together with fourteen other prisoners. He eventually arrived in Jerusalem at the residence of the British Consul James Finn (in office 1846-1862), a friend and benefactor of the Samaritans. At the request of the high priest ʿAmram b. Salama (1809-1874) and with the help of E. T. Rogers, Jacob traveled to England in 1854 to raise money for the community. According to his own words, he was favorably received by the public and succeeded in securing the support of British government officials in his bid for protection of the Samaritans from the 134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

corrupt and tyrannical Ottoman governors. The number of the Samaritans by that time had dwindled to 195 individuals or fewer. Extinction seemed inevitable to many onlookers. To quote only one such prediction, by John Mills in his book Three Months’ Residence at Nablus: “before many generations more have passed away, this nation, in all probability, will have become extinct.” Although Mills lived with them in 1855 and 1860, many years later scholars and others made similar forecasts. Nathan Schur has compiled a list of numbers quoted by travelers, Hebrew newspapers, and the two censuses of the British Mandate held in 1922 and 1931. It shows that between 1806 and 1931, the Samaritans numbered approximately 150, although two reports speak of eighty (1833) and eighty-five (1888) individuals, respectively, and two others of three hundred to four hundred (1834) and five hundred (1835), respectively. Most troubling was the disproportion between male and female members, approaching the ratio of almost 2:1. Girls were promised in marriage at a very young age. An example is Jacob esh-Shelaby who was betrothed to a girl, Zora, when she was still a child. She did not marry him, however, because when she was of marriageable age the high priest married her to a widower “who had one little girl, named Anithe. She was seven years old, and was to be given to Jacob in the place of Zora, who was now her step-mother!” Not surprisingly, the high priest added: “This marriage has caused me great anxiety and much trouble.” Jacob esh-Shelaby eventually did not marry Anithe but another girl, Shamsah, also of a young age. Mary Eliza Rogers offers a second example: 143

144

145

146

147

148

Another man, who was only thirty, and for whom a girl could not be found, had married a widow fifty years of age, and he was now trying to persuade [high] priest Amran [sic] to allow him to put her away, that he might be betrothed to the priest’s daughter, who was about eleven. He [the high priest] said: “nearly all our girls are promised before they can speak, and are married when they are eleven or twelve.”149

The rule and rivalry of the powerful families in Nablus were brought to an end by the Ottoman government between 1858 and 1860, when a Turk instead of an Arab became the governor of Nablus. For the Samaritans this change initiated a peaceful and secure time; it also meant that their access to lucrative employments as treasurers to the traditional Arab families was lost, and their economic situation changed to the worse.

7. Modern Period An important development at the beginning of the twentieth century was the move of one Samaritan, Abraham b. Marḥiv Tsedaka, and his family to Jaffa. After having tried twice to establish himself as a merchant in the city, once in 1894 and again in 1902, he finally succeeded in 1905. The reason for his move was economical — a better chance to succeed in business. When Abraham died in 1928, his sons moved to Tel Aviv, and in 1951 they moved to Ḥolon. With the help of Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, the second president of Israel and a keen student and supporter of the Samaritans, Yefet b. Abraham Tsedaka established the Samaritan settlement in this city, where he functioned as the leader of the community until his death in 1982. With the founding of the Samaritan neighborhood in Ḥolon, the nucleus of a second 150

151

Samaritan settlement outside of Nablus was established. With the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, the Samaritan community was split in two, one part living in Nablus in Palestine, the other in Ḥolon in Israel. The high priest resided in Nablus, and the congregation in Ḥolon was led by a non-priestly member. This state of affairs presented many difficulties, not least the possibility of finding marriage partners. Beginning in 1952, the Jordanians allowed the Israeli Samaritans to come to Mt. Gerizim and participate in the Passover sacrifice. This meant that once a year the two communities could meet on Mt. Gerizim and make the necessary arrangements. The first marriage between a man from Nablus and a woman from Ḥolon took place at Passover 1953. Other areas affected were decisions of a legal (halakhic) nature that needed the consultation with the high priest and the elders residing in Nablus. This situation changed after almost twenty years, when Israel conquered and occupied the West Bank in 1967. From then on there was again unhindered communication between the two halves. Members from Ḥolon began to build houses for themselves on Mt. Gerizim, in which they lived during the pilgrimage festivals and at other times. In connection with the events of the First Intifada, the Palestinian uprising against the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories (1987-1993), the Samaritans of Nablus gradually moved from the city into the houses on the mountain, taking their most precious possession, the Abisha Scroll, with them. Their houses in Nablus are now rented out to Palestinians. The settlement on Mt. Gerizim is called Kiryat Luza after the ancient appellation “Luz,” or “Luza” according to the Samaritans, the place where Jacob had the dream of a ladder extending from earth to heaven, and where God revealed himself to him. Jacob called the place “House of God” (“Bethel” in Hebrew; Gen. 28:19; 35:6; cf. 48:3). Equating Luza with the mountain, the Samaritans now refer to Mt. Gerizim with the double designation “Mount Gerizim-Bethel.” Unlike the Jews, the Samaritans did not develop the institution of the rabbinate and confine the priests to minor roles in certain ceremonies, but they have a functioning priesthood with a high priest as their leader. According to Samaritan beliefs, the high priests originally descended from Phinehas, Aaron’s grandson, who “was jealous for his God and made atonement for the people of Israel” (Num. 25:13), killing Zimri, the chief of the tribe of Simeon, who brought a Midianite woman into the camp of the Israelites. As a reward, he and his descendants received “a covenant of perpetual priesthood” (Num. 25:6-13). Thus, in principle, the office of high priest was passed from father to son; but when the last high priest of this line, Salama b. Pinḥas, died in 1624, without having a son, the Samaritan sages concluded that from then on the priests of the line of Uzziel ben Kohat son of Levi (Exod. 6:18; Num. 3:19; 1 Chron. 23:12) were to assume the office. Instead of passing it on from father to son they decided that the eldest priest is to become high priest, interpreting Leviticus 21:10 to mean, “the priest who is the eldest of his brothers,” rather than the usual “the priest who is exalted above his fellows.” In the course of time, the distinction between Aaronite priests descended from Eleazar and Levites was blurred, and the Levitical priests were considered descendants of Aaron through Ithamar. Thus, the Samaritans believe in an unbroken succession of high priests stretching back to Aaron, the son of ʿAmram and brother of Moses, and the present high priest, ʿAbdel b. Asher b. Maṣliaḥ (born 1935; high priest 152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

since 2013), is considered the 133rd in this line. The high priest presides at the Passover sacrifice and is the supreme religious authority in matters of cult and halakhah. The other priests play a relatively minor role. They do participate, however, in the production of amulets, which, as in earlier centuries, are still made for both Samaritans and nonSamaritans; and for some priests, the making and selling of these objects constitutes a profitable source of income. In addition to the priests, laymen partake in the leadership of the community. As recounted in connection with the alleged achievements of Baba Rabba, the Samaritan chronicles speak of four laymen who, together with three priests, were the “Wise Men” standing at the head of the community. Some scholars see in this an attempt to disempower the priests. There may well have been rivalries between the priests and learned laymen, a situation that must have repeated itself in later times, including the modern period, as can be seen from defensive statements made by the high priest Jacob b. Aaron (1840-1916) early in the twentieth century. The last section of Jacob’s Book of Enlightenment, a treatise in the form of questions and answers written in 1907, is entitled “The Abridgment by Laymen of the Authority of the Priesthood.” With reference to numerous Bible quotations, he proves that the priests, and especially the high priest, must not be displaced by laymen. He concludes his tractate with these words: “Therefore, I believe that it is not lawful to depart at any time from their [i.e., the Levites’] given decisions and pleasures, nor is it lawful to call a halt to them through reasons of expediency, on merely mental grounds for they have been long before empowered by the declarations of the Torah, and it is not to be imagined that the decisions of others are applicable to them unless there is against them a legal plea.” A case that looks trivial at first sight, but succinctly points up the to-and-fro between priests and laity, was brought up not long ago in the community paper A.B.–The Samaritan News. The question was whether it is permissible to have the air conditioning turned on during prayer in the Ḥolon synagogue on Sabbath when the outside temperature is almost unbearable, so much so that the praying Samaritans have only one thought on their mind — when will the officiating priest pronounce the final blessing “May your Sabbaths be good!” Almost a decade before this article was written, a decision by the high priest, seconded by two other priests who later became high priests themselves, was reached: the air conditioning is not to be used, but morning and afternoon prayers should be said together before sunrise. After an angry comment by a member of the Ḥolon community, the high priest asked that this decision not be published, and so far it is kept from the public. This case illustrates not only the social tensions within the community, but also the lack of high priestly power in practice. In conclusion, the modern period saw a remarkable improvement in the situation of the Samaritans — numerically, economically, and socially — but it brought with it problems of a different nature from those of past centuries, problems caused by the encounter with the modern society. The quarrel over air conditioning in the synagogue on Sabbaths is only a minute issue in comparison with questions regarding marriage that almost threaten to tear the community apart. The paramount issue for the Samaritans is the question whether or not they will be able to continue to pass on their traditions and rituals to the new generations growing 160

161

162

163

164

165

166

up in an altogether different environment from that of their parents and grandparents, and so preserve their identity, even if marriage partners from outside the community are accepted. 167

1. See the discussion in the chapter “The Identity of the Samaritans.” Baillet recounts the history of the Samaritans from the creation to the conquest of Palestine by the Muslims according to the Samaritans’ own sources in an emic approach (Maurice Baillet, “Samaritains,” DBSup 11 [1991]: 960-1033); or, as Zsengellér calls it, the approach on the basis of the “we tradition” (József Zsengellér, Gerizim as Israel: Northern Tradition of the Old Testament and the Early History of the Samaritans/Gerizim als Israel. Noordelijke Traditie van het Oude Testament en de Vroege Geschiedenis van de Samaritanen (met een samenvatting in het Nederlands) [Utrechtse Theologische Reeks, 38; Utrecht: Faculteit der Godgeleerdheid, Universiteit Utrecht, 1998], p. 15). 2. See the chapter “The Identity of the Samaritans.” 3. Yitzhak Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan (Judea & Samaria Publications, 7; Jerusalem: Staff Officer of Archaeology — Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria; Israel Antiquities Authority, 2008), p. 18. 4. For details see the chapter “Samaritans in Jewish Writings of Antiquity.” 5. Adolf Büchler, “The Participation of the Samaritans in the Bar-Kokhva Revolt,” in The Bar-Kokhva Revolt, ed. Aharon Oppenheimer [in Hebrew] (Issues in Jewish History, 10; Jerusalem: The Historical Society of Israel; The Zalman Shazar Center for the Study of Jewish History, 1980), pp. 115-21. 6. Menachem Mor, “The Samaritans and the Bar-Kokhbah Revolt,” in The Samaritans, ed. Alan D. Crown (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), p. 30; and Menachem Mor, From Samaria to Shechem: The Samaritan Community in Antiquity [in Hebrew] (Jerusalem: The Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, 2003), pp. 182-83. 7. Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan, p. 48. 8. See, with further references, Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan, p. 48, with nn. 37-39. 9. See Amnon Linder, The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation (Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, and Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1987), pp. 99-100. 10. See Reinhard Pummer, Early Christian Authors on Samaritans and Samaritanism: Texts, Translations and Commentary (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism, 92; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), pp. 185-86. 11. Magen believes this pericope shows that the Samaritans were assimilated into Roman culture and religion (The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan, p. 58, n. 73). However, Origen (Contra Celsum 2.13) earlier reported that the Samaritans suffered death rather than neglect circumcision. The same attitude is reported for the Byzantine period (see below). 12. Paul Stenhouse, The Kitāb al-Tarīkh of Abū ʾl-Fatḥ: Translated into English with Notes (Studies in Judaica, 1; Sydney: Mandelbaum Trust, University of Sydney, 1985), p. 173. If not otherwise indicated, the quotes in what follows are taken from Stenhouse, Kitāb. 13. See Paul Stenhouse, “Baba Rabba: Historical or Legendary Figure? Some Observations,” in New Samaritan Studies, ed. Alan D. Crown and Lucy Davey (Sydney: Mandelbaum, 1995), pp. 327-32. Stemberger writes, “Baba Rabba undoubtedly existed and implemented reforms among his people, the Samaritans” (Günter Stemberger, Jews and Christians in the Holy Land: Palestine in the Fourth Century, trans. Ruth Tuschling [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000], p. 224), but gives no reasons for his statement. 14. Stenhouse, Kitāb, p. L, n. 730. 15. Stenhouse, Kitāb, p. 178. 16. The term ḥakakima “is a special plural of Arabic ḥakīm ‘wise man,’ or a neologism derived from the Hebrew , pl. ‘sage, sages’, an equivalent of the term for Jewish rabbis” (Gerhard Wedel, “The Question of the Samaritan Responsa and the Transmission of Knowledge Around the Mediterranean in Classical Antiquity and Medieval Times,” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of the Société d’Études Samaritaines, ed. Haseeb Shehadeh, Habib Tawa, and Reinhard Pummer [Paris: Geuthner, 2005], p. 65, n. 55). 17. Stenhouse, Kitāb, pp. 182-83. 18. Stenhouse, Kitāb, p. 193. 19. Stenhouse, Kitāb, p. 194. 20. Note that the Christians supposedly wanted the Samaritans to worship idols! 21. Stenhouse, Kitāb, p. 199. 22. Stenhouse, Kitāb, p. 201. 23. Stenhouse, Kitāb, p. 202. 24. So Stemberger, Jews and Christians, p. 225. 25. So Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan, pp. 51-52, 119, 176; and Leah Di Segni, “The Church of Mary Theotokos on Mount Gerizim: The Inscriptions,” in Christian Archaeology in the Holy Land: New Discoveries. Essays in Honour of Virgilio C. Corbo, ed. Giovanni Claudio Bottini, Leah Di Segni, and Eugenio Alliata (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 36; Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1990), pp. 343-50. 26. Cf. Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan, p. 53. 27. See Ze’ev Rubin, “Christianity in Byzantine Palestine — Missionary Activity and Religious Coercion,” The Jerusalem Cathedra 3 (1983): 99. 28. Peter Schäfer, History of the Jews in the Greco-Roman World (London: Routledge, 2003), p. 182; and Peter Schäfer, Geschichte der Juden in der Antike. Die Juden Palästinas von Alexander dem Großen bis zur arabischen Eroberung, 2nd ed. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), pp. 217-18. For a thorough discussion see Stemberger, Jews and Christians, pp. 161-84. 29. For the text and translation see Pummer, Early Christian Authors, pp. 412-13. 30. Linder, The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation, p. 223. 31. So Linder, The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation, p. 222. For the texts, translations, and annotations of the laws cited here, see Linder’s book. For English translations and annotations see also P. R. Coleman-Norton, Roman State and Christian Church: A Collection of Legal Documents to A.D. 535, 3 vols. (London: S.P.C.K., 1966). 32. Linder, The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation, p. 315. 33. Linder, The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation, p. 329.

34. Linder, The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation, p. 330. 35. Linder, The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation, pp. 329-30. 36. Linder, The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation, p. 330. 37. Linder, The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation, p. 330. 38. Cf. Linder, The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation, p. 326. 39. Linder, The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation, p. 360. 40. Linder, The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation, pp. 360-61. 41. Coleman-Norton, Roman State and Christian Church, p. 1007. 42. Linder, The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation, p. 370. 43. Linder, The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation, p. 396. 44. Samuel P. Scott, trans., The Civil Law, Including the Twelve Tables, the Institutes of Gaius, the Rules of Ulpian, the Opinions of Paulus, the Enactments of Justinian, and the Constitutions of Leo: Translated from the Original Latin, Edited, and Compared with All Accessible Systems of Jurisprudence Ancient and Modern (Cincinnati: The Central Trust Company, 1932), vol. XVII, p. 120. 45. An echo of this revolt is to be found in Abu l-Fatḥ’s chronicle (see Stenhouse, Kitāb, pp. 239-42) and in Chronicle Adler (REJ 45 [1902]: 235-37). 46. See Leah Di Segni, “The Samaritans in Roman-Byzantine Palestine: Some Misapprehensions,” in Religious and Ethnic Communities in Later Roman Palestine, ed. Hayim Lapin (Studies and Texts in Jewish History and Culture, 5; Potomac, MD: University Press of Maryland, 1998), p. 64. 47. See, among others, Kenneth G. Holum, “Identity and the Late Antique City: The Case of Caesarea,” in Religious and Ethnic Communities in Later Roman Palestine, ed. Hayim Lapin (Studies and Texts in Jewish History and Culture, 5; Potomac, MD: University Press of Maryland, 1998), p. 174. 48. Pummer, Early Christian Authors, p. 265. 49. Pummer, Early Christian Authors, p. 309. 50. Pummer, Early Christian Authors, p. 279. 51. Scott, The Civil Law, vol. XVII, p. 168. 52. For the following see Reinhard Pummer, “Foot-Soldiers of the Byzantines or Spies for the Muslims? The Role of the Samaritans in the Muslim Conquest of Palestine,” in Biblical and Near Eastern Essays: Studies in Honour of Kevin J. Cathcart (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series, 375; London; New York: T & T Clark International, 2004), pp. 280-96. 53. Pummer, “Foot-Soldiers,” p. 282. 54. Pummer, “Foot-Soldiers,” p. 258. 55. See Milka Levy-Rubin, The Continuatio of the Samaritan Chronicle of Abū l-Fatḥ al-Sāmirī al-Danafī (Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam, 10; Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press, 2002), pp. 52-53. 56. Moshe Florentin, The Tulida: A Samaritan Chronicle: Text, Translation, Commentary [in Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Yad Yitzchak Ben Zvi; The Rabbi David Moshe and Amalia Rosen Foundation, 1999), 10a150 (p. 93). 57. Stenhouse, Kitāb, pp. 245-46. Towards the end of the chronicle the compiler mentions that the Samaritans living along the coast, together with the Byzantines, had to flee from before the sons of Ishmael, but, so he adds, “Muhammad (himself) never mistreated any of the followers of the Law,” i.e. the Samaritans (Stenhouse, Kitāb, p. 249). 58. Elkan Nathan Adler and Max Séligsohn, “Une nouvelle chronique samaritaine,” REJ 45 (1902): 238. 59. Samuel Kohn, Zur Sprache, Literatur und Dogmatik der Samaritaner. Drei Abhandlungen nebst zwei bisher unedierten samaritanischen Texten (Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, 5.4; Nendeln, Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprints, 1966; orig. 1876), p. 192. 60. Stenhouse, Kitāb, p. 249. 61. Levy-Rubin, The Continuatio, p. 53. 62. Quotations from the Qurʾan follow Abdullah Yūsuf ʿAlī, The Holy Qurʾān: Text, Translation and Commentary, New Revised Edition (Brentwood, MD: Amana Corporation, 1989). Bosworth states that “In the Qurʾân, the mysterious as-Sâmirî is considered to be the founder of the Samaritan community” (Clifford Edmund Bosworth, “Christian and Jewish Religious Dignitaries in Mamlûk Egypt and Syria: Qalqashandî’s Information on Their Hierarchy, Titulature, and Appointment,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 3 [1972]: 213, n. 4). 63. See Sergio Noja, “Le Coran, le Sāmirī et Simon le mage,” in Studi sul Vicino Oriente antico dedicati alla memoria di Luigi Cagni, ed. Simonetta Graziani, Maria C. Casaburi, and Giancarlo Lacerenza (Istituto universitario orientale, Dipartimento di studi asiatici, Series Minor, 61; Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale, 2000), p. 1933; and Gerald R. Hawting, “Calf of Gold,” in Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān, ed. Jane Dammen McAuliffe (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2001), vol. 1, pp. 273-76. But see also below, section 6: “The Ottoman Period.” 64. For an enumeration of such hypotheses see Bernhard Heller and Andrew Rippin, “al-Sāmirī, in Encyclopaedia of Islam: New Edition 8 (1995), p. 1046. Noja (“Le Coran, le Sāmirī,” p. 1928) sees the connection between the Samaritans and the “calf” in Hosea 8:4-6: “With their silver and gold they made idols for their own destruction. Your calf is rejected, O Samaria…. For it is from Israel, an artisan made it; it is not God. The calf of Samaria shall be broken to pieces.” See also the references to earlier attempts to clear up this story in Haim Schwarzbaum, Biblical and Extra-Biblical Legends in Islamic Folk-Literature (Beiträge zur Sprach- und Kulturgeschichte des Orients, 30; Waldorf-Hessen: H. Vorndran, 1982), pp. 15, 129-31. 65. See the chapters on Origen and Epiphanius in Pummer, Early Christian Authors. For a Samaritan halakhic text on this matter see Sergio Noja, Il Kitāb al-Kāfī dei Samaritani. Istituto Orientale di Napoli (Pubblicazioni del Seminario di Semitistica. Ricerche, 7; Naples, 1970), pp. 83-84; and Dorreya Mohammed ‘Abd al-ʿAl, “A Comparative Study of the Unedited Work of Abu ʿl-Ḥasan al Ṣūrī and Yūsuf Ibn Salamah,” Ph.D. diss., Leeds University, 1957, pp. 565-66 (translation). Goldziher believes that Muḥammad drew his knowledge of the Samaritan purity concerns from a Jewish source (Ignaz Goldziher, “La Misāsa,” Revue Africaine 268 [1908]: 23-28). 66. See Steven Mark Wasserstrom, “Species of Misbelief: A History of Muslim Heresiography of the Jews,” Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto, 1985, p. 363; and Moshe Gil, A History of Palestine, 634-1099 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), p. 822. 67. See Bosworth, “Christian and Jewish Religious Dignitaries,” p. 213; and Richard J. H. Gottheil, “An Eleventh Century Document Concerning a Cairo Synagogue,” JQR 19 (1907): 499, n. 1; p. 533 (for instructions to the head of the Samaritans), and p. 536 (for the form of the oath to be taken by Samaritans).

68. Levy-Rubin, The Continuatio, p. 53. 69. Cf. Levy-Rubin, The Continuatio, pp. 27-28. 70. Philip Khûri Hitti, trans., The Origins of the Islamic State, Being a Translation from the Arabic, Accompanied with Annotations, Geographic and Historic Notes of the Kitâb Futûḥ al-Buldân of al-Imâm abul-l ʿAbbâs Aḥmad ibn-Jâbir al-Balâdhuri (Columbia University Studies in the Social Sciences, 163; New York: AMS Press, 1968 [orig. 1916]), vol. 1, pp. 244-45. 71. Levy-Rubin, The Continuatio, p. 73. 72. Levy-Rubin, The Continuatio, p. 77; and Milka Levy-Rubin, “New Evidence Relating to the Process of Islamization in Palestine in the Early Muslim Period — The Case of Samaria,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 43 (2000): 265. 73. For the following see Levy-Rubin, The Continuatio, pp. 91-92. 74. On the question of the jizya and the Samaritans, see below. 75. Levy-Rubin, The Continuatio, p. 95; and Levy-Rubin, “New Evidence,” p. 266. 76. Levy-Rubin, The Continuatio, p. 102; and Levy-Rubin, “New Evidence,” p. 267. 77. Levy-Rubin, “New Evidence,” p. 268. 78. See Levy-Rubin, The Continuatio, p. 37, with reference to Gil, A History of Palestine, p. 307. 79. For the text see Levy-Rubin, The Continuatio, p. 103. 80. Levy-Rubin, The Continuatio, p. 103. 81. Levy-Rubin, The Continuatio, p. 109. 82. For the text see Levy-Rubin, The Continuatio, pp. 110-11; and for the discussion, pp. 39-40. See also the chapter “The Samaritan Pentateuch.” 83. See Ze’ev Ben-Ḥayyim, The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic Amongst the Samaritans [in Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1957-1977), vol. I, pp. ; and the chapter “Samaritan Literature” below. 84. See Meron Benvenisti, The Crusaders in the Holy Land (Jerusalem: Israel Universities Press, 1970), p. 18. 85. Benjamin notes explicitly that there were no Jews in Nablus. 86. Marcus Nathan Adler, The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela (London: Henry Frowde, 1907), pp. 20, 28, 30. 87. Guy Le Strange, Palestine Under the Moslems. A Description of Syria and the Holy Land from A.D. 650 to 1500. Translated from the Works of the Medieval Arab Geographers (London: Published for the Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund by Alexander P. Watt, 1890), p. 512. 88. Le Strange, Palestine Under the Moslems, p. 513. 89. This was pointed out by Benjamin Ze’ev Kedar, “The Frankish Period,” in The Samaritans, ed. Alan D. Crown (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), p. 84, who adds: “surely a unique situation.” 90. For a survey see Kedar, “The Frankish Period”; and Ferdinand Dexinger, “Die Samaritaner in der Kreuzzugszeit,” in Die Folgen der Kreuzzüge für die orientalische Religionsgemeinschaft: Internationales Kolloquium vom 16.-18.10.1996 in Halle/Saale, ed. Walter Beltz (Hallesche Beiträge zur Orientwissenschaft, 22; Halle: Institut für Orientalistik, 1997), pp. 94-115. 91. See Lutz Richter-Bernburg, “St. John of Acre-Nablus-Damascus: The Samaritan Minority Under Crusaders and Muslims,” in Die Folgen der Kreuzzüge für die orientalische Religionsgemeinschaft: Internationales Kolloquium vom 16.-18. 10. 1996 in Halle/Saale, ed. Walter Beltz (Hallesche Beiträge zur Orientwissenschaft, 22; Halle: Institut für Orientalistik, 1997), p. 119. 92. See Richter-Bernburg, “St. John of Acre-Nablus-Damascus,” p. 121, n. 15. 93. For the references to primary sources, see Kedar, “The Frankish Period,” p. 93. Cf. William Barron Stevenson, The Crusaders in the East: A Brief History of the Wars of Islam with the Latins in Syria During the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries (Cambridge: University Press, 1907), pp. 40, 62, 142 n. 6, 235, 321, 323-24. 94. Cf. Richter-Bernburg, “St. John of Acre-Nablus-Damascus,” p. 120. 95. See Adler and Séligsohn, “Une nouvelle chronique samaritaine,” REJ 46 (1903): 126. 96. Stenhouse, Kitāb, p. 183. 97. See Richter-Bernburg, “St. John of Acre-Nablus-Damascus,” p. 129. 98. Cf. Kedar, “The Frankish Period,” pp. 86-87. 99. On this synagogue see “Archaeological Excavations.” 100. Adler and Séligsohn, “Une nouvelle chronique samaritaine,” REJ 46 (1903): 127-29. 101. A convenient selection can be found in Nathan Schur, History of the Samaritans, 2nd rev. and enlarged ed. (Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testamentes und des antiken Judentums, 18; Frankfurt am Main; Bern; New York; Paris: Peter Lang, 1992), pp. 106-11. 102. Le Strange, Palestine Under the Moslems, p. 513. 103. Elkan Nathan Adler, Jewish Travellers (London: G. Routledge, 1930), pp. 141-42. 104. Cf. Adler, Jewish Travellers, pp. 161, 171-72. For the Samaritans in Egypt see also Reinhard Pummer, “The Samaritans in Egypt,” in Études sémitiques et samaritaines offertes à Jean Margin, ed. Christian-Bernard Amphoux, Albert Frey, and Ursula Schattner-Rieser (Lausanne: Éditions du Zèbre, 1998), pp. 213-32. 105. This and the following quotes are from Adler, Jewish Travellers, pp. 225-26. 106. See Wasserstrom, “Species of Misbelief,” pp. 419-20; Rāfiḍa is one of the names for the Shiʿa. 107. Cf. Nathan Schur, “The Samaritans in the Ottoman Period (1516-1918),” in Proceedings of the First International Congress of the Société d’Études Samaritaines, Tel Aviv, April 11-13, 1988, ed. Abraham Tal and Moshe Florentine (Tel Aviv: Chaim Rosenberg School for Jewish Studies, Tel Aviv University, 1991), p. 148. 108. On the taḥrir registers and their usefulness and limitations for a historical reconstruction of demographic and economic data, see Amnon Cohen and Bernard Lewis, eds., Population and Revenue in the Towns of Palestine in the 16th Century (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1978), pp. 3-18. No such registers have been published yet for Cairo and Damascus. 109. See Cohen and Lewis, Population and Revenue; Schur, History of the Samaritans, p. 123; and Andrew Petersen, The Towns of Palestine Under

Muslim Rule: AD 600-1600 (BAR International Series, 1381; Oxford, England: Archaeopress, 2005). No such numbers exist for later centuries. 110. This is the coefficient used by Cohen and Lewis, Population and Revenue, pp. 14-15. Schur counts four persons for each household and arrives therefore at lower numbers (Schur, History of the Samaritans, p. 123). Petersen multiplies the number of households by five, but omits bachelors and religious persons because they were not consistently recorded in the Ottoman registers (Petersen, The Towns of Palestine, p. 125). 111. For the percentage of the population figures see Petersen, The Towns of Palestine, p. 128. 112. In January 1546, a strong earthquake in Syria-Palestine killed 300-500 people in Nablus, or, according to other sources, 900, 500 of them buried under the ruins (Daniel H. K. Amiran, E. Arieh, and T. Turcotte, “Earthquakes in Israel and Adjacent Areas: Macroseismic Observations Since 100 B.C.E.,” IEJ 44 [1994]: 271). 113. In Table 3, Cohen and Lewis count 15 households, i.e., 90 persons. 114. For these figures see Cohen and Lewis, Population and Revenue, pp. 122-26 (Gaza) and 147-49 (Nablus). 115. See Schur, History of the Samaritans, p. 123. Petersen, The Towns of Palestine, p. 127 lists no Samaritans for this year. 116. On Cairo see the chapter “Geographical Distribution.” 117. Due to his calculation that a household comprised only four persons, Schur counts between 500 and 600 individuals (Schur, History of the Samaritans, p. 123). 118. Uriel Heyd, Ottoman Documents on Palestine, 1552-1616 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1960), pp. 172-73; the explanations in angle brackets < > are mine. 119. Heyd, Ottoman Documents, p. 173. 120. For the following see Eugen Mittwoch, “Muslimische Fetwās über die Samaritaner,” OLZ 29 (1926): 845-49. 121. See section 3, “Early Muslim Period,” above. 122. So Mittwoch, “Muslimische Fetwās,” p. 849. 123. See Florentin, Tulida, p. 123; and Adler and Séligsohn, “Une nouvelle chronique samaritaine,” REJ 46 (1903): 134. See further below. 124. Adler and Séligsohn, “Une nouvelle chronique samaritaine,” REJ 46 (1903): 135-36. 125. See Pummer, “The Samaritans in Egypt,” p. 231. 126. See Edward Robertson, “Ibrahim Al-ʿAyyah: A Samaritan Scholar of the Eighteenth Century,” in Essays in Honour of the Very Rev. Dr. J. H. Hertz, Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the British Empire, on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, September 25, 1942 (5703), ed. Isidore Epstein, Ephraim Levine, and Cecil Roth (London: Edward Goldston, 1943), pp. 341-50; Ben-Ḥayyim, The Literary and Oral Tradition [in Hebrew], vol. I, pp. ; Ferdinand Dexinger, Der Taheb: Ein “messianischer” Heilsbringer der Samaritaner (Kairos; Religionswissenschaftliche Studien, 3; Salzburg: Otto Müller, 1986), pp. 49-52. 127. On the Tuqan family see also J.-A. Jaussen, Coutumes palestiniennes I. Naplouse et son district (Paris: Librairie orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1927), p. 135. 128. These tombs are still venerated by the Samaritans today (see Reinhard Pummer, The Samaritans [Iconography of Religions, 23.5; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1987], pp. 10-12, and pls. XVI and XVII). 129. Adler and Séligsohn, “Une nouvelle chronique samaritaine,” REJ 46 (1903): 137. 130. Quoted in John Mills, Three Months’ Residence at Nablus and an Account of the Modern Samaritans (London: John Murray, 1864), pp. 280-81. 131. For a description of the politics of the district of Nablus in mid-nineteenth century see James Finn, Stirring Times or Records from Jerusalem Consular Chronicles of 1853 to 1856, by the late James Finn; ed. and comp. by his widow (London: C. Kegan Paul, 1878), vol. I, pp. 237-43. 132. Antoine-Isaac Silvestre de Sacy, “Correspondance des Samaritains de Naplouse, pendant les années 1808 et suiv,” Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la bibliothèque du roi et autres bibliothèques 12 (1831): 126. 133. See Paul Kahle, “Die Samaritaner im Jahre 1909 (A.H. 1327),” PJ 24 (1930): 96; and Yaacov Shavit, Yaacov Goldstein, and Haim Beʾer, eds., Personalities in Eretz-Israel 1799-1948: A Biographical Dictionary [in Hebrew] (Tel-Aviv: Am Oved Publishers, 1983), pp. 256-57. 134. See Edward Thomas Rogers, Notices of the Modern Samaritans, Illustrated by Incidents in the Life of Jacob esh Shelaby, Gathered from Him and Translated (London: Sampson Low and Son, 1855). The following is based on this memoir. 135. Cf. Florentin, Tulida, p. 93 (10a151); and Adolf Neubauer, “Chronique samaritaine, suivie d’un appendice contenant de courtes notices sur quelques autres ouvrages samaritains,” JA 14 (1869): 443. 136. See Nathan Schur, “ʿAbd as-Sāmīri,” in A Companion to Samaritan Studies, ed. Alan D. Crown, Reinhard Pummer, and Abraham Tal (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1993), p. 2. 137. E. T. Rogers, Notices, p. 16. 138. On an “enticed” conversion of a young Samaritan boy and his subsequent treatment at the hands of the Muslims see also Finn, Stirring Times, vol. II, pp. 269-70. 139. E. T. Rogers, Notices, p. 30. 140. According to Finn, when Samaritans came to Jerusalem on business, they lodged and ate with Karaites rather than rabbinical Jews who made “no secret of their hatred of both peoples” (Finn, Stirring Times, vol. II, p. 271). 141. On the interpretation of this declaration by a present-day orthodox rabbi in Israel, see the earlier chapter “The Identity of the Samaritans.” 142. He was a major scholar in the Samaritan community of his days, composing poems and copying Pentateuchs. Rumor has it that he left (or had to leave) the high priesthood in 1859 because he married a woman who was the wife of a Samaritan who had converted to Islam, or because the woman was a widow (see Shavit, Goldstein, and Beʾer, Personalities, p. 384). Doubts as to the accuracy of this rumor are expressed by Haseeb Shehadeh, “The Samaritan High Priest ʿImrān Ben Salāma and His Poem Against Mubārak al-Mufarraği Who Became a Convert to Islam in 1841,” in Samaria, Samarians, Samaritans: Studies on Bible, History and Linguistics, ed. József Zsengellér (Studia Judaica, 66, Studia Samaritana, 6; Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, 2011), p. 294. 143. See also Mary Eliza Rogers, Domestic Life in Palestine (2nd ed., rev. and enlarged; London: Bell and Daldy, 1863), p. 245. On Jacob esh-Shelaby’s mission see also Finn, Stirring Times, vol. II, p. 266. 144. According to E. T. Rogers, Notices, p. 51. According to Finn, they were “reduced to about 150 souls at the very utmost, and all are gathered together under the shadow of Mount Gerizim, their other settlements in Gaza, Cairo, &c., having become extinct” (Finn, Stirring Times, vol. II, p. 271).

145. Mills, Three Months’ Residence, p. 179. 146. See Schur, History of the Samaritans, pp. 152-53. 147. M. E. Rogers, Domestic Life, p. 244. 148. See M. E. Rogers, Domestic Life, p. 254. The birth date (1850/81) of this girl in Kahle, “Die Samaritaner im Jahre 1909,” p. 98, must be wrong since she would have been only seven years old at her marriage and eight at the birth of her first son in 1858. Cf. also Reinhard Pummer, Samaritan Marriage Contracts and Deeds of Divorce (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1993 and 1997), vol. 2, p. 140. 149. M. E. Rogers, Domestic Life, p. 244. 150. His Arabic name is Ibrahim Faraj Yaʿqub al-Ṣabaḥi (1852-1928); the Tsedaka clan was then still referred to as the Ṣabaḥi or Ṣafri family (Monika Schreiber, The Comfort of Kin: Samaritan Community, Kinship, and Marriage [Brill’s Series in Jewish Studies, 51; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2014], pp. 34142; on the name see also her ch. 5, p. 178). For a short biography, in Hebrew, see Shavit, Goldstein, and Beʾer, Personalities, p. 22; and Haseeb Shehadeh, “Abraham b. Marḥib b. Ṣadaqa Aṣṣafri (1852-1928),” in A Companion to Samaritan Studies, ed. Alan D. Crown, Reinhard Pummer, and Abraham Tal (Tübingen: J. C. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1993), p. 6. 151. See Schur, History of the Samaritans, p. 196. 152. See Joseph Ginat, Women in Muslim Rural Society: Status and Role in Family and Community (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1982), p. 244. 153. See A.B. Services [Benyamim Tsedaka], “The Neighbourhood on Mt. Gerizim is Flourishing Following the Abandonment of the Samaritan Settlement in Nablus,” A.B.–The Samaritan News 820-821 (15.7.2002): 98-99. The original Samaritan quarter was in the heart of Nablus, but it had to be abandoned after a strong earthquake in 1927. In the 1930s, the new quarter was established in the western section of the city on the slopes of Mt. Gerizim. 154. See Fig. 19 in the chapter “Archaeological Excavations.” 155. In Josh. 18:13 and Judg. 1:23, Luz is equated with Bethel. 156. According to Schur, he decided to move to Gaza because of some disputes in Nablus; on the way, he disappeared, “apparently murdered” (Schur, History of the Samaritans, p. 125). 157. On the designation or for a priest of this line, see Hans Gerhard Kippenberg, Garizim und Synagoge. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur samaritanischen Religion der aramäischen Periode (RVV, 30; Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1971), p. 159, n. 84, with further references. The term is derived from Aramaic , “to say, to proclaim.” The Arabized form is ḥaftawi. It occurs in the liturgy and also in Abu l-Fatḥ’s Kitāb (see Stenhouse, Kitāb, pp. 153, 154, 180). A , spelled also , , , and , was originally an assistant to the high priest, mainly for liturgical functions, such as reading in the synagogue. 158. This is at least today’s reasoning (see, e.g., A.B.–The Samaritan News 1142-1143 [14.6.2013]: 99). For an English translation of the verse see Benyamim Tsedaka, ed. and trans., The Israelite Samaritan Version of the Torah: First English Translation Compared with the Masoretic Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013), p. 279. For a recent discussion of the high priesthood by a Samaritan, see Benyamim Tsedaka, “The High Priesthood and the Israelite Samaritan Priests,” A.B.–The Samaritan News 1107-1108 (13.4.2012): 67-74. 159. In 1672, the Samaritans stated that they have priests descended from Levi and from Aaron and Phinehas: (Silvestre de Sacy, “Correspondance des Samaritains,” pp. 168-169 [text], p. 179 [translation]). In 1685 (or 1675/76, according to Baillet, “Samaritains,” p. 898, no. 16), they note that they no longer have high priests of the lineage of Phinehas, but priests from the family of Levi, and ask their presumed brethren in England to send them a priest from the lineage of Phinehas: … … (Silvestre de Sacy, “Correspondance des Samaritains,” p. 214 [text], pp. 218-219 [translation]). In 1818, Salama b. Ṭabia signed a letter as “Levitical priest” (Silvestre de Sacy, “Correspondance des Samaritains,” p. 152; for the date see Baillet, “Samaritains,” p. 905, n. 58). But in the early 1850s, he took on the title high priest and gave himself a pedigree going back to Eleazar, son of Aaron (Jean Joseph Léander Bargès, Les Samaritains de Naplouse, épisode d’un pèlerinage dans les lieux saints [Paris: Dondey-Dupré, 1855], p. 76). See also Benyamim Tsedaka concerning the descent of the priests from Ithamar in www.israelite-samaritans.com/religion/high-priests. More recently, Tsedaka claimed that the tradition of the descent from Uzziel b. Kohat is based on a misunderstanding by the Samaritan sages, and that the present high priests are descended from Ithamar (Benyamim Tsedaka, Summary of the History of the Israelite-Samaritans [in Hebrew] [Holon, Israel: A.B. Institute of Samaritan Studies Press, 2001], p. 75). See also Schreiber, The Comfort of Kin, pp. 33, 91, 170-71, for the “adjusted” high priestly pedigree. 160. See the chapter “Archaeological Excavations.” 161. For a discussion of these matters see Reinhard Pummer, “Bronze Pendants, Rings and Bracelets with Samaritan Writing from the Byzantine Period: Amulets or Religious Jewelry?” in The Samaritans: History, Texts and Traditions, ed. Stefan Schorch (Studia Judaica, 75, Studia Samaritana, 8; Berlin: De Gruyter, forthcoming). 162. Adler and Séligsohn, “Une nouvelle chronique samaritaine,” REJ 45 (1902): 89-90; and Stenhouse, Kitāb, p. 178. 163. See James Alan Montgomery, The Samaritans, The Earliest Jewish Sect: Their History, Theology and Literature (Philadelphia: The J. C. Winston Co., 1907), p. 103; and Alan D. Crown, “Priesthood,” in A Companion to Samaritan Studies, ed. Alan D. Crown, Reinhard Pummer, and Abraham Tal (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1993), p. 191. 164. Jacob ben Aaron, “The Book of Enlightenment [III],” BSac 70 (1913): 586. 165. Yitzhak Tsedaka, “When It Is Hot It Is Hard to Make Decisions,” A.B.–The Samaritan News 1092-1093 (29.7.2011): 54-59. 166. For details see Schreiber, The Comfort of Kin, p. 106. She adds: “these choices reflect family loyalties no less than theological disputes: the battle for air-conditioning is but one aspect of the well-entrenched opposition between two segments of the Ṣadaqa family.” 167. For a discussion of issues of modernity see the chapters on “Geographical Distribution and Demography” and “The Samaritans Today.”

VIII. Geographical Distribution and Demography Unlike today, in antiquity and during the Middle Ages, when they were much more numerous than they are now, Samaritans lived not only in the area of Samaria and neighboring regions of Palestine but also in many other Mediterranean countries and cities, ranging from Damascus to Egypt and from Thessalonica to Delos, Rome, and Sicily. The existence of these communities is known from literary and epigraphic sources. Some of our sources mention only individual Samaritans, but in many localities communities existed, some with their own Samaritan synagogues. In general, we can say that Samaritans were present in the Mediterranean area where there were Jews. Estimating the size of the Samaritan population before modern times, either in Palestine or in the diaspora, is nearly impossible, although attempts have been made from time to time. The conjectured numbers range from over one hundred thousand to a million or more in the time before they were decimated by revolts and conversions to Christianity and Islam. Some population figures have been preserved in Jewish travel reports of the Middle Ages and in Muslim sources, but more exact numbers begin to appear only in the Ottoman period. Regardless of the numbers, there is clear proof that Samaritans lived not only in Palestine but also in the diaspora. 1

2

1. Palestine As already mentioned, Yahwistic Samarians have always lived in their homeland, the district of Samaria, even after the Assyrian conquest and the population exchanges in the eighth century B.C.E. After the destruction of the Samaritan temple on Mt. Gerizim, the Samaritan population was still concentrated in this region, until the second century C.E., when many spread out to the south and west of their traditional dwelling places and settled in numerous places in Palestine, as literary and archaeological sources attest. In their recent book, Samaritan Cemeteries and Tombs in the Central Coastal Plain, Oren Tal and Itamar Taxel have shown that the spread of the Samaritans outside Samaria “accelerated during the 3rd and 4th centuries CE, when many former Jewish settlements were inhabited by Samaritans, side by side with newly established Samaritan settlements.” This is true in particular for the southern Sharon Plain (between the Poleg and Yarqon rivers) and the central Coastal Plain (the areas of Iamnia/Yavneh and Lydda/Lod). It should be kept in mind that the ongoing archaeological excavations and surveys continue to add more and more sites — urban and rural — in which traces of Samaritan habitation can be identified. New data about the spread and importance of the Samaritan population in Palestine are still coming to light. For instance, ongoing excavations in Herzliya (Apollonia-Arsuf) show that in the Byzantine period (fifth/sixth century) a substantial Samaritan population existed in this area, living side by side with Christians, as evidenced in the remains of a synagogue and a church. Fig. 24 is a recent map depicting the Samaritan settlements in antiquity. At one time Samaritan settlements ranged from Tsur (Tyre) and Akko (Acre) in the north to Gaza and beyond in the south, and from Beth Shean–Scythopolis in the east to Caesarea 3

4

5

6

Maritima and Jaffa in the west, with numerous rural villages on the coastal plain. The motivation for the spread of the Samaritans in the second and third centuries C.E. was, according to some scholars, the difficult economic situation in Samaria; according to others, Palestine, unlike other parts of the Roman empire, prospered in the third century both in its towns and its villages. In any event, Samaritan expansion to the south and to the coast had the benefit of increased economic opportunities. Olive and wine presses unearthed in excavations prove that the cultivation, consumption, and sale of these crops played an important part in the economy of the Samaritans, as did the growing of barley and wheat. After the destruction of the Samaritan temple, along with the surrounding city on Mt. Gerizim and the city of Samaria, by the Hasmoneans in the late second century B.C.E., only scant evidence exists for Samaritan settlements in the following period. Information has to be gleaned from inscriptions, the New Testament, rabbinic writings, Samaritan chronicles, and archaeological excavations. Inscriptions mention Shechem (i.e., either Tal Balatah or Maʿabarta, the future site of Neapolis), Yokmeʿam, ʿAwarta near Mt. Gerizim, Kfar Ḥaggai (today Ḥajje) near Qedumim, and Tiratabah, also near Mt. Gerizim. From Josephus we know that the Samaritans of Ginea (Jenin) assaulted Jewish pilgrims as they journeyed to Jerusalem. The story of the Samaritan woman at the well in the Gospel of John plays near Sychar (ʿEin Sychar). The New Testament also mentions other Samaritan villages without giving their names. According to rabbinic writings, Samaritans settled in a number of towns in Judea after the Bar-Kokhba revolt and later. Whether the rabbis’ accusations that the Samaritans in these towns and villages neglected their halakhic traditions are historically accurate, is a question which needs to be analyzed in more detail than is possible in this context. In the Samaritan chronicles the names of many Samaritan villages occur. However, their existence in the Roman-Byzantine period has not been confirmed by archaeology, or, vice-versa, places identified as Samaritan settlements by archaeology go unmentioned in the chronicles. These names reflect rather the situations when the chronicles were compiled, that is, when Palestine was ruled by Muslims several centuries after the time they claim to depict. From archaeology, the following early Samaritan settlements in Palestine are known: Qedumim, El-Khirbe, Khirbet Samara (Deir Serur), Ḥorbat Migdal (Ẓur Natan), Faḥma, Ṭalluza, Kafr ʿAbbush, Kafr Zebad, Faquʿa, Lower Khirbet Ibzik, and Neapolis, a pagan city with a Samaritan minority and surrounded by Samaritan towns. 7

8

9

10

Fig. 24. Distribution map of Samaritan settlements in antiquity. (Yitzhak Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan, p. 80)

In the Byzantine period the most important cities with a Samaritan population were Neapolis (Nablus) with its hinterland, Caesarea, Scythopolis (Beth Shean), and Gaza. Caesarea, the undisputed capital of the province that included Judea, Samaria, Idumea, and parts of the Galilee, was the largest Samaritan center outside of Samaria. When the Samaritans first settled there remains unknown; it may have been when king Herod founded the city between 22 and 10 or 9 B.C.E., although our earliest information dates their presence only in the third century C.E. Between the third or fourth century and the seventh century they were numerous in and around Caesarea. For the third century we have information about Samaritans, particularly their beliefs, in the works of the most important Christian scholar of antiquity, Origen, who resided in Caesarea from 232 to the end of his life (ca. 254) and had ample opportunity to become acquainted with the Samaritans’ views on a number of subjects, including their denial of resurrection, the limitation of their sacred scripture to the Pentateuch, their veneration of Mt. Gerizim, their fear of touching members of another “race,” their meticulous observance of the law of circumcision, and the Samaritan messianic 11

claimant Dositheus. In the fourth century, the numbers of the Samaritans in the city were so large that only together did Jews and Gentiles outnumber them. It has been estimated that in the third and fourth centuries the total population of Caesarea was approximately seventy thousand, more or less evenly divided among pagans, Jews, Samaritans, and Christians. Other scholars put the population numbers of Caesarea, at its largest extension in Byzantine times (ca. 111.5 hectares), between 35,000 and 100,000. Rabbinic sources indicate that Samaritans occupied important positions in the military and civil administration. As described in the chapter “The Samaritans in History,” Caesarea played an important role in the struggle of the Samaritans with the Christians, particularly in the series of Samaritan revolts in the fifth and sixth centuries. Furthermore, rabbinic sources tell of the antagonism between Jews and Samaritans in the city. It was Jewish sages of Caesarea who not only accused the Samaritans of idolatry, but also declared them equal to Gentiles. While our written information about the Samaritans in Caesarea is substantive, the available material evidence is very scanty. In particular we should expect to find remains of Samaritan synagogues, but to date archaeological excavations have not unequivocally identified one. A basilica to the south of the hippodrome built by Herod, measuring 32 x 17.5 m, was interpreted to be a church. But since the Greek inscriptions in it are not preceded by crosses, as is usual in Christian inscriptions, and the building’s apse is oriented towards the east, i.e., towards Mt. Gerizim, some have suggested that it may be a Samaritan synagogue. One clearly Samaritan type of material remains are amulets and rings inscribed with Samaritan script and biblical citations found in and around Caesarea. Of the so-called Samaritan oil lamps, those with inscriptions in Samaritan letters, some of which were found in Caesarea, clearly are to be assigned to Samaritans. The Samaritans’ troubled relationship with the Christian authorities explains their willingness to assist the Muslims — as did the Jews — when they besieged Caesarea in the early seventh century. Several sources testify that at that time substantial numbers of Samaritans were still living in the city, some of them fighting on the side of the Byzantines, others acting as spies for the Muslims. Gradually, the number of Samaritans in Caesarea dwindled, and in the crusader period Benjamin of Tudela estimates their number at only 200. Eventually, none were left. Another city with a sizable Samaritan population was Gaza, one of the most extensive and prosperous Palestinian cities in Roman-Byzantine times. Until the fifth century C.E., paganism was strong in the city, with eight temples dedicated to various gods and goddesses. These were destroyed by Christians, who built a church over one of the temples. Jews and Samaritans established themselves in the city in the Byzantine period. A Jewish synagogue built at the beginning of the sixth century was discovered by the sea shore; its large size and ornate decoration are a sign of the magnitude and wealth of the community. We do not know when the first Samaritans settled in Gaza. It has been conjectured that in the fourth century B.C.E., King Ptolemy Soter may have left some Samaritan soldiers there when, according to Josephus (Ant. 12:7), he brought the captives “from the hill country of Judea and the district round Jerusalem and from Samaria and those on Garizein” to Egypt. The oldest testimony to the presence of Samaritans in Gaza comes from Eusebius: Paul, a 12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Christian who was apprehended and martyred in Gaza, prayed on the scaffold for his fellow Christians, for the Jews, for the pagans, and also for the Samaritans. In a historically questionable passage, Abu l-Fatḥ writes that Baba Rabba gave to one of the leaders of the community, Israel b. Machir, the area from Gaza to the Nile. A Samaritan inscription on marble, found in the vicinity of Gaza in 1872, is dated on palaeographic grounds to the fifth or sixth century C.E. Unfortunately, two other inscriptions discovered at the same occasion have been obliterated and used as building material. The extant inscription consists of the text of Deuteronomy 4:29-31a (in the Samaritan version) and Deuteronomy 31:8. Whether the inscribed stone comes from a synagogue, as some have surmised, cannot be determined. A Decalogue inscription from Gaza was possibly a lintel of a synagogue of the Arabic period, as are other inscriptions. In the past, inscriptions were usually ascribed to synagogues, even if no other building traces were associated with them in the archaeological excavations. As mentioned, Joseph Naveh questioned this assumption, pointing out that in light of the protective nature of the texts most of them may have belonged to private houses instead. According to the Continuatio of Abu l-Fatḥ’s chronicle, the Samaritans of the coastal towns, including Gaza and Maiumas, the port of Gaza which became a city in its own right in the fourth century, fled when the Muslims attacked in 634. They deposited their possessions for safekeeping with ʿAqbun b. Elʿazar in Bayt Ṣama, a Samaritan village in the district of Nablus, thinking “they would be returning soon,” although, the chronicle reports, they “have not returned to this day.” However, Samaritans did continue to live in Gaza. The Chronicum miscellaneum ad annum domini 724 pertinens, written in 640 in Syriac, also reports on the battle between the Arabs and the Byzantines that took place east of Gaza in the year 634, in which “Some 4,000 poor village people of Palestine were killed there, Christians, Jews and Samaritans. The Arabs ravaged the whole region.” Unfortunately, we cannot deduce the size of the Samaritan community at the beginning of the seventh century from this number. The patristic writer Procopius of Gaza (ca. 475–ca. 538) not only was born in the city, but he lived there all his life. However, he does not seem to have been acquainted with Samaritans because the little he writes about them concerns only Mt. Gerizim and seems to be derived from literary sources. In the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries many manuscripts were copied in Gaza. Gradually, the Samaritan population shrank to very small numbers. In 1481, Meshullam of Volterra counted only four Samaritan householders living on the hillside in Gaza. However, other sources mention twenty-five Samaritan households in 1525/26 and eight households in 1595/96. As mentioned previously, in 1624 Salama b. Pinḥas, the last Aaronite high priest, died in Gaza. The event is described in a nineteenth-century addition to the Tūlīda in a matter of fact way, and in the Chronicle Neubauer in a more dramatic fashion. Salama b. Pinḥas is said to have gone from Shechem to Gaza to preach with indignation and anger, being disgusted with the life of this world and the perverse spirit of the humans, with their misdeeds and their sins. While walking towards the city, he asked God to let him die, to take him from this world and reunite him with his ancestors, the righteous. God granted him his wish and he disappeared. The actual events leading to his death are unknown. Samaritans lived in the city until the end of the eighteenth century. When Napoleon’s troops advanced on Gaza in 1799, the Jews and Samaritans fled. While the Jews came back and a Jewish 24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

community existed in the city until the First World War, the Samaritans never returned. In the early twentieth century, Samaritans settled again for some time in a number of cities in Palestine, such as Jaffa, Tulkarem, Salt in Transjordan, Ramat Gan, Rishon LeZion, Netanya, and Haifa. Eventually, Nablus-Mt. Gerizim and Ḥolon became the two centers where the majority of the Samaritans settled. About thirty families presently live outside Ḥolon in neighboring towns (Binyamina-Givʾat Ada, Matan, and Ashdod), although most of them spend Sabbaths and festivals with their parents in Ḥolon. 36

37

38

2. Diaspora As is well known, there is a far-flung Jewish diaspora that has existed well over two millennia as an important part of Judaism. The situation is different in the case of the Samaritans. For many centuries they have dwelled close to the center of their faith, and there was no Samaritan diaspora during that time. From literary and epigraphic evidence, however, we know that once such a Samaritan diaspora did exist. What we do not know is when exactly it began and how large it was. Some scholars have hazarded an estimate of the size of the diaspora, with an approximate figure of 150,000. As in the case of population estimates for Samaria, the estimates for the diaspora are based on figures given in ancient sources in connection with the number of people killed in battles and raids or enslaved afterwards. In most cases these figures are probably inflated. Unfortunately, the actual size of the Samaritan diaspora at any given time will never be known, although for the Middle Ages and later we do have a few numbers of Samaritans in some of the diaspora communities, as will be seen below. Settlements for which we have evidence for the existence of a synagogue must have had a sufficiently large number of members to build and sustain it, unless we are to assume that a small number of wealthy Samaritans were responsible for the erection and maintenance of the building. But if our evidence is limited to an inscription recording the construction of the building and the names of donors, it is impossible to draw conclusions about the size of the congregation. Other questions for which definite answers elude us are: In the diaspora, did the Samaritans always marry exclusively within their group, and, more generally, what held the diaspora communities together? We can safely assume that the Samaritans continued the biblical tradition of patrilineality practiced still today, as opposed to the Jews who in Talmudic times instituted the principle of matrilineality, also practiced by the majority to this day. Concerning the traditions binding the members together, we know that the Samaritan communities in Delos and Thessalonica were attached to their sacred center, Mt. Gerizim near Nablus, because they express this devotion in inscriptions incised respectively in the second century B.C.E. and in Byzantine times. Although around the year 1000 C.E., Samaritans resided already in various countries, the medieval Muslim scholar Abu Muḥammad ʿAli b. Aḥmad b. Ḥazm al-Andalusi (994-1063) notes twice in his Book of Religions and Sects that the Samaritans were forbidden to leave Palestine. In one instance he cites this as the reason why the Torah of the Samaritans — which, he notes, differs from that of the other Jews — is inaccessible. Thus, either he was ignorant of the existence of Samaritans outside of Palestine, or he was given information 39

40

41

42

43

about the ideal rather than the reality. It is worth noting here that for several years the Samaritan bi-weekly paper A.B.–The Samaritan News has printed in every issue a list of the four marks of identification of a Samaritan, the first being “settlement within the Land of Israel, without leaving its historical borders or establishing residence outside it.” Obviously, this is written with the present situation in mind. As in the case of the Samaritan temple on Mt. Gerizim, whose one-time existence is denied by contemporary Samaritans, they also deny that there ever was a diaspora outside Palestine. Thus, page one of a 1995 publication by the A.B. Institute of Samaritan Studies in Ḥolon, entitled The Samaritan Survival, categorically states that “diasporas were never established outside the Land of Israel.” It seems that in both cases the present reality and the ideal have influenced statements about the past existence of a Samaritan temple and a Samaritan diaspora. For the identification of Samaritans living outside of Palestine, the statement made at the beginning of this work bears repeating: the ancient sources did not make our distinction between “Samarians” and “Samaritans.” Thus, “Samaritans” in these sources may in fact refer to any person hailing from Samaria, regardless of his or her religious affiliation. Only in rare cases was the precision “Samaritan by religion” added to a name, as, for instance, in the Greek deed of divorce from the year 586 C.E. issued in Hermopolis, Egypt, in which both husband and wife are said to be “Samaritans by religion” (Σαμαρῖται τὴν θρησκίαν). A further caveat is relevant here: the similarity or even identity of Jewish and Samaritan symbols and personal names is apt to hide the true identity of persons mentioned in epigraphic sources, particularly in epitaphs. As Pieter van der Horst rightly remarked, “there may be many more Samaritan inscriptions than we will ever be able to identify.” If Josephus is to be believed, the oldest Samaritan diaspora community was established in Egypt in the fourth century B.C.E. In Ant. 11:345 he recounts that Alexander took the soldiers of Sanballat, the governor of Samaria, with him to Egypt, where he gave them allotments of land in the Thebaid. Later, in Ant. 12:7-10, he writes about confrontations between the descendants of the Samaritans and Jews that were settled in Egypt by Ptolemy I Soter (304282 B.C.E.), and in Ant. 13:74-79 he writes of another encounter between the two groups in Alexandria under Ptolemy VI Philometor (180-145 B.C.E.). Possibly we have here Josephus’s embellishment of a historical core. If so, it would mean that Samaritans were present in Egypt in the third/second century B.C.E. Papyri of the late third century B.C.E. mention a village “Samareia” in the Fayum, and some scholars believe that it was named so by Samaritan settlers. Samaritans in Egypt are mentioned also in the Historia Augusta from the end of the fourth century C.E. (Vita Saturnini 7.5 and 8.3). Like Jewish archisynagogoi and Christian priests, Samaritans are said to be astrologists, diviners, and charlatans. Although the context is a fictional letter of emperor Hadrian, the passages show “how a writer of the fourth century imagined the religious composition of the Egyptian population.” In a letter written in Egypt in the fifth century, the author swears by Mt. Gerizim: μὰ τὸν Αργαριζίν. As mentioned, a deed of divorce from the late sixth century Hermopolis explicitly identifies the parties as 44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

“Samaritans by religion.” In later centuries, Cairo became an important center for the Samaritans, with its own community head (rabis), priests, and scribes whose names are known from manuscripts written in Egypt and still extant. Arabic writers of the twelfth century mention the Samaritan community in Cairo and a cemetery that they shared with the Jews, suggesting that the community was small and could not afford its own cemetery. From another source we can deduce that some members were poor and others well-off. Samaritans in Cairo are also mentioned in several Karaite and Muslim writings of the thirteenth century. For the fourteenth century, several names of Samaritan priests appear in deeds of manuscript sales. As opposed to earlier times, when a Jew was head of the Rabbanite community as well as the Karaite and Samaritan communities, in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the Samaritans had their own head, who remained subordinate to the head of the Rabbanite Jews. Towards the end of the fifteenth century, in 1481, the Jewish traveler Meshullam b. Menahem of Volterra, at the occasion of his visit to the Jews of Cairo, mentions also that there were only fifty Samaritan householders there, whereas there were none in Alexandria. The sultan had set a Jew as head over Rabbanites, Karaites, and Samaritans. In 1488, another Jewish traveller, Obadiah of Bertinoro, cites the same number of householders, mentions their temple (mqdsh) on Mt. Gerizim, and states that they are the wealthiest of all Jews in Cairo, filling most of the important state offices. Due to their small number, however, they had only one synagogue, whereas the Jews had ten. Their numbers continued to diminish, and in 1608 only ten Samaritan families were left in Cairo; in 1616 only seven remained, and in 1690 only one couple, an old and very poor man and his wife, remained. The community, whose beginnings go back to Hellenistic times, seems to have died out around 1700. Their synagogue was taken over either by the Rabbanites or the Karaites; no traces of it are left. The only material vestiges surviving are papyri from the Byzantine period, including the deed of divorce mentioned above, letters from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Torah manuscripts, and copies of chronicles. Greece is another area in which Samaritans are documented from the second century B.C.E. on. The earliest evidence comes from the Delos inscriptions described in the chapter “Archaeological Excavations.” An inscription from Thessalonica shows that a Samaritan synagogue existed in this city in the time of the fourth to the sixth centuries C.E. In Corinth, a Samaritan amulet was discovered which points to another Samaritan diaspora community in Greece. In Athens four funerary inscriptions mention Samaritans, but we do not know whether “Samarians” or “Samaritans” are meant. The same applies to inscriptions found in Piraeus. Greater certainty exists for a Samaritan presence in Sicily, where an inscription in Samaritan Hebrew was discovered, quoting from Numbers 10:35 and possibly dating from a third or fourth century C.E. synagogue. In the sixth century, Pope Gregory the Great (ca. 540604) admonished the bishop of Catania not to permit the Samaritans to buy pagan slaves and circumcise them; those that have been bought must be freed. He also decreed that Samaritans must not possess Christian slaves. A Samaritan synagogue in Rome is the subject of the Ostrogothic King Theodoric the 53

54

55

56

57

58

59

Great’s letter from approximately 507-511 C.E., preserved by Flavius Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator in his Variae, a collection of letters, edicts and models of documents. According to this letter, the Samaritans claimed that a certain house in Rome, now in the property of the Church, was once their synagogue and should be returned to them. Although the outcome of the quarrel is not known, we can infer that in the early sixth century there was a Samaritan community in Rome large enough to have a synagogue. In his Secret History or Anecdota 27.26-31, Procopius of Caesarea (ca. 500–ca. 554) reports that a Samaritan by the name Faustinus, who had outwardly converted to Christianity, reached such high offices as senator and “ruler of the land.” Early in his career he was removed from his office and went to Constantinople, where he was accused of practicing his original religion and mistreating the Christians in Palestine. Emperor Justinian condemned him to exile, although thanks to a large bribe from Faustinus he was reinstated in his former dignity. Carthage is another city where Samaritans were found in the seventh century according to a letter of Maximus the Confessor (ca. 580-662). In Epistula 8 (end), written in Carthage, he records the forced baptism of all Jews and Samaritans in North Africa — indigenous and immigrants — on Pentecost of the year 632, on the order of Emperor Heraclius and his son Heraclius the Younger. Although the large number of forced converts — “tens of thousands” — is probably hyperbole, most scholars are of the opinion that the account is based on historical facts. Beginning with the Middle Ages, Damascus was, after Nablus, the most important center of the Samaritans, reaching its peak in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries and coming to an abrupt end in the early seventeenth century. The community had a high priestly family and many scholars and scribes, as we know from numerous manuscripts containing not only the Torah, but also liturgical, philosophical, halakhic, and other texts. The famous Barberini Triglot, a Pentateuch in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic, was copied in Damascus in the thirteenth century. For the tenth and fourteenth centuries the names of several high priests in Damascus are known. At other times, priests from Damascus became high priests in Shechem. The Samaritans in Damascus had their own liturgy, partially preserved in manuscripts from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. It was the city where Jews and Samaritans interacted more than in other localities. Thus, in the thirteenth century, the author of liturgical texts, Aaron b. Manir, wrote the Song of the Precepts based on Maimonides’s schema of the 613 commandments, enumerated again in the sixteenth century in a work by the Damascene Samaritan, Abraham ha-Qabaṣi, and in the Malef. During the reign of Ṣalaḥ ad-Din al-Ayyubi (1138-1193), called Saladin by the Crusaders, the Samaritans of Damascus had a share in the wealth of the city which became their spiritual center, while the community in Nablus suffered from the consequences of the wars with the Crusaders and was in need of help from the Damascene community. And this, despite the fact that the community was small — Benjamin of Tudela counted only four hundred individuals in 1163. Several famous Samaritan physicians came from Damascus, two becoming viziers in the Ayyubid period, albeit on the condition that they convert to Islam. Curiously, no information about Samaritan synagogues in Damascus is preserved, although 60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

one or more must have existed. Only Pietro della Valle in the seventeenth century briefly mentions that he was shown one in the Samaritan quarter outside the city. He was the first European to obtain a copy of the Pentateuch from the Samaritans. Other manuscript acquisitions from Damascus were to follow. From the sixteenth century, a number of richly decorated and once partially gilded inscriptions, originally adorning not a synagogue, but a private house, have survived. As described earlier, Ottoman officials in the sixteenth century discriminated against the Samaritans of Damascus. Sometimes Damascus served as a safe haven for Samaritans persecuted in Nablus, but at other times the harsh measures of Muslim rulers against the Damascene Samaritans caused many conversions to Islam. According to a piece of information Moritz Sobernheim received from the missionary Rev. Christian Fallscheer, the Samaritans were expelled from Damascus in 1625. Another wealthy and influential Samaritan community existed in Baalbek in Lebanon. The Samaritan physician and scholar Muhaḏḏab al-Din Yusuf b. Abi Saʿid b. Khalaf al-Samiri (d. 1227), originally from Damascus, was vizier of the governor of Baalbek and eventually ruled the whole principality. Many Samaritans moved from Damascus to Baalbek, and thanks to the vizier they became so powerful that nobody dared to oppose them. When the complaints of the people about Muhaḏḏab’s Samaritan relations reached the governor, he had him and his followers arrested and their goods confiscated, although later, Muhaḏḏab was set free and was able to return to Damascus. The decline of the diaspora coincided with the rule of the Ottoman Turks in the early sixteenth century. One community after the other diminished, and eventually the surviving Samaritans moved to Nablus and Gaza, and finally those from Gaza moved also to Nablus. 70

71

72

73

74

75

76

3. Demography The following brings together population numbers previously mentioned in different contexts of this book and extends the purview to the present time. As already noted, more or less accurate figures for Samaritans in Palestine and in the diaspora become available only in the sixteenth century C.E. Nevertheless, many students of the Samaritans wonder about the overall size of the Samaritan community in antiquity. As stated, the ancient sources mention numbers mainly in connection with battles or revolts or sieges. Unfortunately, such figures cannot be taken at face value. As is well known, they were often inflated for a variety of reasons, such as making a victory appear more formidable for the victors and more devastating for the vanquished. Moreover, our sources do not distinguish between “Samarians” and “Samaritans.” In addition, the latter were often included in the number of Jews because the authors did or could not differentiate between the two. Scholars have put forth different estimates. For the Hellenistic-Roman period, estimates of the Samaritan population range from half a million to 100,000. For the fifth and early sixth centuries — before the revolt of 529 — the proposed numbers range from ninety thousand to 500,000. Some authors tried to gauge the numbers on the basis of dead and 77

78

79

captured Samaritans as reported in ancient sources. Discussing other scholars’ estimates and methods to arrive at those figures, Claudine Dauphin settles for a number midway between ninety thousand and 200,000, basing herself on archaeology and historical geography, and examining the differences of the population density evaluated according to the number of sites. In the last analysis, these figures are merely approximations. Only at the beginning of the Middle Ages, when the community had shrunk to a small minority, did more precise figures become available. As noted already in the chapter on the Samaritans in History, according to the Jewish traveler’s account The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela from 1170, a total of nineteen hundred Samaritans lived in all of Palestine, one thousand of them in Nablus. Again, the medieval Arab geographer al-Dimashqi notes that at the end of the thirteenth century most Samaritans lived in Nablus, and “in all the other cities of Palestine together there are not of the Samaritans a thousand souls.” And at the end of the fifteenth century, the Italian rabbi Obadiah da Bertinoro wrote of the Samaritans: “There are very few of them in existence now: it is said scarcely 500 families in all the world.” Five hundred families may have represented twenty-five hundred individuals. Five hundred of them lived in Egypt, the others in Damascus, Nablus, Gaza, and other places in Palestine. More than three hundred years later, in 1838, when the American biblical scholar Edward Robinson visited the Samaritans, he noted that they were “reduced to a very small community; there being only thirty men who pay taxes, and few, if any, who are exempt; so that their whole number cannot be reckoned at over one hundred and fifty souls.” In the Survey of Western Palestine, C. R. Conder and H. H. Kitchener remark that in the years from the 1870s to 1882, the population of the Samaritans increased from 135 to 160 souls. The 1931 Census of Palestine counted 182 individuals. These small numbers did not change substantially until well into the twentieth century. As mentioned, what made matters worse was the fact that there were times when the male births far outnumbered female births. As recounted in the chapter “The Samaritans in History,” many scholars and travelers foresaw the impending demise of the Samaritan community. John Mills had predicted it in the 1850s, and towards the end of the nineteenth century the Viennese rabbi and scholar Sigmund Gelbhaus (1850-1928) entitled his short work on the Samaritans Eine absterbende Rebe am Weinstock Israels (A Dying Shoot on Israel’s Vine). Similar terms were still used many years later, as the following examples demonstrate. In its September 1956 issue, for instance, The Zionist Record Annual of Johannesburg proclaimed, “Samaritans are Doomed.” And in 2001, the May 23 online edition of the Jerusalem Post entitled its report about the death of the high priest Levi b. Abisha b. Pinḥas: “High Priest of Vanishing Samaritan Sect Dead at 82,” and concluded that for the Samaritans, who numbered 252 individuals at that time, the chances of survival are very slim. What finally brought about a change was the marriages of a number of Samaritan men to Jewish women who were willing to adopt the Samaritan religion. No formal conversion ceremony exists; non-Samaritan women who marry Samaritan men must live with the groom’s family for some time, become acquainted with and accept the Samaritan traditions, and thus become Samaritans. In the Samaritan halakhah of the eleventh century, marriage 80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

with a non-Samaritan was strictly forbidden. However, as early as the mid-nineteenth century a change can be documented. In his book, Reisen im Orient, Heinrich Petermann claims that marriage to Christian or Jewish girls is not forbidden to the Samaritans as long as these girls accept the Samaritan faith. The first documented instance of such an intermarriage appears at the end of the nineteenth century, when in two cases Samaritan men married Jewish women from Nablus. Later, more marriages to Jewish women were contracted. One such occasion was reported by the Palestine Post of February 18, 1936: After a lengthy period in which no wedding had taken place among the Samaritans because the women of marriageable age were outnumbered by the men of marriageable age, a Samaritan man married a Jewish woman from Aleppo. The high priest blessing the wedding expressed his hope that many other Samaritan youths would follow their example. As opposed to the Jews who follow the matrilineal principle since Talmudic times, the Samaritans adhere to the biblical patrilineal principle of descent, that is, the descent from a Samaritan father determines whether someone is a Samaritan. Thus, the eleventh-century prohibition of marrying non-Samaritans was practically repealed. But Samaritans point out that a scriptural precedent can be found: Joseph, Jacob’s son, was married to an Egyptian woman, Asenath, daughter of a priest of On (Gen. 41:45), and even Moses had a foreign (Cushite) wife (Num. 12:1), although the Samaritans read “beautiful” instead of “Cushite” and believe Moses had only one wife, Zipporah. Samaritanism applies to women a practice which originated in Judaism during the Hellenistic time. In the Hasmonean period, conversion to Judaism became possible for men through circumcision, but “A gentile woman ‘converted’ to Judaism through marriage with a Jewish husband, a procedure presumed by the Bible and still presumed by Josephus.” The same kind of “conversion” for women is still practiced by the Samaritans. But while Judaism gradually introduced the formal conversion for women by means of immersion, Samaritanism never followed Judaism’s example in this matter. Thanks to the unions with Jewish women and the improved economic situation, at least for some families, the numbers of the community began to rise; in particular during the period of the British Mandate (1918-1948), the Samaritan population increased twofold. In the late twentieth century it reached the figure of almost eight hundred individuals. As of late, not only Jewish women from Israel are chosen as marriage partners for Samaritan men, but also Muslim and Christian women from different countries, including Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and Russia, all of them consenting to live according to the laws of Samaritanism. Of course, not all such marriages last; some are divorced, and in the case of Jewish women, the wives go back to their original families. As opposed to Samaritan men, Samaritan women are not allowed to marry anyone from outside their faith community. If they do, they — and in some cases, also their family — may be ostracized by the other Samaritans. A notorious case is that of Sophie Tsedaka, originally a Samaritan from Ḥolon and now an Israeli Television personality. Her struggle with her community, her family, and herself attracted the attention of the media, including newspapers in the West; and her story has now been told in the documentary Lone Samaritan, directed by the Israeli film-maker Barak Heymann. When Sophie was eight years old, her older sister married an Israeli Jew. Not only was the sister 93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

ostracized, but both Sophie and her parents were shunned by the community. Later, Sophie too fell in love with an Israeli Jew, converted to Judaism, and left her family and her community, as did her two other sisters. Although eventually Sophie separated from her husband, she and her parents remained outsiders. The reasons why women must not marry men other than Samaritans are twofold. One is the fear that the Samaritan faith will be lost when the father is not Samaritan, since, as opposed to Judaism and as mentioned already, the Samaritans follow the patrilineal principle. The second reason is the imbalance between men and women within the community. For the greater part of their history after the Middle Ages, there were more marriageable men than women in the community. However, marriage outside the community is not the only reason why individuals or families are excluded or, more commonly, exclude themselves from their co-religionists. The reasons range from apostasy to Islam and marriage to Muslims, to illicit love affairs, dissatisfaction with the Samaritan lifestyle, feeling that the community did not give credit where credit was due, incompatibility of assigned marriage partners, and also the publishing of secular poetry by a woman in the 1970s. For the future existence of the Samaritan community, it will be important how well it can absorb non-Samaritan women who marry into the community, and what position the offspring of these unions will take vis-à-vis the tradition, especially in view of the added attraction of modern life as experienced by the young. Some members already have attenuated connections to their fellow Samaritans on Mt. Gerizim and in Ḥolon. As is to be expected, the small size of the community and the liaisons between closely related persons — first cousin marriages are prevalent — have caused genetic problems in a number of cases, such as congenital hearing loss, visual impairment (Usher syndrome), and spastic paraplegia. Genetic counseling offered by the Israeli government has had only limited success. Marriages with outsiders have helped to improve the situation. In 2013, the Center for the Study of the Samaritans, located in Nablus, undertook a survey documenting the increase of the Samaritan population in the nearly sixty years between 1954 and 2013. The overall number of Samaritans on January 1, 1954, was 313 (162 male and 151 female); on January 1, 2013, the number was 756 (399 male and 357 female), an increase of 141.5%. Comparing these numbers with the numbers from the year 1919, when the High Priest Yitzhak b. ʿAmram (in office from 1917 to 1932) made a survey, highlights an even more astonishing situation: According to this survey, in 1919 the Samaritans numbered 141 (80 male and 60 female [sic]). In ninety years the numbers rose, therefore, by 536%! The growth is due partly to natural increase, partly to the marriages of 20 Jewish and 10 non-Jewish women, as already mentioned. As well, the survey lists the figures of those who were expelled from the community during this period: 29 (11 men and 18 women). When comparing specifically the distribution between Nablus and Ḥolon, it must be taken into account that in 1967, 25 families moved from Nablus to Ḥolon. On January 1, 1954, the Nablus community comprised 226 persons, and the Ḥolon community 87 persons. Already at the beginning of 2009, the Nablus Samaritans had grown to 341 persons and the Ḥolon Samaritans to 382.

104

105

106

Not only the overall numbers increased, but also the ratio of males to females, ages one to fifteen years, changed favorably. Between 1954 and 1974, the ratio was 103 males to 69 females; between 1974 and 1994, it increased to 107 males and 86 females; between 1994 and 2013, the numbers rose to 100 males and 94 females; and, focusing on the years from 2000 to 2012 only, the ratio was almost 1:1, i.e., 83 males and 82 females. To summarize, in contrast to past centuries the Samaritans are now geographically concentrated primarily in two cities, both located within the general area of Palestine, and no Samaritan diaspora exists. Demographically, their numbers are substantially diminished in comparison to what they were in antiquity, but in comparison with the recent past, they have considerably increased and are still increasing at a remarkable rate. Compared to other homogeneous groups, their current number of approximately eight hundred is minute. However, for the Samaritans this number represents a massive increase, instilling in them the fervent hope that their tradition will endure. 1. See below. 2. See Reinhard Pummer, “Demography,” in A Companion to Samaritan Studies, ed. Alan D. Crown, Reinhard Pummer, and Abraham Tal (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1993), pp. 70-72; and the earlier chapter “The Samaritans in History.” 3. See Itzhak Ben-Zvi, The Book of the Samaritans [in Hebrew], rev. ed., ed. Shemaryahu Talmon (Jerusalem: Yad Itzhak Ben-Zvi, 1970), pp. 57-117 (with a map of the Samaritan settlements in the mountains of Samaria on p. 63 and a map of the Samaritan settlements on the coast on p. 99); Yeshayahu Gafni, “The Samaritans and Their Dwelling Places” [in Hebrew], in Shomron: A Collection of Articles and Studies, ed. Shimon Dar and Yehuda Roth (Tel Aviv: Department for the Knowledge of Israel in the Kibbutz Movement, 1972), pp. 166-81 (reprints the two maps from Ben-Zvi); Yitzhak Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan (Judea & Samaria Publications, 7; Jerusalem: Staff Officer of Archaeology — Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria; Israel Antiquities Authority, 2008), pp. 79-99. Cf. also Benyamim Tsedaka, “Samaritan Israelite Families and Households That Disappeared,” in Samaritans: Past and Present: Current Studies, ed. Menachem Mor and Friedrich V. Reiterer (Studia Judaica, 53, Studia Samaritana, 5; Berlin; New York: De Gruyter, 2010), pp. 221-37. Tsedaka identified 142 households in 45 locations between Southern Syria and Northern Egypt. The names of the locations from Tsedaka’s article were entered in an interactive map by Jim Ridolfo, available at http://samaritanrepository.org/. 4. Oren Tal and Itamar Taxel, Samaritan Cemeteries and Tombs in the Central Coastal Plain: The Archaeology and History of the Samaritan Settlement Outside Samaria (ca. 300-700 CE) (Ägypten und Altes Testament, 82; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2015), p. xv. 5. See, e.g., Oren Tal, “A Winepress at Apollonia-Arsuf: More Evidence on the Samaritan Presence in Roman-Byzantine Southern Sharon,” Liber Annuus 59 (2009): 319-42; also The Jerusalem Post, Aug. 8, 2013 (http://www.jpost.com); and Arutz Sheva, Aug. 7, 2013 (http://www.israelnationalnews.com). The latest discoveries include coins, oil lamps, and a ring with inscriptions in Samaritan script. For earlier publications see Itzhak Ben-Zvi, “Samaritan Arsuf,” BJPES 1, 2 (1933): 24-26; Varda Sussman, “The Samaritan Oil Lamps from Apollonia-Arsuf,” Tel Aviv 10 (1983): 71-96, pls. 2-12; and Israel Roll and Etan Ayalon, eds., Apollonia and Southern Sharon: Model of a Coastal City and Its Hinterland [in Hebrew] (Tel-Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad; Israel Exploration Society, 1989). 6. On the “Samaritan” sarcophagi marked in this map, see the chapter “Samaritan Rituals and Customs.” 7. Doron Bar, “Was There a 3rd-c. Economic Crisis in Palestine?” in The Roman and Byzantine Near East, vol. 3, ed. John H. Humphrey (Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement; Portsmouth, RI, 2002), p. 53. 8. The details are given by Yitzhak Magen, “The Bounds of Samaritan Settlement in the Roman and Byzantine Periods,” in The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan (by Yitzhak Magen; Judea and Samaria Publications, 7; Jerusalem: Staff Officer of Archaeology — Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria; Israel Antiquities Authority, 2008), pp. 79-104. 9. Böhm estimates that in New Testament times the number of Samaritans in Samaria was approximately 100,000 (Martina Böhm, “Wer gehörte in hellenistisch-römischer Zeit zu ‘Israel’? Historische Voraussetzungen für eine veränderte Perspektive auf neutestamentliche Texte,” in Die Samaritaner und die Bibel: Historische und literarische Wechselwirkungen zwischen biblischen und samaritanischen Traditionen = The Samaritans and the Bible: Historical and Literary Interactions between Biblical and Samaritan Traditions, ed. Jörg Frey, Ursula Schattner-Rieser, and Konrad Schmid (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012), p. 199. 10. For details see Magen, “Bounds of Samaritan Settlement in the Roman and Byzantine Period,” pp. 85-91. 11. For details see Reinhard Pummer, “Samaritanism in Caesarea Maritima,” in Religious Rivalries and the Struggle for Success in Caesarea Maritima, ed. Terence L. Donaldson (Studies in Christianity and Judaism/Études sur le christianisme et le judaïsme, 8; Waterloo, Ontario: Published for the Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion/Corporation Canadienne des Sciences Religieuses, 2000), pp. 181-202; Reinhard Pummer, “Religions in Contact and Conflict: The Samaritans of Caesarea Among ‘Pagans,’ Jews and Christians,” in Samaritan Researches, vol. V, ed. Vittorio Morabito, Alan D. Crown, and Lucy Davey (Mandelbaum Studies in Judaica, 10; Sydney: Mandelbaum Publishing, 2000), pp. 3.29-53; and Shimon Dar, “The Samaritans in Caesarea Maritima,” in Samaria, Samarians, Samaritans: Studies on Bible, History and Linguistics, ed. József Zsengellér (Studia Judaica, 66, Studia Samaritana, 6; Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, 2011), pp. 225-35. 12. See Reinhard Pummer, Early Christian Authors on Samaritans and Samaritanism: Texts, Translations and Commentary (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism, 92; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), pp. 40-76. 13. y. Demai 22c. 14. Joseph Ringel, Césarée de Palestine: étude historique et archéologique (Paris: Éditions Ophrys, 1975), p. 91. Holum conjectures that there were “perhaps 25,000 within the ‘Byzantine’ fortifications, and twice that in Caesarea’s subject lands or ‘territory’ ” (Kenneth G. Holum, “Identity and the Late

Antique City: The Case of Caesarea,” in Religious and Ethnic Communities in Later Roman Palestine, ed. Hayim Lapin [Studies and Texts in Jewish History and Culture, 5; Potomac, MD: University Press of Maryland, 1998], pp. 163-64). 15. See Joseph Patrich, Studies in the Archaeology and History of Caesarea Maritima: Caput Judaeae, Metropolis Palaestinae (Leiden: Brill, 2011), p. 94. 16. Cf. y. Abodah Zarah 39c. 17. See Patrich, Studies in the Archaeology and History of Caesarea Maritima, p. 105, n. 70 and 97. 18. See Reinhard Pummer, “Samaritan Amulets from the Roman-Byzantine Period and Their Wearers,” RB 94 (1987): 251-63; Reinhard Pummer, “Bronze Pendants, Rings and Bracelets with Samaritan Writing from the Byzantine Period: Amulets or Religious Jewelry?” in The Samaritans: History, Texts and Traditions, ed. Stefan Schorch (Studia Judaica, 75, Studia Samaritana, 8; Berlin: De Gruyter, forthcoming); and Ronny Reich, “Samaritan Amulets from the Late Roman and Byzantine Periods” [in Hebrew], in The Samaritans, ed. Ephraim Stern and Hanan Eshel (Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi, Israel Antiquities Authority, Staff Officer for Archaeology — Civil Administration for Judea and Samaria, 2002), pp. 289-309. 19. Cf. Magen, “‘Samaritan’ Oil Lamps.” 20. For details see Reinhard Pummer, “Foot-Soldiers of the Byzantines or Spies for the Muslims? The Role of the Samaritans in the Muslim Conquest of Palestine,” in Biblical and Near Eastern Essays: Studies in Honour of Kevin J. Cathcart (JSOTSup, 375; London; New York: T & T Clark International, 2004), pp. 280-96; and the earlier chapter “The Samaritans in History.” 21. See the earlier chapter “The Samaritans in History.” 22. For a description of the synagogue see Asher Ovadiah, “Gaza,” NEAEHL 2 (1993): 465-66. 23. Cf. Hans Gerhard Kippenberg, Garizim und Synagoge. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur samaritanischen Religion der aramäischen Periode (RVV, 30; Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1971), p. 151. 24. De martyribus Palaestinae 8.9-10 (for text and English translation see Pummer, Early Christian Authors, pp. 88-89). 25. Paul Stenhouse, The Kitāb al-Tarīkh of Abū ʾl-Fatḥ: Translated into English with Notes (Studies in Judaica, 1; Sydney: Mandelbaum Trust, University of Sydney, 1985), p. 184. 26. For the inscription and a discussion see Gottfried Reeg, Die antiken Synagogen in Israel, Part 2 (Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B [Geisteswissenschaften] Nr. 12/ 2; Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert, 1977), pp. 585-87. 27. These inscriptions are discussed in Reeg, Die antiken Synagogen in Israel, pp. 586-87. 28. Joseph Naveh, “Did Ancient Samaritan Inscriptions Belong to Synagogues?” in Ancient Synagogues in Israel: Third–Seventh Century C.E. Proceedings of Symposium, University of Hafia [i.e. Haifa], May 1987, ed. Rachel Hachlili (BAR International Series, 499; Oxford: B.A.R., 1989), pp. 6163. Already Taylor doubted that the inscriptions belonged to a synagogue (W. R. Taylor, “Samaritan Inscription from Gaza,” JPOS 16 [1936]: 137). 29. Milka Levy-Rubin, The Continuatio of the Samaritan Chronicle of Abū l-Fatḥ al-Sāmirī al-Danafī (Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam, 10; Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press, 2002), p. 51. 30. Quoted in Pummer, “Foot-Soldiers,” p. 283. 31. Alan D. Crown, Samaritan Scribes and Manuscripts (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism, 80; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2001), p. 128. 32. See the chapter “The Samaritans in History.” 33. Moshe Florentin, The Tulida: A Samaritan Chronicle: Text, Translation, Commentary (Jerusalem: Yad Yitzchak Ben Zvi; The Rabbi David Moshe and Amalia Rosen Foundation, 1999), p. 123. 34. Elkan Nathan Adler and Max Séligsohn, “Une nouvelle chronique samaritaine,” REJ 46 (1903): 134. 35. See also the chapter “The Samaritans in History.” 36. Moshe Sharon, Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae (Handbook of Oriental Studies, Section 1: The Near and Middle East, 30/4; Leiden; New York: Brill, 2008), vol. 4, pp. 20-22. 37. See Nathan Schur, “The New Dispersal of the Samaritans of Nablus in the Twentieth Century,” in Samaritan Researches, vol. V, ed. Vittorio Morabito, Alan D. Crown, and Lucy Davey (Mandelbaum Studies in Judaica, 10; Sydney: Mandelbaum Publishing, 2000), pp. 3.60-63. 38. According to Tsedaka, this is due to the difficulties of expanding the settlement in Ḥolon (private information from Benyamim Tsedaka, June 13, 2013). However, the actual reason may be, at least in some cases, that certain “fringe” Samaritans “left the Holon neighborhood in search of a more private existence” (so Monika Schreiber, The Comfort of Kin: Samaritan Community, Kinship, and Marriage [Brill’s Series in Jewish Studies, 51; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2014], p. 365; also pp. 329-330). And in fact, Gadi Tsedaka, the producer and main player in the video The Wandering Samaritan, has built his house in Binyamina (see the later chapter “The Samaritans Today”). 39. Survey articles on Samaritan diaspora in general are cited in Alan D. Crown and Reinhard Pummer, A Bibliography of the Samaritans: Third Edition: Revised, Expanded, and Annotated (ATLA Bibliography, 51; Lanham, MD; Toronto; Oxford: Scarecrow, 2005), Subject Index “Diaspora”; and in Reinhard Pummer, “The Samaritans in Egypt,” in Études sémitiques et samaritaines offertes à Jean Margin, ed. Christian-Bernard Amphoux, Albert Frey, and Ursula Schattner-Rieser (Lausanne: Éditions du Zèbre, 1998), pp. 213-14. 40. See Alan D. Crown, “The Samaritan Diaspora to the End of the Byzantine Era,” The Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology 2 (1974): 118. However, in another publication Crown estimated the Samaritan home-population as half a million and the Samaritan diaspora-population as one and a half million persons (Alan David Crown, “The Samaritan Diaspora,” in The Samaritans, ed. Alan D. Crown [Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989], p. 201). 41. See below in this chapter. 42. Literally The Separator Concerning Religions, Heresies, and Sects (Kitāb al-Fiṣa fī al-Milal wa al-Ahwāʿ wa al-Niḥal). 43. See Samuel Poznański, “Ibn Ḥazm über jüdische Sekten,” JQR 16 (1904): 766-69. The passage is also quoted, in Arabic and English, in Haseeb Shehadeh, “The Arabic Translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch,” in The Samaritans, ed. Alan D. Crown (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), p. 491. 44. See also the chapter “The Samaritans Today.” 45. See the chapter “The Samaritans Today.” 46. CPJ III, pp. 103-04; cf. also Reinhard Pummer, Samaritan Marriage Contracts and Deeds of Divorce (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1993), vol. I, pp. 238-39.

47. Pieter W. van der Horst, “Samaritans at Rome?” in Pieter W. van der Horst, Japheth in the Tents of Shem: Studies on Jewish Hellenism in Antiquity (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology, 32; Leuven, Paris, and Sterling, VA: Peeters, 2002), p. 258. This difficulty of distinguishing between Samaritan and Jewish symbols should be kept in mind also when using the collection Inscriptiones Judaicae. 48. For details and references to primary sources see Pummer, “The Samaritans in Egypt.” 49. For a detailed discussion see Reinhard Pummer, The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism, 129; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), pp. 183-85. 50. For an analysis see Pummer, The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, pp. 179-99. 51. Pieter W. van der Horst, “The Samaritan Diaspora in Antiquity,” in P. van der Horst, Essays on the Jewish World of Early Christianity (NTOA, 14. Freiburg, Switzerland: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), p. 142. See also H. Dessau, “Die Samaritaner bei den Scriptores Historiae Augustae,” in Janus: Arbeiten zur alten und byzantinischen Geschichte 1 = Festschrift Lehmann-Haupt zum sechzigsten Geburtstag (Vienna: Braunmüller, 1921), p. 126; and the discussion in Kippenberg, Garizim, p. 124, n. 150, as well as Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism: Edited with Introductions, Translations and Commentary (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1984), vol. II, pp. 636-39. 52. Pummer, “The Samaritans in Egypt,” p. 218. 53. Often the term is spelled raʾīs. However, Ze’ev Ben-Ḥayyim (The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic Amongst the Samaritans [in Hebrew] [Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1957], vol. I, pp. 132-33) has shown that in Samaritan Aramaic the correct reading is rabīs. See also Iain Ruairidh Mac Mhanainn Bóid, “Use, Authority and Exegesis of Mikra in the Samaritan Tradition,” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, edited by Martin Jan Mulder (Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1988), p. 618, n. 91. The rabīs can be a high priest, but the title can also connote the leader of a community. 54. On Meshullam and Obadiah, see also the chapter “The Samaritans in History.” 55. See B. Lifshitz and J. Schiby, “Une synagogue samaritaine à Thessalonique,” RB 75 (1958): 368-78. The inscription was discussed in several other publications. 56. Jacob Kaplan, “A Samaritan Amulet from Corinth,” IEJ 30 (1980): 196-98, pls. 21 A and B. 57. For Athens see Inscriptiones Graecae, Editio Minor, vols. II and III, part 3, nos. 10219-10222; for Piraeus see Inscriptiones Graecae, Editio Minor, vols. II, part 2, no. 2943. 58. On the discovery in Sicily see also section 2 in the chapter “Archaeological Excavations.” 59. See Pummer, Early Christian Authors, pp. 340-43. 60. See Pummer, Early Christian Authors, pp. 242-44. 61. See Pummer, Early Christian Authors, pp. 298-301. 62. See Pummer, Early Christian Authors, pp. 352-58. 63. For details about the Samaritans in Damascus between the tenth and the seventeenth century see Reinhard Pummer, “The Samaritans in Damascus,” in Samaritan, Hebrew and Aramaic Studies Presented to Professor Abraham Tal, ed. Moshe Bar-Asher and Moshe Florentin (Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute, 2005), pp. 53-76. 64. See James Garfield Fraser, “Documents from a Samaritan Genizah in Damascus,” PEQ 103 (1971): 85-92. For the Arabic works see Moses Gaster, “The Samaritan Literature,” in Encyclopaedia of Islām 4 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1925), pp. 7-8. See also Robert T. Anderson, Studies in Samaritan Manuscripts and Artifacts: The Chamberlain-Warren Collection (American Schools of Oriental Research, Monograph Series, 1; Cambridge, Mass.: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1978); and Alan D. Crown, “A Profile of Paper in Samaritan Manuscripts,” in Proceedings of the First International Congress of the Société d’Études Samaritaines, Tel Aviv, April 11-13, 1988, ed. Abraham Tal and Moshe Florentine (Tel Aviv: Chaim Rosenberg School for Jewish Studies, Tel Aviv University, 1991), pp. 205-24. 65. Now in the Vatican, Codex Barberini Oriental 1. 66. See Pummer, “The Samaritans in Damascus,” pp. 56 and 62. 67. See the chapter “Samaritan Literature.” 68. Cf. Heinz Pohl, Kitāb al-Mīrāt: Das Buch der Erbschaft des Samaritaners Abū Isḥāq Ibrāhīm. Kritische Edition mit Übersetzung und Kommentar (Studia Samaritana, 2; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1974), pp. 25-26. 69. See the earlier chapter “The Samaritans in History.” 70. Pietro Della Valle, Viaggio in Levante (Venezia: Baglioni, 1667), p. 213; and George Bull, trans., The Pilgrim: The Travels of Pietro Della Valle (London: Hutchinson, 1990), p. 88. 71. See the chapter “The Samaritan Pentateuch.” 72. Josef Tropper, “Die samaritanischen Inschriften des Pergamonmuseums,” ZDPV 111 (1995): 119-125. For a color image and a description of a niche in a Samaritan house, now displayed in the Museum of Islamic Art at the Pergamon Museum in Berlin, see http://www.discoverislamicart.org/database_item.php?id=object;ISL;de;Mus01;32;en. 73. See the chapter “The Samaritans in History.” 74. See Moritz Sobernheim, “Samaritanische Inschriften aus Damascus,” MNDPV 8 (1902): 71. 75. Pohl, Kitāb al-Mīrāt, p. 26. See also the references in Pummer, “The Samaritans in Damascus,” p. 60. 76. For an overview see Schur, “The Return of the Diaspora Samaritans.” 77. See Pummer, “Demography.” For estimates regarding the ancient population of Judea see Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, vol. II, pp. 62-63. 78. Crown, “The Samaritan Diaspora,” p. 201; Crown’s number refers, however, to all inhabitants of Samaria. 79. Böhm, “Wer gehörte in hellenistisch-römischer Zeit zu ‘Israel’?,” pp. 188, 199. 80. Michael Avi-Yonah, “The Samaritan Revolts Against the Byzantine Empire” [in Hebrew], Eretz Israel 4 (1956): 127-32. See also Alan D. Crown, “The Samaritans in the Byzantine Orbit,” BJRL 69 (1986-87): 115-16; and Crown, “The Samaritan Diaspora,” pp. 208-09. 81. Claudine Dauphin, La Palestine byzantine: peuplement et populations (BAR International Series, 726; Oxford: Archaeopress, 1998), vol. 1, pp. 28081. She calls the number of 500,000 absurd and that of 300,000 exaggerated. Cf. also Kippenberg, Garizim, p. 161, who settles also for approximately 100,000 Samaritans at the beginning of the sixth century.

82. See the chapter “The Samaritans in History.” 83. Quoted in Elkan Nathan Adler, ed., Jewish Travellers (London: G. Routledge, 1930), p. 226. See also the chapter “The Samaritans in History.” 84. Edward Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, Mount Sinai, and Arabia Petraea: A Journal of Travels in the Year 1838, by Edward Robinson, and E. Smith; Undertaken in Reference to Biblical Geography; Drawn up from the Original Diaries, with Historical Illustrations by Edward Robinson (London: J. Murray, 1841), vol. 3, p. 106. 85. Claude Reignier Conder and Claude Kitchener, The Survey of Western Palestine. Memoirs of the Topography, Orthography, Hydrography and Archaeology (London: The Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund, 1882), vol. 2, p. 219. 86. See Eric Mills, Census of Palestine 1931 (Alexandria: Published for the Government of Palestine by Whitehead Morris, 1933), pp. 89-90. The tables are broken down according to age, sex, conjugal conditions, education by age and years at an educational institution, and occupations. See also the list in Nathan Schur, History of the Samaritans (2nd ed., Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testamentes und des antiken Judentums, 18; Frankfurt am Main; Bern; New York; Paris: Peter Lang, 1992), pp. 152-53, which catalogues the numbers from 1806 to the census of 1931. 87. For a chart of Samaritan demography and gender ratios from the mid-nineteenth century to 2013 see Schreiber, The Comfort of Kin, pp. 292-93 (Table 15); for the years 1948 to 2013, it is based on figures from A.B.–The Samaritan News. 88. See above, “The Samaritans in History.” 89. Sigmund Gelbhaus, Eine absterbende Rebe am Weinstock Israels (Vienna: Löwit, n.d.). For other such predictions see Reinhard Pummer, The Samaritans (Iconography of Religions 23.5; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1987), p. 25. 90. Leo Heiman, “Samaritans Are Doomed: They Can’t Marry Jewish Women,” The Zionist Record Annual [Johannesburg], September 1956, p. 85. 91. http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/05/23/LatestNews/LatestNews.26799.html (accessed May 23, 2001; the page is no longer available). 92. According to Joseph Ginat, Women in Muslim Rural Society: Status and Role in Family and Community (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1982), p. 244, on one occasion a Jewish male became a Samaritan and married a Samaritan woman, although they eventually were divorced and the man broke with the community. 93. Sergio Noja, Il Kitāb al-Kāfī dei Samaritani (Istituto Orientale di Napoli. Pubblicazioni del Seminario di Semitistica. Ricerche, 7; Napoli, 1970), p. 115. 94. Julius Heinrich Petermann, Reisen im Orient (Leipzig: Veit & Comp., 1860-61), vol. 1, p. 279. 95. Schur, History of the Samaritans, p. 193, with reference to the notes in Jewish papers from 1886 and 1896. It should be noted, though, that sometimes reasons other than lack of marriageable women were the problem, above all family disputes (see, e.g., The Palestine Post, Jan. 8, 1936, p. 2; and Nov. 22, 1937, p. 6). 96. See Table 16 in Schreiber, The Comfort of Kin, p. 314, which lists the intermarriages between 1924 and 2012. 97. Cf. Shaye J. D. Cohen, The Beginning of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Hellenistic Culture and Society, 31; Berkeley; Los Angeles; London: University of California Press, 1999), pp. 263-307. 98. See, e.g., Num. 1:18; Lev. 24:10-11. Cf. Michael Corinaldi, “The Problem of the Patrilineal or Matrilineal Descent and Inter-Marriage According to the Samaritan and Rabbinic Halakhah,” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of the Société d’Études Samaritaines, Helsinki, August 1-4, 2000, ed. Haseeb Shehadeh, Habib Tawa, and Reinhard Pummer (Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 2005), pp. 171-72. On the biblical principle of patrilineal descent see Cohen, The Beginning of Jewishness, pp. 264-73. 99. For the role that patrilineality plays in the Samaritan and the wider Middle Eastern society, see Schreiber, The Comfort of Kin. 100. For the translation “beautiful” see Benyamim Tsedaka, ed. and trans., The Israelite Samaritan Version of the Torah: First English Translation Compared with the Masoretic Version (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), p. 336, with the explanatory note. See, however, the argument in Schreiber, The Comfort of Kin, p. 324. 101. Cohen, The Beginning of Jewishness, p. 306. See pp. 129-39 for the introduction of religious conversion in the Hellenistic period. 102. A journalistic account of a marriage to a Ukrainian woman can be found in the daily Guardian of February 11, 2013 (Herriet Sherwood, “How Ukrainian Women Saved the Samaritans of Mount Gerizim,” The Guardian, 11 February 2013 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/11/ukrainianwomen-samaritans-mount-gerizim). See also Schreiber, The Comfort of Kin, pp. 324-25. Another wife coming from outside the Samaritan community was originally an immigrant from Siberia, Russia (see Martin Patience, “Ancient Community Seeks Brides Abroad,” http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr//2/hi/middle_east/6333475.stm). Her story and that of a Samaritan wife from Ukraine are told in the film New Samaritans, produced in 2007 by Journeyman Pictures (Israel) and directed by Alexander Shabataev, Sergey Grankin, and Efim Kuchuk. 103. The film was released in Israel in 2010 and in other countries in subsequent years: http://www.cultureunplugged.com/play/8048/Lone-Samaritan. See also the description (under pseudonyms) in Schreiber, The Comfort of Kin, pp. 144-45. 104. This was pointed out by Schreiber, The Comfort of Kin, ch. 4, where she discusses concrete cases (anonymously). 105. See the chapter “Samaritan Literature.” 106. See http://www.thesamaritanupdate.com for January/February 2013.

IX. The Samaritan Pentateuch As mentioned in the Introduction, a great number of people associate with the term “Samaritans” not only the modern organization of that name devoted to saving lives, but also the ancient people after whom this organization is called and whose representative is presented as a model of a good “neighbor” in the New Testament parable about the “Good Samaritan.” A much smaller number — primarily the scholars studying the text of the Hebrew Bible — are aware of the existence of a version of the Pentateuch that is specific to the Samaritans and that plays a special role in biblical studies. But even in scholarly circles the Samaritan version was for a long time relegated to occasional remarks about its “sectarian changes.” The main reason for this was that the acrimonious debates about the “better” version of the Old Testament, begun in the seventeenth century, were eventually settled in favor of the Masoretic text. Only lately has this attitude undergone a fundamental change, and now the Samaritan Pentateuch plays a much more significant role in biblical research than in the past, as we will see in the following.

1. The Nature of the Samaritan Pentateuch The Scripture of the Samaritans is the Pentateuch. Already the early Christian author Origen, in his discussion of the account of the Samaritan woman in John 4:4-42, mentions that the Samaritans accept only the Pentateuch of Moses. Similar remarks are found in the writings of later church fathers. The Samaritan liturgical poet ʿAmram Dare, who lived in the third/fourth century C.E., wrote: “There is no god besides our Lord, no scripture like the Torah, no true prophet like Moses.” Although the Samaritans have a Book of Joshua, it is not the same as the biblical book of that name and is not part of the Samaritan sacred Scriptures. But this book as well as their other chronicles show that at least from the Middle Ages on the Samaritans used the traditions found in the Prophets and Writings of the Jewish scriptures, creating their own account of early Israelite history in reference to them while modifying the accounts to suit their own vision of events. If, as is now generally assumed, it was in the second century B.C.E. when the Samaritans and the Jews became two separate communities, the Writings and the Prophets would already have been accepted as sacred scripture by Yahwists. This means that the Samaritans must have deliberately rejected them as such, but used them, at least in later centuries, for their own interpretation of history. According to Samaritan beliefs, the Pentateuch was written down on a scroll by Abisha, the great grandson of Aaron, Moses’ brother, thirteen years after the Israelites had conquered Canaan (Fig. 25). The “Abisha Scroll,” believed by the Samaritans to be over three thousand years old, is their most prized possession. They see its date and authorship confirmed by the colophon (called tashqil ) of the scroll, particularly in the form in which it is transmitted in Abu l-Fatḥ’s Kitāb: “I, ʾAbisha, son of Phinehas son of Eleazer, son of Aaron the priest upon whom be the Raḍwān [favor] of the Lord and his Glory: I wrote out the Book of Holiness at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting on Mount Gerizim in the thirteenth year of the dominion of the Sons of Israel over the land of Canaan, to its borders around it. I give Praise to the Lord.” The text is embedded in an account about the rediscovery of the scroll after it had 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

been lost from sight for generations. The scroll is now locked away in the synagogue on Mt. Gerizim in a wood and glass case and stored in a heavy steel safe. It is shown to the congregation on special occasions, such as the Sabbaths of the pilgrimage festivals, on Yom Kippur and on the Day of the Standing on Mt. Sinai. Critical scholarship has shown that the scroll consists of a number of fragments from different ages, the oldest comprising Numbers 35:1–Deuteronomy 34:12, and possibly dating from the eleventh century C.E. Taking into account that in ancient and modern manuscripts the millennium is often left out, the year intended may well be 3013 after the conquest of Canaan, which would correspond to 1045 C.E. However, other dates have been proposed. In any event, this fragment belongs to the oldest extant manuscript fragments of the Samaritan Pentateuch. 9

10

11

Fig. 25. The Abisha Scroll. (Ori Orhof)

The text of the Samaritan Pentateuch is close to that of the Masoretic Text, but does contain a number of differences. Often it was, and sometimes still is, claimed that there are six thousand differences between the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Masoretic Text. This number goes back to a list in the London Polyglot from 1657, and was drawn up by Brian 12

Walton, Edmund Castell, and John Lightfoot. Scholars of the Samaritan Pentateuch now recognize that this number is meaningless for several reasons. First of all, it is mainly based on one manuscript first published, with numerous mistakes, in the Paris Polyglot Bible in 1629, and republished, with corrections, in the London Polyglot Bible in 1657. Second, most of the differences concern scriptio plena and scriptio defectiva. Better familiarity with Samaritan Pentateuch manuscript traditions has shown that Samaritan scribes follow no specific norm in this regard, as the many manuscripts that have come to light since the days of the Paris and London Polyglots — approximately 750 — show. As opposed to the Masoretic text, Samaritan Pentateuch manuscripts and editions have no, or very few, indications of the pronunciation of the text. It is through oral tradition that the recitation of the Pentateuch is handed on from generation to generation. Only in modern times were editions with vowel signs produced, such as the fully vocalized text written by the Samaritan scholar Israel Tsedaka in 1998. What is decisive is the oral transmission of the recitation of the Torah by the community. In any study of the text of the Samaritan Pentateuch, therefore, the reading as practiced by the Samaritans must be taken into account. From the recitation it becomes clear that “many cases of alleged scriptio plena do not use the ‘vowel letters’ as matres lectionis but rather as representations of consonants.” Over the last two hundred years a number of scholars have classified the differences between the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Masoretic Text. The best-known such classification is the division into eight categories computed by Wilhelm Gesenius in his work De Pentateuchi samaritani origine, indole et auctoritate commentatio philologico-critica (A Philological-Critical Treatise on the Origin, Character and Authority of the Samaritan Pentateuch), published in 1815. Other scholars who drew up lists of differences according to various categories are above all Raphael Kirchheim in his book Karme Shormron (Introduction to Massekhet Kutim ), published in 1851, and Samuel Kohn in his work De Pentateucho samaritano ejusque cum versionibus antiquis nexu (On the Samaritan Pentateuch and Its Connection with the Ancient Versions), published in 1865. Kohn believed that Gesenius’s eight categories can be reduced to three. Furthermore, Abraham Geiger and Paul Kahle formulated their own classifications. A list by a contemporary scholar is included in Bruce Waltke’s unpublished Ph.D. dissertation Prolegomena to the Samaritan Pentateuch (1965), and in his article “The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Text of the Old Testament” (1970). Another classification is that of Abraham Tal and Moshe Florentin in their comparative edition The Pentateuch: The Samaritan Version and the Masoretic Version. The most recent classification is to be found in the third edition of Emanuel Tov’s Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. He distinguishes between the early, pre-Samaritan elements on the one hand, and elements that were added by the Samaritans on the other; a third category are orthographic differences that are difficult to assign to one of the two periods. The pre-Samaritan texts are now well known, thanks to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Samaritan layer concerns those alterations that are expressions of the Samaritan religion. Already Abraham Geiger came to the conclusion that the Samaritan Pentateuch is “an old version … , as it was in general use at that time.” Pentateuchal texts found among the Dead 13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Sea Scrolls have confirmed this assessment. Approximately five percent of the Torah texts found in Qumran are so-called pre-Samaritan texts. Initially, these texts were labelled “protoSamaritan” texts, suggesting their resemblance to the Samaritan Pentateuch. Soon, however, it was realized that this label is inappropriate since the texts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls contain none of the distinctive Samaritan “sectarian” readings. For this reason they are now called pre-Samaritan texts. Another designation is “harmonistic texts,” because their main characteristics were believed to be the so-called harmonizing readings, that is, these texts have the tendency to make the Pentateuchal text “consistent” from one passage to another, by inserting, for instance, material from Deuteronomy into parallel contexts in Exodus and Numbers. A good example is 4QpaleoExodm where texts from Deuteronomy have been inserted into Exodus. Other pre-Samaritan Pentateuch manuscripts at Qumran are 4QNumb and 4QExod-Levf. Some scholars have questioned the appropriateness of the label “harmonizing” for these insertions because the large-scale additions in the Samaritan Pentateuch do not, in fact, harmonize the parallel texts, but were added to provide references back to earlier books in the Pentateuch. This is not to say, however, that the editors of the pre-Samaritan texts and the Samaritan Pentateuch did not at times harmonize one passage with another. Other differences from the Masoretic Text, which pre-Samaritan texts and the Samaritan Pentateuch have in common, concern linguistic features and the content of certain passages. As a result of the discoveries in Qumran it was realized that in the majority of the cases in which the Samaritan Pentateuch differs from other versions this is not due to “sectarian” changes introduced by the Samaritans. What is specific to the Samaritan Pentateuch is the emphasis on the central theological tenet of the Samaritans — the sanctity of Mt. Gerizim — achieved by making minor modifications in the text, similar to what can be observed in other manuscripts of the Pentateuch found near the Dead Sea. Until recently, the special or “sectarian” Samaritan readings were thought to comprise above all the Samaritan version of the Deuteronomic formula “the place that Yhwh your God will choose ( )” (MT), purportedly changed by the Samaritans to “the place that Yhwh your God has chosen ( )” in all twenty-one occurrences; the reading “Gerizim” in Deuteronomy 27:4 rather than “Ebal” of the Masoretic Text; the special form of the Samaritan Tenth Commandment; and two small changes in Exodus 20:24. However, some of these instances can now be shown not to be specifically Samaritan changes. With regard to the formula “will choose/has chosen,” scholars reasoned that the Samaritans must have changed the wording because of their conviction that Mt. Gerizim was chosen by God from the beginning. However, a different conclusion was reached by Adrian Schenker. By analyzing ancient Greek, Coptic, and Vetus Latina readings, as well as by taking into account the reference in Nehemiah 1:9, he came to the conclusion that “has chosen” ( ) must have been the original reading in the Hebrew Vorlage of the old LXX, whereas the reading “will choose” ( ) in the Masoretic text is a theologically motivated correction. He underlines that the manuscripts which contain the perfect form are independent from each other, and the LXX, translated in the third century B.C.E., cannot have 26

27

28

29

30

31

32

been influenced by the Samaritan Pentateuch. Thus, the reading of the Masoretic text must date from after the third century B.C.E. Although the formula states that God has already chosen the place, it does not identify it. However, in Deuteronomy 27:5-7, Moses is told to build an altar on which the Israelites are to offer their sacrifices and where they are to rejoice before the Lord, just as is stated in Deuteronomy 12:5-6, where God commands that this is to be done only in one place. According to Deuteronomy 27:4, the mountain is Mt. Gerizim — the reading which is to be preferred to Mt. Ebal in Schenker’s opinion. Thus, the “place” in the Deuteronomic formula would have been associated in the minds of the readers with Mt. Gerizim. According to Schenker, in Judah, and in particular in Jerusalem, the tension between the Deuteronomic formula on the one hand, and 2 Samuel 24:18-25 and 1 Chronicles 21:18-28 (David is commanded by God to build an altar on the threshing floor of Araunah which will be the place of the temple according to 1 Chronicles 22) on the other, led to the change in the Masoretic text from the future to the perfect tense, i.e., later scribes wanted to avoid a conflict with the passages in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles and therefore changed the tense. If indeed was the original reading, the Samaritans chose a text form which supported their view of the holy place rather than changed the text. In other words, this group of readings would no longer be evidence of the Samaritans’ adjusting the phrase about the place where Yhwh will choose/has chosen his name to dwell because of their theology. Instead, it would have been the Jews who changed to . Schenker’s conclusion regarding the priority of the Samaritan reading has been questioned by Knoppers. Rather than assuming that one of these readings is earlier than the other, or one ( ) is ideological and the other ( ) not, “Each formulation expresses an election theology.” The reading “Mount Gerizim” (written as one word in the Samaritan Pentateuch: ) in Deuteronomy 27:4 was likewise thought in the past to be a Samaritan sectarian correction from the Masoretic Text’s original “Mount Ebal.” However, after it was realized that the Old Latin translation of the Pentateuch also reads “Garzin” in codex 100 as does the Papyrus Giessen from the fifth/sixth century C.E., it was surmised that this reading is based on an Old Greek reading and possibly an Old Hebrew reading that was a general Jewish, not a peculiarly Samaritan, reading. A recently emerged small fragment (3.8 x 2.9 cm), said to come from Cave 4 in Qumran, made this a likely assumption. It preserved the text of Deuteronomy 27:4-6 with the reading “on Mt. Gerizim” in one word. The genuineness of the fragment does not seem to be in doubt, and everything points to an identification of the text as a general Jewish text. Some scholars have therefore concluded that “Gerizim” in Deuteronomy 27:4 was original and was later changed by Jewish writers out of animosity against the Samaritan place of worship on this mountain. However, the description of the setting up of the stones after the Israelites had crossed the Jordan as given in the earliest sources, viz., 4QJosha as well as Josephus and Pseudo-Philo, shows that originally no particular place was mentioned for the erection of the altar. Deuteronomy 27:2-3 charges the people to set up large stones after crossing the Jordan, cover them with plaster, and write on them “all the words of this law.” Only in verse 4, which repeats that command, the words “on Mount Ebal” (Masoretic Text)/“on Mt. Gerizim” 33

34

35

36

37

(Samaritan Pentateuch) are added. Had one of these two mountains been in the original text, it would have meant that Joshua and the people would have had to travel a long distance from Gilgal where they crossed the Jordan, build the altar, and march back to Gilgal (Josh. 9:6). Moreover, it is unlikely that the original text read “Mt. Ebal,” because that is the mountain on which the curses were to be recited. Mt. Gerizim, on the other hand, is the mountain of blessing, and one may be tempted to see the insertion as coming from the Samaritans. None of the early sources containing this reading are, however, influenced by the Samaritan Pentateuch. As Ulrich points out, “the ‘Gerizim’ (and/or ‘Ebal’) reading appears to have been an intentional addition in some general Jewish MS tradition.” In sum, originally no place was named, but in 4QJosha, Josephus, and Pseudo-Philo it is implied that the altar was built at Gilgal. Next, Mt. Gerizim was inserted which then was replaced by Mt. Ebal. In any event, the reading “Mt. Gerizim” in Deuteronomy 27:4 cannot be counted among the Samaritan sectarian changes. The Samaritan Tenth Commandment is a different case. By emphasizing that Mt. Gerizim is the chosen place it clearly belongs to the Samaritan additions. It includes Exodus 13:11a, Deuteronomy 11:29a, 27:2b-3a, 4a, 5-7, and 11:30, and is added to both versions of the Decalogue (i.e., after Exod 20:17 MT and Deut 5:18 MT). Despite this addition, the Samaritans preserve the number ten by taking the first commandment of the Masoretic Text (Exod. 20:3 and Deut. 5:7) to be an introduction to the Decalogue. The following text of the salient section of the Samaritan Tenth Commandment illustrates the care the Samaritans took to underline the importance of Mt. Gerizim (the words in italics indicate the readings of the Samaritan Pentateuch): 38

39

Exod. 20:17aWhen the Lord has brought you into the land of the Canaanites (Exod. 13:11a)40 that you are entering to

occupy (Deut. 11:29a), 17byou shall set up large stones and cover them with plaster (Deut. 27:2b). You shall write on the stones41 all the words of this law (Deut. 27:3a, SP). 17cSo when you have crossed over the Jordan, you shall set up these stones, about which I am commanding you today, on Mount Gerizim (Deut. 27:4a, SP). 17dAnd you shall build an altar there to the Lord your God, an altar of stones on which you have not used an iron tool (Deut. 27:5). 17eYou must build the altar of the Lord your God of unhewn stones. 17fThen offer up burnt offerings to the Lord your God (Deut. 27:6), 17gmake sacrifices of well-being, and eat them there, rejoicing before the Lord your God (Deut. 27:7). 17hThat mountain is42 beyond the Jordan, some distance to the west, in the land of the Canaanites who live in the Arabah, opposite Gilgal, beside the oak of Moreh, opposite Shechem (Deut. 11:30, SP).

Interestingly, the quote from Deuteronomy 11:29 is not continued in this compilation of passages, even though the second part of verse 29 (“you shall set the blessing on Mount Gerizim and the curse on Mount Ebal”) makes Mt. Gerizim the mountain of blessing and its citation would therefore have strengthened the Gerizim-argument. In addition, a quotation of the second part of Deuteronomy 11:29 would be expected in view of the continuation with Deuteronomy 11:30 at the end of the expansion. As the text now stands, precisely the favorable passage about Mt. Gerizim is left out. Possibly, the original purpose of this text combination was not the emphasis on Mt. Gerizim, but on the recording of the Law. Another specifically Samaritan reading emphasizing that Mt. Gerizim was selected from the days of the Patriarchs is found in Exodus 20:24, where the Samaritan Pentateuch reads: 43

“in the place where I have caused my name to be remembered I will come to you and bless you,” whereas the Masoretic Text reads: “in every place where I will cause my name to be remembered I will come to you and bless you.” The Samaritan Pentateuch leaves out the word all ( ) before “place,” and instead of the future tense will cause ( ), it reads the past, have caused ( ), emphasizing that for the Samaritans only one place was chosen, as stipulated in their version of Deuteronomy 27:4-6. As Knoppers points out, the slight change to “in the place,” making Mt. Gerizim the only legitimate sanctuary, reflects a dispute between Samarians and Judeans about the central place of worship. Moreover, it alludes to the “place of Shechem” in Genesis 12:6-8, where Abraham built an altar. Thus, continuity is maintained “from Abram’s altar at Shechem (Gen. 12:6) and the altar legislation given at Mt. Sinai (Exod. 20:24) to the centralization legislation pronounced upon the Steppes of Moab (Deut. 12) and the Gerizim altar called for in the convocation legislation of Deuteronomy 27.” There are additional textual differences between the Masoretic and the Samaritan Pentateuch which are often subsumed under the category of Samaritan “ideological changes,” but in reality they go back to pre-Samaritan texts and are not specific to the Samaritans. The same is true for phonological and orthographic differences. In conclusion, the Samaritan Pentateuch is based on a text-type that was current during the last two centuries B.C.E. The Samaritans slightly modified certain passages — above all the Tenth Commandment — in order to make them conform to their beliefs and practices. The time when the specifically Samaritan readings emphasizing the centrality of Mt. Gerizim were made is not known, but it stands to reason that it was after the destruction of the Gerizim temple by John Hyrcanus. The close affinity between the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Masoretic Text makes it likely that both go back to a common text. This common text is dated by many scholars at the end of the Persian period. Certainly, by the time of Ben Sira, that is, by approximately 200 B.C.E., the Pentateuch “in the same or a similar form to that which is known today was widely accepted as authoritative,” which means it must have been completed earlier. On the whole, more and more scholars reject the idea of “original” readings and point out that there must have been a time when both groups, Yahwistic Samarians and Jews, shared the — or at least some — pentateuchal traditions in common, each with their own emphases. The traditional model which assumed that the Pentateuch was compiled in Jerusalem and later adopted by the Samaritans has become unconvincing. New research has shown that the Hebrew text of the Samaritan Pentateuch is older than traditionally assumed. More and more scholars point to texts that must have originated with northern Yhwh worshipers, were brought to the south, and were incorporated in a text that received its final shape in Judea. The evidence points to the likelihood that the text of the Pentateuch as it was compiled in the fourth century B.C.E. represents a compromise between the priestly elites in Judea and Samaria. With time, however, the Judean version of the Pentateuch became dominant, creating subsequently the impression that the Samaritans took over the Pentateuch and adapted it to their theology. 44

45

46

47

2. Ancient Translations of the Samaritan Pentateuch Comparable to developments in Judaism, with the changes of the language used in everyday discourse the necessity arose to have the text of the Samaritan Pentateuch also available in languages other than Hebrew. In the late Roman and the early Byzantine periods, Aramaic became the vernacular of the Samaritans; and during the third or fourth century C.E., Aramaic translations were produced which correspond to the Jewish Targums. One of the latter, the Jerusalem Targum (also called Palestinian Targum), dates from the same period as the earliest Samaritan Targum; but while the Jerusalem Targum contains a number of midrashic amplifications, the Samaritan Targum has none. Even later Samaritan Aramaic versions contain hardly any expansions. Changes did occur as a result of copyists adapting the Aramaic to that of their own times and introducing modifications to express the evolving theological views of the community. In antiquity it was the custom to read the Targum aloud in the synagogue, a practice which may have continued for several centuries, although the precise date of when it was discontinued is unknown. The earliest edition (editio princeps) of the Samaritan Targum was published by Jean Morin in volume six of the Paris Polyglot in 1632. A modern critical edition of the Samaritan Targum was published by Abraham Tal in the years 1980-1983. In the late tenth and early eleventh centuries, Arabic displaced Aramaic as the spoken language among the Samaritans, and a translation of the Pentateuch in this idiom became a necessity. Haseeb Shehadeh, the editor of a critical edition of the Samaritan Arabic Pentateuch, distinguishes five text-types that circulated among the Samaritans, including one derived from a Jewish Arabic translation, the Tafsir of Saʿadya Gaʾon (died 942), and one rooted in a contemporary Christian Arabic translation. In the initial phases of the transition to Arabic, when the Samaritans seemed to have relied on a Jewish Arabic version, they sometimes did so without realizing that in certain cases the Jewish rendering contradicted their own reading of the text. The Continuatio of Abu l-Fatḥ’s chronicle recounts that at the Feast of Passover in 979-980 C.E., the rabis Abdel and the rabis Darta reformed the liturgy, and “the reading in Aramaic in the synagogue in all the places of the Samaritans” was annulled and substituted by the reading in Arabic, whereby the “reading” here seems to refer to the recitation of the Torah. The compiler adds: “The ḥakīm (a leader of the community ) stood and cursed whoever returned to pronouncing the reading [of the Scripture] and other things [in this manner].” And further: “This was the doing of the raʾīs, a deed which pleased Almighty God and all the people.” Other groups in Palestine also made the shift from Aramaic to Arabic at the end of the tenth century. Apart from Aramaic and Arabic translations, there are indications that the Samaritans at one time also used a Greek translation, of which only a few traces are preserved. From these vestiges it appears that the Samaritans revised the Septuagint Pentateuch in line with their version of the Hebrew Pentateuch. That the Samaritans in Palestine once used Greek is apparent also from the votive inscriptions found on Mt. Gerizim and dated to the third and second centuries B.C.E., as well as from the synagogue inscriptions of the fourth and later centuries C.E. But whether “Greek was the only language in common use among the Samaritan community” in the Roman period, with the priests being the only ones knowing 48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

the Samaritan script, and maybe Aramaic, is questionable. If this were so, why would an Aramaic translation of the Pentateuch, the Targum, have been produced in the third or fourth century C.E.? Furthermore, the midrashic composition Tībåt Mårqe in its oldest parts goes back to the third or fourth century C.E. and was composed or compiled in Aramaic. Of course it was written by learned members of the community, but they no doubt wanted also the other members to understand the contents. It is therefore unlikely that the Samaritans went through a period where the majority of the population could communicate only in Greek. At the most, they were bilingual (or multilingual if they read also Hebrew) and knew both Aramaic and Greek, using the latter for their interactions with Gentiles and their brethren in Egypt and Greece, although we have no evidence for this. To extrapolate from the known inscriptions is hazardous. Of those discovered on Mt. Gerizim, approximately four hundred are in Aramaic and Hebrew. The number of Greek inscriptions — so far mostly unpublished — is said to be in the range of dozens or scores. If one adds the Greek inscriptions found in the synagogues excavated in Palestine, the proportion of Greek to Aramaic inscriptions is still small. It should also be kept in mind that the everyday language of the Jews and Christians in Palestine of the late Roman and early Byzantine period was also Aramaic which was closely akin to that of the Samaritans. Most scholars believe that the Jews in Palestine were bilingual or trilingual, but for many, Greek was most likely only a second language. Despite the Samaritan Pentateuch translations into Greek, Aramaic, and Arabic, the Samaritans continued to read the Torah in a liturgical context in Hebrew. 58

59

3. The Samaritan Pentateuch in Western Scholarship The rabbis of the Talmudic period as well as the church fathers knew of the Samaritan Pentateuch, but in later centuries it was all but forgotten in the West. The last authors to mention it before the sixteenth century are George Syncellus (died after 810) in his Ecloga chronographica (quoting from Eusebius), and Benjamin of Tudela (second half of the twelfth century) in his work Book of Travels or Itinerary. The first copy of the (Arabic) Samaritan Pentateuch was obtained by the French scholar Guillaume Postel (1510-1581) in Damascus in 1550. As mentioned, in 1616 the Italian traveler and writer Pietro della Valle (1586-1652) acquired a copy of the Hebrew Pentateuch, also from the Samaritan community in Damascus, dated to 1345/46 C.E. The first printed edition of it appeared in the Paris Polyglot Bible in 1629, and a corrected text was published in the London Polyglot Bible in 1657. When the Samaritan Pentateuch first came to the attention of scholars in Europe, it sparked a heated and protracted discussion between Catholic and Protestant scholars over the question: which is the true Pentateuch? The former preferred the Samaritan version because they believed that the Samaritans as the more conservative community had preserved the original text whereas the Masoretic text was corrupted by the Jews. On the Catholic side it was above all the French theologian Jean Morin (1591-1659) who defended the superiority of the Samaritan version and published it in the Paris Polyglot. On the Protestant side, the main figure was the Swiss Orientalist Johann Heinrich Hottinger (1620-1667). The controversy found an end only with the above-mentioned publication of Wilhelm Gesenius’s famous book 60

61

62

— originally his doctoral dissertation — De pentateuchi samaritani origine, indole et auctoritate: commentatio philologico-critica (A Philological-Critical Treatise on the Origin, Character and Authority of the Samaritan Pentateuch), in 1815. Through a careful study of the differences between the Masoretic and the Samaritan text, he showed that the Samaritan Pentateuch is anything but superior to the Masoretic text. Gradually, more and more manuscripts of the Samaritan Pentateuch became available, spanning the time from the ninth to the twentieth centuries, although some are only fragments of manuscripts. However, only between 1914 and 1918 was a scholarly edition published by August von Gall. Unfortunately, his editorial methods were such that the resulting edition is an eclectic text. A diplomatic edition according to MS 6 (C) of the Nablus Synagogue was published by Abraham Tal. Together with Moshe Florentin he also published a parallel edition of the Samaritan and the Masoretic texts. As discussed above, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls put the study of the Samaritan Pentateuch on an entirely new footing. A new critical edition in five volumes, Editio magna, is in preparation. The first English translation of the whole Pentateuch was published in 2013 by the Samaritan journalist and author Benyamim Tsedaka. The new study aids available for the Samaritan Pentateuch are now more numerous than at any time before: new editions of the Hebrew text, parallel editions of the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Masoretic texts, an English translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch, and an introduction to the Samaritan Pentateuch — all recently published or to appear in the near future. 63

64

65

66

67

68

69

4. The Samaritan Script The Samaritans write the Pentateuch in their own script which they developed and preserved throughout the centuries. Their inscriptions, liturgical compositions, marriage and divorce documents, and other works are composed in the same script. Most scholars assume that it was developed from the palaeo-Hebrew script in the first century C.E. Already Charles Simon Clermont-Ganneau saw that the Samaritan script resembled the script on the coins from the first and second Jewish Revolts, and William Foxwell Albright recognized that it is close to that of the Hasmonean coins. Previously it was thought that one Samaritan inscription had survived from the first century C.E. on a capital from Emmaus-Nicopolis, modern Khirbet ʿImwas, but the inscription is now dated to the fifth-sixth centuries C.E. The capital, rather than being Roman, is pseudo-Ionic and typical of the Byzantine period. Similarly, the Samaritan inscription found in Beit el-Ma, west of Nablus, was believed by some scholars to date from the Roman period, but it is more likely that the Samaritans of the Middle Ages made use of a stone from the second century. The excavations on Mt. Gerizim have brought to light eight inscriptions from the second-third centuries B.C.E. in palaeo-Hebrew script which seems to have been used by priestly circles, judging by the fact that the inscriptions in this group mention priests, and by the quality in which they were executed. This script represents an intermediary stage between the palaeo-Hebrew script of the Persian period and the script on the Hasmonean and later Jewish coins. The Samaritan script proper, as we know it from later epigraphic and still later manuscript evidence, evolved from the script that is used in the Mt. Gerizim palaeo-Hebrew inscriptions. Approximately datable evidence of the 70

71

72

73

74

75

76

Samaritan script is preserved in inscriptions on mosaic floors of synagogues and on oil lamps from the Byzantine period, while the earliest extant manuscripts postdate these inscriptions by several centuries. We do not know when the Samaritan script first developed. Some think it was in the Hasmonean period, others in the first century C.E. because they date the Emmaus inscription in that period, and still others after the Second Jewish War. Rudolph Macuch assumes that it developed soon after soft writing materials came into use, because only on materials of this kind was it possible to produce such an ornamental script, considered by the Samaritans probably more noble and worthy for the writing of Scripture than the simpler characters of the lapidary Hebrew script. Later it was imitated in lapidary inscriptions, many of them containing quotes from the Pentateuch. However, soft writing materials, such as papyrus and parchment, were available in Palestine for many centuries before samples of the Samaritan script became available (the earliest written fragment found in the Judean Desert, for instance, dates from the seventh century B.C.E.). For the dating of the origin of the script this criterion is therefore not useful. Recently, Dan Barag has suggested that the Samaritan script was consciously created by the Samaritans in the fourth century C.E., since no Samaritan inscription can be dated to an earlier period; and, furthermore, a passage (a baraitha) in the Babylonian Talmud (b. Sanhedrin 21b) implies that the Samaritans used the palaeo-Hebrew script to write their Pentateuch still in the third century C.E.: 77

78

79

Rav Hisda said, Mar Uqbah said: Originally the Torah was given to Israel in Hebrew script and the holy tongue; later in the time of Ezra, the Torah was given in the Assyrian script and the Aramaic language. They selected for Israel the Assyrian script and the holy tongue, leaving the Hebrew script and the Aramaic language to the simple folk. Who are the simple folk ( ) — Rav Hisda said Cutheans.80

By “Hebrew script,” palaeo-Hebrew is meant; “Assyrian” script connotes the Jewish “square Hebrew” derived from Aramaic. The inscriptions found on Mt. Gerizim attest that “at least until the conquest of Samaria by John Hyrcanus, Jews and Samaritans shared the same writing systems,” that is, both provinces used both scripts, the Aramaic script and the Hebrew script. Barag points out that the appearance of the Samaritan script on the one hand and the art manifest in the synagogue mosaics and the popular art on pottery lamps on the other, cannot be coincidental. Both of these achievements seem, according to Barag, to have been “defensive reactions of a people wishing to preserve their religious and cultural identity.” As opposed to the Jewish art of the late Roman and Byzantine periods, Samaritan art was strictly aniconic in obedience to the Second Commandment (Exod. 20:4; Deut. 5:8), and at the same time the Samaritans may have wanted “to move away from antiquated Jewish traditions” by giving up the palaeoHebrew script. The rabbis on their part frowned upon the scribes who wrote in palaeoHebrew characters — not for religious reasons, it seems, but out of party politics, that is, because their rivals used them. Among these rivals were not only sectarian scribes, such as the scribes in Qumran, but also Samaritan scribes. The negative attitude of the rabbis comes 81

82

83

84

also to the fore in the idea that the Torah was originally given in Assyrian script, but when the Israelites sinned, it was changed into Roʾaz, i.e., the palaeo-Hebrew script. When they repented, it was changed back to the Assyrian script. Some patristic sources note that there is a difference between the Jewish and the Samaritan Pentateuch and the respective scripts. Thus, Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260–ca. 340) writes in his Chronographia: 85

The descendants of the Jews have a law that differs from that of the Šamyrteans who were newcomers to the Jews. Yes, even the characters of the Hebrew writings: they are found to be different among the Jews and different among the Šamyrteans which not even the descendants of the Jews would probably refuse to consider the true and original ones. This is why there also was no rift between them until the transformation of the characters.86

Epiphanius of Salamis (ca. 315-403) is another church father who mentions the Samaritan script. In his work De XII gemmis, he calls the Samaritan script “the first script in accordance with the form which the Lord gave on the mount of Sinai” and underlines that it differs from that of the Jews. Similarly, Jerome (ca. 347 or 348–420), in his Introduction to the Book of Kings, comments that the Samaritans still use the original Hebrew script, whereas the Jews use the new script introduced by Ezra. Did the church fathers in fact mean the palaeoHebrew script rather than the Samaritan derivative? The question arises because in his Commentary on Ezekiel (9.4), Jerome claims that the last letter of the alphabet in use by the Samaritans, taw, resembles the cross that the Christians draw on their forehead. But this is not accurate for the Samaritan script as it appears in inscriptions and in manuscripts, whereas it is correct for the palaeo-Hebrew script. However, Jerome’s remark is probably not based on firsthand knowledge. 87

88

Fig. 26. Samaritan scripts. (Reinhard Pummer)

In the course of time there developed also a cursive form of the Samaritan script in which certain letters are shaped differently. The older script is also called majuscule, and the latter minuscule. The Samaritans use Arabic terms to denote the two types of script: mujallas (literally “well set”) for the majuscule and ṭariš (literally “rapid,” “cursive”) for the minuscule. The exact time of origin of the minuscule script is unknown. Ben-Ḥayyim quotes as the earliest appearance a manuscript written in 1513, although another manuscript from 1202/3 seems to have been written in the same script. Finally, European scholars devised a special “Samaritan” script which was used in nineteenth-century publications. 89

90

91

92

Explanation of the table I. Palaeo-Hebrew script dating from the beginning of the sixth century B.C.E. (Arad, Lachish) II. Handwriting of Abi Barakata b. Ab Zehuta b. Ab Nephusha b. Abraham

Ṣareptah from the year 1215/16, Sam 2o 6 of the National Library of Israel III. Handwriting of Marḥib b. Jacob (second half of the seventeenth century) from the end of MS Hunt 24 in the Bodleian Library IV. Handwriting of Ratson b. Benyamim Tsedaka (1922-1990), Ḥolon V. Letters of the typewriter used by Israel b. Gamlel (Gabriel) Tsedaka (19322010) to write prayer books and other works VI. Handwriting of ʿAbd al-Ghani b. Ahmad b. ʿAbd al-Gani b. Joseph, ʿAbdah family, 1513, scribe of the second part of Leiden MS Or. 249 VII. as III VIII. as IV IX. as V X. European print 1. For text and translation see Reinhard Pummer, Early Christian Authors on Samaritans and Samaritanism: Texts, Translations and Commentary (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism, 92; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), pp. 69-70. 2. See the chapter on “Samaritan Literature.” 3. Arthur E. Cowley, The Samaritan Liturgy (Oxford: Clarendon, 1909), p. 38, lines 27-28; and Ze’ev Ben-Ḥayyim, The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic Amongst the Samaritans [in Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1967), vol. III, Part 2, p. 42, lines 17-19. 4. See the earlier chapter on “The Identity of the Samaritans.” 5. This is also Kartveit’s view (Magnar Kartveit, The Origin of the Samaritans [VTSup, 128; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2009], p. 295). 6. For recent statements to this effect in publications issued by the Samaritans, see Jacob ben Uzzi (Jacob Ben-Ezzi Cohen) [Shafik], The Samaritans: Their History, Customs, Religion (Nablus, 1965), p. 23; and Anonymous, “The Samaritan-Israelites and Their Religion: Educational Guide” (Holon, 2004), pp. 11-12. 7. The tashqil is a colophon that is created by isolating letters from words in the text that form a vertical column to be read from top to bottom. In the Pentateuch a tashqil is usually formed in Deuteronomy (cf. Luis Fernando Girón-Blanc, “Tašqīl,” in A Companion to Samaritan Studies, ed. Alan D. Crown, Reinhard Pummer, and Abraham Tal [Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1993], pp. 228-29). 8. Paul Stenhouse, The Kitāb al-Tarīkh of Abū ʾl-Fatḥ: Translated into English with Notes (Studies in Judaica, 1; Sydney: Mandelbaum Trust, University of Sydney, 1985), p. 45. 9. The text was photographed and published, with transcription and notes, by Federico Pérez Castro, Séfer Abišaʿ. Edición del Fragmento Antiguo del rollo sagrado del Pentateuco hebreo samaritano de Nablus. Estudio, transcripción, aparato crítico y facsímiles (Textos y estudios del Seminario Filológico Cardenal Cisneros, 2; Madrid: C.S.I.C., 1959). For a short summary, with additional references, see Alan D. Crown, “Abisha Scroll,” in A Companion to Samaritan Studies, ed. Alan D. Crown, Reinhard Pummer, and Abraham Tal (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1993), pp. 4-6. See also Alan D. Crown, “The Abisha Scroll of the Samaritans,” BJRL 58 (1975-76): 36-65. 10. This is the hypothesis proposed in Federico Pérez Castro, “Das Kryptogramm des ‘Sefer Abischaʿ’,” VTSup 7 (1960): 60; and Pérez Castro, Séfer Abišaʿ, p. xlvi. 11. Crown, for instance, dates it in 1341 (Crown, “The Abisha Scroll of the Samaritans,” p. 64). 12. For a discussion see Reinhard Pummer, “The Samaritans and Their Pentateuch,” in Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance, ed. Gary N. Knoppers and Bernard M. Levinson; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), pp. 241-42. In 2011, Tov calculated 7000 differences (Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible: Third Edition, Revised and Expanded [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012], p. 79, n. 126). 13. See also below the section on the Samaritan Pentateuch and Western Scholarship. The Paris Polyglot Bible (Le Jay, Biblia Hebraica) was published in nine volumes between 1629 and 1645; the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Samaritan Targum are contained in volume six; Jean Morin was responsible for both (see below). The London Polyglot Bible (Walton, Biblia Sacra) was printed in six volumes between 1653 and 1657/1658; Edmund Castell, professor for Arabic in Cambridge, was responsible for the Samaritan texts. 14. Abraham Tal, “Observations on the Orthography of the Samaritan Pentateuch,” in Samaritan Researches, vol. V, ed. Vittorio Morabito, Alan D. Crown, and Lucy Davey (Mandelbaum Studies in Judaica, 10; Sydney: Mandelbaum Publishing, 2000), p. 1.35; and Abraham Tal, “Divergent Traditions of the Samaritan Pentateuch as Reflected by Its Aramaic Targum,” Journal for the Aramaic Bible 1 (1999): 299-300. 15. Alan D. Crown, Samaritan Scribes and Manuscripts (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism, 80; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2001), p. 35. 16. On this tradition see Stefan Schorch, Die Vokale des Gesetzes. Die samaritanische Lesetradition als Textzeugin der Tora. 1. Das Buch Genesis (BZAW, 339; Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2004); and Schorch’s other publications in this area quoted in this book. See now also Moshe Florentin, “Some Thoughts About the Evaluation of the Samaritan Reading of the Pentateuch and the Hebrew Dialect Reflected in This Reading,” in Die Samaritaner und die Bibel: Historische und literarische Wechselwirkungen zwischen biblischen und samaritanischen Traditionen = The Samaritans and the Bible: Historical and Literary Interactions between Biblical and Samaritan Traditions, ed. Jörg Frey, Ursula Schattner-Rieser, and Konrad Schmid (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012), pp. 339-53. 17. Israel Tsedaka, Samaritan Torah (Holon, 1998). 18. See above, Schorch, Die Vokale des Gesetzes. Tsedaka has incorporated in his English translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch the pronunciation of certain words, viz., “the names of the Almighty, the proper names of males and females, tribes, families, households, nations, lands, mountains, valleys, rivers, brooks, kings, and other personalities mentioned in the Pentateuch” (Benyamim Tsedaka, ed. and trans., The Israelite Samaritan Version of the

Torah: First English Translation Compared with the Masoretic Version [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013], p. xxxiii). 19. Tal, “Divergent Traditions,” p. 300. Tal and Florentin have now published a comparison between SP and MT in which they analyze and discuss those differences that are revealed only in the Samaritan reading tradition (Abraham Tal and Moshe Florentin, eds., The Pentateuch: The Samaritan Version and the Masoretic Version [Tel Aviv: The Haim Rubin Tel Aviv University Press, 2010]). These cases are also highlighted in Tsedaka’s English translation. See the detailed review of Tal’s and Florentin’s edition by Emanuel Tov, “A New Edition of the Samaritan Pentateuch,” in Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, Septuagint: Collected Essays, Volume 3 (by Emanuel Tov; VTSup, 167; Leiden: Brill, 2015), pp. 250-57. 20. For detailed descriptions of Gesenius’s categories see Jean Margain, “Samaritain (Pentateuque),” DBSup 11 (1991): 763-68; and Abraham Tal, “The First Samaritanologist: Wilhelm Gesenius,” in Biblische Exegese und hebräische Lexikographie: das “Hebräisch-deutsche Handwörterbuch” von Wilhelm Gesenius als Spiegel und Quelle alttestamentlicher und hebräischer Forschung. 200 Jahre nach seiner ersten Auflage, ed. Stefan Schorch and ErnstJoachim Waschke (BZAW, 427; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013), pp. 142-46. 21. See the chapter on “Samaritans in Jewish Writings of Antiquity.” 22. Abraham Geiger, “Einleitung in die biblischen Schriften, 11. Der samaritanische Pentateuch,” in Abraham Geiger’s Nachgelassene Schriften, ed. Ludwig Geiger (Berlin: L. Gerschel, 1876), vol. 4, pp. 54-62; Abraham Geiger, Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bible in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der inneren Entwicklung des Judentums (2nd ed.; Frankfurt am Main: Madda, 1928); and Paul Kahle, “Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Pentateuchtextes,” Theologische Studien und Kritiken 88 (1915): 399-439. 23. Tal and Florentin, The Pentateuch: The Samaritan Version and the Masoretic Version, pp. 25-38. 24. Tov, Textual Criticism, pp. 80-90. 25. Geiger, “Einleitung. 11,” p. 67 (“eine alte Recension … , wie sie zu jener Zeit allgemeine Verbreitung hat”). 26. See the full study of Judith E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll from Qumran: 4QpaleoExodm and the Samaritan Tradition (Harvard Semitic Studies, 30; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1986). 27. See Michael Segal, “The Text of the Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Materia Giudaica 12 (2007): 10-17. See also Molly M. Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture: Composition and Exegesis in the 4QReworked Pentateuch Manuscripts (STDJ, 95; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2011), pp. 14748; and Jonathan Ben-Dov, “Early Texts of the Torah,” Journal of Ancient Judaism 4, 2 (2013): 211-12, and passim. 28. Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture, p. 148. 29. See Tov, Textual Criticism, pp. 83-87. 30. This was highlighted by Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture, p. 135. 31. Deut. 12:5, 11, 14, 18, 21, 26; 14:23, 24, 25; 15:20; 16:2, 6, 7, 11, 15, 16; 17:8, 10; 18:6; 26:2; 31:11. 32. See Adrian Schenker, “Le Seigneur choisir-t-il le lieu de son nom ou l’a-t-il choisi? L’apport de la Bible Grecque ancienne à l’histoire du texte samaritain et massorétique,” in Scripture in Tradition: Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo, ed. Anssi Voitila and Jutta Jokiranta (JSJSup, 126; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2008), pp. 339-51. See the synoptic table on p. 351. For some of the Greek and Bohairic manuscripts that testify to a reading , see already Reihnard Pummer, “ΑΡΓΑΡΙΖΙΝ: A Criterion for Samaritan Provenance?” JSJ 18 (1987-88): 25. See also Adrian Schenker, “Textgeschichtliches zum Samaritanischen Pentateuch und Samareitikon,” in Samaritans: Past and Present: Current Studies, ed. Menachem Mor and Friedrich V. Reiterer (Studia Judaica, 53, Studia Samaritana, 5; Berlin; New York: De Gruyter, 2010), pp. 105-21. 33. Schenker, “Le Seigneur,” p. 349. 34. Gary N. Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans: The Origins and History of Their Early Relations (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), p. 187. 35. See now Eugene Charles Ulrich, “4QJoshuaa and Joshua’s First Altar in the Promised Land,” in New Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Paris 1992, ed. George J. Brooke and Florentino García Martínez (STDJ, 15; Leiden; New York; Cologne: E. J. Brill, 1994), pp. 89-104. 36. See James H. Charlesworth, “What Is a Variant? Announcing a Dead Sea Scrolls Fragment of Deuteronomy,” Maarav 16 (2009): 201-12. 37. In addition to Charlesworth’s opinion, see also Eugene Charles Ulrich, “The Old Latin, Mount Gerizim, and 4QJOSHa,” in Textual Criticism and Dead Sea Scrolls Studies in Honour of Julio Trebolle Barrera: Florilegium complutense, ed. Andres Piquer Otero and Pablo A. Torijano Morales (JSJSup, 157; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2012), pp. 364-65. 38. Ulrich, “4QJoshuaa and Joshua’s First Altar,” p. 369. 39. The verse count here follows that of the New Revised Standard Version, which in turn follows Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia, counting the sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth commandments as discrete verses. In other editions, the Samaritan Tenth Commandment follows Exod. 20:14. 40. As Dexinger has shown, this part of the Decalogue must be taken from Exod. 13:11a, because Deut. 11:29a reads “into the land that you are entering to occupy,” whereas Exod. 13:11a has “into the land of the Canaanites” (Ferdinand Dexinger, “Das Garizimgebot im Dekalog der Samaritaner,” in Studien zum Pentateuch. Walter Kornfeld zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Georg Braulik [Vienna: Herder, 1977], pp. 126-27). 41. In Deut. 27:3a the SP reads, like the MT, “on them” ( ); only in the Tenth Commandment it repeats “the stones.” Dexinger conjectures that the text of the Tenth Commandment may have circulated independently from the biblical text, possibly in the liturgy (Dexinger, “Das Garizimgebot,” p. 127). 42. Continuing from Deut. 11:29, “When the Lord your God has brought you into the land that you are entering to occupy, you shall set the blessing on Mount Gerizim and the curse on Mount Ebal,” the SP reads in Deut. 11:30, “they are beyond the Jordan,” but in the Tenth Commandment it reads instead, “that mountain is beyond the Jordan.” 43. So Dexinger, “Das Garizimgebot,” p. 126, n. 67. Dexinger was the first and, to my knowledge, only author to notice this peculiarity. In his opinion, the omission of the favorable half-verse Deut. 11:29b with the positive remark about Mt. Gerizim would be hard to understand if the Samaritans interpolated the text for ideological reasons. 44. Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans, p. 210. 45. Lester L. Grabbe, “The Law of Moses in the Ezra Tradition: More Virtual Than Real?” in Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch, ed. James W. Watts (SBL Symposium Series, 17; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001), p. 111. 46. See, e.g., Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans, p. 212. 47. See now Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans. See also Etienne Nodet, “Israelites, Samaritans, Temples, Jews,” in Samaria, Samarians, Samaritans: Studies on Bible, History and Linguistics, ed. József Zsengellér (Studia Judaica, 66, Studia Samaritana, 6; Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, 2011), pp. 121-71; Detlef Jericke, “Der Berg Garizim im Deuteronomium” ZAW 124 (2012): 213-28; Deniel E. Fleming, The Legacy of Israel in Judah’s Bible (New York:

Cambridge University Press, 2012); and Christophe Nihan, “Garizim et Ébal dans le Pentateuque: quelques remarques en marge de la publication d’un nouveau fragment du Deutéronome,” Semitica 54 (2012): 185-210. Each of these authors expounds his views also in other publications. Some authors believe that the Pentateuch is a northern creation, others reject this possibility (see the works cited in this note). See also Thomas L. Thompson’s conclusion: “A dominant Jerusalem over Judeo-Samaritan scribal traditions is hardly obvious and Jerusalem’s role in biblical composition seems first pertinent, historically, after the resurgence of the city during the reign of Antiochus III and under the Hasmoneans. A more complex perspective on the origins of the Torah and the Hebrew Bible is required, opening a new perspective with rich possibilities for the understanding of Samaritan and Jewish origins” (Thomas L. Thompson, “Changing Perspectives on the History of Palestine 1991-2011,” in Biblical Narrative and Palestine’s History: Changing Perspectives 2 [by Thomas L. Thompson; Copenhagen International Seminar; Sheffield: Equinox, 2013], p. 341). 48. For Samaritan Aramaic see above all the publications by Abraham Tal, such as his two-volume work A Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic (Handbuch der Orientalistik; Erste Abteilung: Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten, 50; Leiden, Boston, and Cologne: Brill, 2000); and, among many others, the following recent contributions: “Samaritan Aramaic,” in The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook, ed. Stefan Weninger et al. (Handbooks on Linguistics and Communication Science, 36; Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2011), pp. 619-28; “In Search of Late Samaritan Aramaic,” Aramaic Studies 7 (2009): 163-88; and now his grammar of the Samaritan Aramaic dialect, Samaritan Aramaic (Lehrbücher orientalischer Sprachen III/2; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2013). 49. For an introduction see Abraham Tal, “The Samaritan Targum of the Pentateuch,” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. Martin Jan Mulder (Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1988), pp. 189-216. 50. Moshe Florentin, Late Samaritan Hebrew: A Linguistic Analysis of Its Different Types (Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics, 43; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2005), p. 94. See below and the chapter “The Samaritans in History”. 51. See above in this chapter. 52. Abraham Tal, The Samaritan Targum of the Pentateuch: A Critical Edition [in Hebrew] (3 vols.; Texts and Studies in the Hebrew Language and Related Subjects, 4-6; Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1980-83). 53. Haseeb Shehadeh, The Arabic Translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch: Edited from Manuscripts with an Introductory Volume (Publications of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities; Section of Humanities; Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1989/2002). On Saʿadya Gaʾon’s translation and the issues related to it see now the comprehensive and detailed work by Tamar Zewi, The Samaritan Version of Saadya Gaon’s Translation of the Pentateuch: Critical Edition and Study of MS London BL OR7562 and Related MSS (Biblia Arabica. Texts and Studies 3; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2015). 54. For a discussion of the details see Shehadeh, The Arabic Translation; and Haseeb Shehadeh, “Arabic Versions of the Pentateuch,” in A Companion to Samaritan Studies, ed. Alan D. Crown, Reinhard Pummer, and Abraham Tal (Tübingen: J. C. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1993), pp. 22-24. 55. See the chapter “The Samaritans in History.” 56. See Milka Levy-Rubin, The Continuatio of the Samaritan Chronicle of Abū l-Fatḥ al-Sāmirī al-Danafī (Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam, 10; Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press, 2002), pp. 110-111, for the text quoted above, and pp. 39-40 for her discussion of the passage. On the term raʾīs, see the chapter on “Geographical Distribution and Demography.” 57. See on this question Reinhard Pummer, “The Greek Bible and the Samaritans,” REJ 157 (1998): 269-358; and Jan Joosten, “Septuagint and Samareitikon,” in From Author to Copyist: The Composition, Redaction and Transmission of the Hebrew Bible in Honor of Zipi Talshir, ed. Cana Werman (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015), pp. 1-15. 58. Yitzhak Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan (Judea & Samaria Publications, 7; Jerusalem: Staff Officer of Archaeology — Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria; Israel Antiquities Authority, 2008), pp. 175 and 236. 59. Cf. Pieter W. van der Horst, “Greek in Jewish Palestine in Light of Jewish Epigraphy,” in Hellenism in the Land of Israel, edited by John J. Collins and G. E. Sterling (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001), pp. 166. 60. For the rabbinic passages see Abraham Tal, “Le Pentateuque samaritain,” in L’enfance de la Bible hébraïque: L’histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament à la lumière des recherches récentes, ed. Adrian Schenker and Philippe Hugo (Le Monde de la Bible; Genève: Labor et Fides, 2005), pp. 77-78; and for the church fathers see Reinhard Pummer, Early Christian Authors on Samaritans and Samaritanism: Texts, Translations and Commentary (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism, 92; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002). 61. The copy is now lost. 62. See the chapter “Geographical Distribution and Demography.” The manuscript in question is described in August von Gall, Der Hebräische Pentateuch der Samaritaner (Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1914-18), pp. iii-iv; and in Jean-Pierre Rothschild, Catalogue des manuscrits samaritains (Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, 1985), pp. 36-39, with further references. 63. On Gesenius’s substantial contributions to Samaritan studies in general and the study of the Samaritan Pentateuch in particular see now Tal, “The First Samaritanologist: Wilhelm Gesenius.” 64. Gall, Der Hebräische Pentateuch. 65. Tal, The Samaritan Pentateuch. 66. Tal and Florentin, The Pentateuch — The Samaritan Version and the Masoretic Version. 67. For a description of the editorial principles see Stefan Schorch, “Der Pentateuch der Samaritaner: Seine Erforschung und seine Bedeutung für das Verständnis des alttestamentlichen Bibeltextes,” in Die Samaritaner und die Bibel: Historische und literarische Wechselwirkungen zwischen biblischen und samaritanischen Traditionen = The Samaritans and the Bible: Historical and Literary Interactions between Biblical and Samaritan Traditions, ed. Jörg Frey, Ursula Schattner-Rieser, and Konrad Schmid (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012), pp. 5-29; and Stefan Schorch, “A Critical editio maior of the Samaritan Pentateuch: State of Research, Principles, and Problems,” Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 2 (2013): 100-120. 68. Tsedaka, The Israelite Samaritan Version of the Torah. 69. For an introduction to the Samaritan Pentateuch and the research on it, see Robert T. Anderson and Terry Giles, The Samaritan Pentateuch: An Introduction to Its Origin, History and Significance for Biblical Studies (Resources for Biblical Study 72; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012). 70. On the Samaritan script see also Ze’ev Ben-Ḥayyim, A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew Based on the Recitation of the Law in Comparison with the Tiberian and Other Jewish Traditions. A Revised Edition in English (Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000), pp. 23-28; and Kartveit, The Origin of the Samaritans, pp. 288-90. 71. Charles Simon Clermont-Ganneau, “Note II: Expedition to Amwas (Emmaus-Nicopolis),” PEFQS 14 (1882): 22-37. 72. William Foxwell Albright, From Stone Age to Christianity: Monotheism and the Historical Process (2nd ed., Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1957), pp. 345-46, n. 12.

73. So still Joseph Naveh, Early History of the Alphabet: An Introduction to West Semitic Epigraphy and Palaeography (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1982), p. 123. 74. Dan Barag, “Samaritan Writing and Writings,” in From Hellenism to Islam: Cultural and Linguistic Change in the Roman Near East, ed. Hannah M. Cotton, Robert G. Hoyland, Jonathan J. Price, and David J. Wasserstein (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), pp. 313-14. 75. See Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan, pp. 234-35. 76. See Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan, p. 232; Jan Dušek, “Ruling of Inscriptions in Hellenistic Samaria,” Maarav 14 (2007): 65; Jan Dušek, Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions from Mt. Gerizim and Samaria between Antiochus III and Antiochus IV Epiphanes (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East, 54; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2012), pp. 54-60. 77. James D. Purvis, The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin of the Samaritan Sect (Harvard Semitic Monographs, 2; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968), p. 21. 78. Mark D. McLean, “The Use and Development of Palaeo-Hebrew in the Hellenistic and Roman Times,” Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1982, p. 106: “In fact, one can say a pure Samaritan script is not achieved until it becomes the only remaining branch of Palaeo-Hebrew after the Second Jewish War.” 79. Rudolf Macuch, Grammatik des samaritanischen Hebräisch (Studia Samaritana, 1; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1969), p. 3. 80. b. Sanhedrin 21b (as quoted in Barag, “Samaritan Writing,” p. 318). See also m. Yadayim 4:5; b. Megillah 9a; t. Sanhedrin 4:7; y. Megillah 71b-c. 81. See Naveh, Early History, pp. 11 and 112-24. 82. Joseph Naveh, “Scripts and Inscriptions in Ancient Samaria,” IEJ 48 (1998): 91-100, esp. pp. 91 and 100. 83. So Barag, “Samaritan Writing,” pp. 318-21. 84. See Meir Bar-Ilan, “Scribes and Books in the Late Second Commonwealth and Rabbinic Period,” In Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. Martin Jan Mulder (Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1988), p. 29; and Emanuel Tov, “The Socio-Religious Background of the Paleo-Hebrew Biblical Texts Found at Qumran,” in Geschichte, Tradition, Reflexion: Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag, vol. 1, ed. Hubert Cancik, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Peter Schäfer (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1996), pp. 365-66. For a different view see Naveh, “Scripts and Inscriptions,” p. 95: “The Talmudic passages (BT Sanhedrin 22a; Tosefta Sanhedrin V [read: IV], 7; PT Megilla 71a-b) generally approach the ‘change of scripts’ in the spirit of apology.” See also Joseph Naveh, “Scripts and Inscriptions in Ancient Samaria” [in Hebrew], in The Samaritans, ed. Ephraim Stern and Hanan Eshel (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press; Israel Antiquities Authority; Staff Officer for Archaeology — Civil Administration for Judea and Samaria, 2002), p. 375. 85. b. Sanhedrin 21b. See also Kartveit, The Origin of the Samaritans, p. 290. 86. See Pummer, Early Christian Authors, p. 93. 87. Pummer, Early Christian Authors, p. 179. 88. Pummer, Early Christian Authors, p. 207. 89. See Ben-Ḥayyim, A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew, p. 24. 90. See Macuch, Grammatik des samaritanischen Hebräisch, pp. 3-5. 91. Ben-Ḥayyim, A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew, pp. 24-25. 92. Examples of such publications are Samuel Kohn, “De pentateucho samaritano ejusque cum versionibus antiquis nexu,” Ph.D. diss., Universitas Viadrina, 1865. Isaac Rosenberg, Lehrbuch der samaritanischen Sprache und Literatur. Mit Facsimile eines samaritanischen Briefes vom gegenwärtigen Hohenpriester der Samaritaner zu Nablus (Die Kunst der Polyglottie, 71; Wien, Pest and Leipzig: A. Hartleben, 1901); Julius Heinrich Petermann, Brevis linguae Samaritanae grammatica, litteratura, chrestomathia cum glossario (Porta Linguarum Orientalium, 3; Carolsruhae et Lipsiae: H. Reuther, 1873); George Frederic Nicholls, A Grammar of the Samaritan Language with Extracts and Vocabulary (London: Samuel Bagster, 1858). In the table on p. 217 (Fig. 26), column X presents a sample of the European “Samaritan” script. See also Pummer, The Samaritans, p. 26; and Ben-Ḥayyim, A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew, pp. 25-28.

X. Samaritan Literature Apart from their sacred Scripture, the Pentateuch, the Samaritans have a varied and extensive body of literature which they developed over the centuries. It is composed in different languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic. As mentioned, for the Graeco-Roman period we have to add Greek to the languages spoken, or at least understood, by certain strata of the Samaritan society. The existence of a Samaritan Hellenistic literature, however, has been the subject of numerous debates and conjectures. No primary sources clearly identifiable as Samaritan texts are left, but only quotations of some passages in later works that, according to some authors, may have been penned by Samaritans. As an illustration of the indirect way in which such fragments are known, in his Praeparatio Evangelica (probably via Josephus), the church historian Eusebius quotes Alexander Polyhistor’s work On the Jews which, in turn, is a collection of excerpts from various authors. Among these are some who have been identified as Samaritans, including Theodotus, Cleodomus Malchus, Ezekiel the Tragedian, and Pseudo-Eupolemus. As the scholarly discussions of these fragments show, it is difficult to establish clear criteria for identifying a Hellenistic text as Samaritan. To exemplify the wide diversity of interpretations of these writings by modern scholars, we may single out the work of Theodotus. While some authors see it as anti-Samaritan polemics, others see it as a piece of Samaritan propaganda. As noted in the section on the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Samaritans once used a Greek translation of the Torah; but here, too, only scant traces are extant. The Delos inscriptions show that the diaspora Samaritans used Greek in the second century B.C.E. and followed Greek customs. From the Byzantine period additional Samaritan inscriptions in Greek are extant. On the basis of ascribing to Samaritans the Greek works by the above-mentioned authors and by interpreting them literally, some scholars accused the Samaritans of syncretism and Hellenization in the sense of accepting pagan ways. But even if these fragments some time in the future could be shown conclusively to have been written by Samaritan authors, they would be an indication that these Samaritans “welcomed Greek culture and tried to work out a synthesis between their own traditions and the dominant Hellenistic civilization.” They would not prove that the Samaritans abandoned their own traditions and became “converts” to paganism or syncretists. Nothing indicates that the Samaritans reacted to Hellenism differently from the Jews. In other words, the use of the Greek language and the acquaintance with Greek ways do not mean that either the Jews or the Samaritans contaminated their religion or that their adherence to their own tradition was undermined by it. The Samaritan Hebrew of antiquity was similar to Judean Hebrew. It was supplanted as a spoken language by Aramaic after the turn of the eras, although it remained in use for liturgical compositions. After the conquest of Palestine by the Muslims in the early seventh century C.E., spoken and written Aramaic gradually gave way to Arabic. Probably in the eleventh century, the latter became the only spoken language of the Samaritans and the language in which they composed their historical, exegetical, grammatical, halakhic, medical, 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

astronomical, and other works. In the thirteenth/fourteenth century, colophons and deeds of sale in manuscripts as well as liturgical compositions began to be written in a special Hebrew, called variously “Samaritan,” “Late Samaritan Hebrew,” “Neo-Samaritan Hebrew,” “Samaritan Neo-Hebrew,” or “Hybrid Samaritan Hebrew.” It is heavily influenced by Aramaic and Arabic. Its creation was due to the fact that the Hebrew of the Pentateuch was no longer sufficient to express the thoughts of the medieval poets. Used eventually for writing religious poetry (piyyutim), prayers, chronicles, deeds of sale, marriage contracts, letters to European scholars, and other writings, from the fourteenth century to the present, it was never a language spoken in everyday life. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century the Samaritans used an archaizing form of Hebrew — sometimes called “‘Judaized’ Samaritan Hebrew” — to write chronicles for the consumption by European scholars who were interested in the Samaritans. Since these scholars were familiar with the Hebrew Bible, the Samaritans adapted their style to this readership by incorporating ancient Hebrew diction. Among the works written in this artificial language are the Samaritan Hebrew Book of Joshua, the Chronicle Adler (also called New Chronicle), the so-called Chronicle II, and the Hebrew translations of Arabic works made at the request of Moses Gaster. The use of this language ceased after the first three decades of the twentieth century, when the Samaritans began to interact with the Jewish community in Palestine. In their synagogue service the Samaritans use only Hebrew and Aramaic. According to their own traditions, the Samaritans once possessed a large number of writings. But, so the Samaritan chronicles report, these books were confiscated or destroyed by Roman emperors, either by Emperor Hadrian (according to the Samaritan Book of Joshua) or by Emperor Commodus (according to Abu l-Fatḥ in his chronicle). Among the works enumerated by the Book of Joshua were Songs, Hymns, a Book of the Genealogy of the High Priests, Annals, the Law, and a book containing records of the lives of the high priests. The Book of Joshua concludes its account with the statement that, of all this, only the last two works were preserved. Abu l-Fatḥ in his Kitāb mentions the loss of the Book of Chronicles and of the Hymns. If these accounts of the once voluminous literature have a basis in historical fact, it may well be that some of the traditions contained in these works have survived among the community as part of its collective memory and possibly were incorporated in medieval chronicles or lists of high priests. Much of the extant literature is still available only in manuscripts scattered in numerous collections in a variety of countries, above all in France, Great Britain, the United States, and Israel. For many of these manuscripts neither critical editions nor translations exist. Having discussed the earliest extant texts, the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Samaritan Targum, in the section on the Pentateuch, we now turn to other compositions. 11

12

13

14

15

16

1. Exegesis Exegesis, i.e., the interpretation of the Torah in the case of the Samaritans, forms part of most Samaritan works, even if their primary focus is midrash, liturgy, or halakhah. Conversely, 17

their exegetical works contain not only theological reflections on the text but also midrash, halakhah, and moral exhortations. Often the exegetes incorporate into their works excerpts from earlier authors as well as proverbs and other material. The extant commentaries, mostly unpublished, are in Arabic. Commentaries on the whole of the Torah are not preserved, but must have existed in earlier times since some are mentioned in various sources. What we do have are commentaries on specific books or passages of the Bible. The writing of commentaries is not just a past Samaritan literary activity, but continues to the present. In the following, a selection of Samaritan commentaries is listed with an emphasis on works that are at least partially available in editions or translations. 18

a. Tībåt Mårqe One of the most important early Samaritan works of midrashic exegesis is a collection of texts that were united in one book, the Tībåt Mårqe, previously known as Memar Marqah (Mimar Mårqe), i.e., Teaching of Marqe. According to Ben-Ḥayyim, the designation Tībåt is derived from the word , “chest,” in which several distinct writings attributed to Marqe were kept. Abraham Tal proposes a different derivation of the term, noting that can mean “ark” (as in Gen. 6:14; Exod. 2:3; m. Nedarim 5:5), but also “(written) word” (as in rabbinic Hebrew; e.g., y. Pesaḥim 31b). He opts, therefore, for the translation The Ark of Mårqe. The work now consists of six books, and the analysis of its language, Aramaic, has shown that only Books One and sections of Book Two date from the time of Marqe, although they contain later interpolations. The last four books are in neo-Samaritan Hebrew and were written several centuries after Marqe’s lifetime. It is conceivable, however, that they too — or at least some parts of them — are from his time but were edited in a style characteristic of the last centuries of the Aramaic literature. The dating of the various books has consequences for the dating of certain theological concepts of the Samaritans. One of them concerns the Samaritan eschatological prophet, the Taheb. In Ben-Ḥayyim’s edition of Tībåt Mårqe, he is mentioned only in Books One and Two. Although these are linguistically the earliest books, Ben-Ḥayyim believes that these passages were interpolated here because they are missing in the oldest extant manuscript, viz., manuscript K from the thirteenth century. A new edition and English translation of this manuscript has now been prepared by Abraham Tal. The absence of the term Taheb from these sources does not mean that the concept did not exist in Marqe’s time. The term as such is documented only in sources from the Aramaic period; but as mentioned, already the Gospel of John (4:25) testifies to the existence of the belief in the Taheb without using this term. Similarly, the idea of the resurrection of the dead occurs in the linguistically late fourth book of Tībåt Mårqe, although it may well be older than that. Tībåt Mårqe contains narrative expositions of biblical texts, interspersed with homilies and poetic compositions. The main topics are the liberation from Egypt (Exod. 15), the blessings and curses of Deuteronomy 27:9-26, the “Song of Moses” in Deuteronomy 32, Moses’ death, and a midrash on the letters of the alphabet. For the Samaritans, Marqe was, and is to the present, not only the greatest poet, but also the greatest philosopher and scholar. 19

20

21

b. Commentary on the Ten Commandments (Kitab fi Šuruḥ al-ʿašr kalimat) This is a commentary on Exodus 19–20 by Abu l-Ḥasan al-Ṣuri, the eleventh-century author of the halakhic work Kitab al-Ṭabbakh. The same author also wrote a commentary on Deuteronomy 32:1-43. 22

23

c. Commentary on Genesis 1:2–50:4 The author of this work is the physician (al-Ḥakim) Ṣadaqa b. Munajja b. Ṣadaqa al-Samiri al-Dimašqi, who died in 1223. The beginning and the end of the commentary are missing. The section on Genesis 3:1-8 has been edited, translated into German, and annotated by Weigelt. Ṣadaqa’s father, Munajja b. Ṣadaqa, is the author of the Kitab al-ḫilaf, discussed below under Halakhah. 24

d. Marginal Notes on the Arabic Translation of the Pentateuch (Kitab al-ḥawaši) This is an unedited work containing notes on a number of passages in the Pentateuch by the Egyptian scholar and reviser of the Arabic translations of the Samaritan Pentateuch, Abu Saʿid b. Abi l-Ḥasab b. Abi Saʿid (died approximately 1261). The notes were incorporated in Abraham Kuenen’s editions of the Samaritan Pentateuch, and Abraham S. Halkin published the notes to Numbers and Deuteronomy with an English translation. 25

26

e. Ten Proofs of the Second Kingdom (Ṯubut al-daula al-taniya) This short work was written by Ghazal (Ṭabia) al-Duwaik, who probably lived in the thirteenth century. Starting with ten pentateuchal passages, the author offers proofs of the Second Kingdom. A. Merx published the Arabic text and a German translation, M. Gaster translated the work into English. The same author also wrote a short commentary on Numbers 22–24, the Balaam narrative. 27

28

29

30

f. Commentary on Leviticus 26:3-46 (Šarḥ am baqquti) This is a partially preserved commentary on the pericope “If you follow my laws,” by Nafis ad-Din Abu l-Faraj b. Isḥaq b. Kaththar, who lived in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Nafis is also the author of a halakhic work. 31

g. Commentary on Deuteronomy 32:3-4 (Kitab Šarḥ al-fatiḥa) This lengthy commentary on an important passage in the Samaritan prayers was written by the prolific author Ibrahim b. Yusuf al-Qabbaṣi, who lived in the sixteenth century, first in Damascus and then in Shechem. So far, the text has neither been edited nor translated. His most famous work “Kitāb sair al-qalb ilā maʿrifat ar-rabb” (The Change of the Heart to the Knowledge of the Lord) was edited and translated in an unpublished doctoral dissertation by Z. Shunnar. 32

33

h. Commentary on Genesis and Exodus by Meshalma (Muslim) b. Murjan and Ibrahim b. Yaʿqub b. Murjan al-Danfi (Ibrahim al-ʿAyya) This commentary was written by two authors of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Ibrahim b. Yaʿqub b. Murjan al-Danfi (Ibrahim al-ʿAyya) and his uncle, Meshalma b. Murjan. Meshalma authored the part on Genesis, and Ibrahim the part on Exodus. The commentary on Genesis 37–45, the Joseph cycle, was edited and translated into English by G. L. Rosen, and Exodus 21–22:15 was edited, with annotations, by M. Klumel. Ibrahim also wrote a commentary on Leviticus 23, which was edited and translated into German by S. Hanover. The following excerpt from Meshalma b. Murjan’s commentary on Genesis may stand as an example of Samaritan exegesis of the eighteenth century. It shows the Samaritans’ special reverence for Joseph and the antagonism to Judah whose plan to sell Joseph is called “stupid.” The passage concludes with the exhortation: “if you have sown well before God, you will reap assistance from him in your misfortune; so do well and you will achieve rest at your end.” 34

35

36

37

Also at the time of his sale to the Ishmaelites, he called to his brothers for help and begged them not to sell him to strangers and hand him over to those who were of another religion and belief. But they did not help him or free him. Indeed, by force of their grudge against him, they sold him into slavery seeking to get rid of him. The caravan set out with him and brought him to Egypt. When they sold him they bound him by oath not to reveal anything that had happened to him but to keep the secret. They were cognizant of his religious nature and knew that he would not violate his oath. Then after that, Reuben came and followed their track to the well with the intention of lifting up Joseph from it and returning him to his father as he had secretly planned. But he did not find Joseph in the well. He had been absent at the time of Joseph’s sale, as we have mentioned previously. He was at the top of the Holy Mountain which is Mount Gerizim, praying and imploring and beseeching God, asking forgiveness for his sin and pardon for his error and his iniquity. Since we have previously discussed this matter, its repetition is unnecessary. When he did not find our Master Joseph in the well, he tore his clothing because of his distress over his brother and his sorrow over a person who was perfect in his knowledge and practice and chastity and intelligence and political sagacity, according to His word: And Reuben returned to the pit, and behold, Joseph was not in the pit, and he rent his clothes. (Gen. 37, 29) For he thought that his brothers had killed Joseph, and this shows that Reuben alone of all his brothers loved Joseph. As for Judah, he feared the spilling of innocent blood lest the Creator demand payment for his blood (from him). Yet, because he harbored in his heart hatred for Joseph, he advised his being sold so that they might be rid of him, and so that his dream might be nullified by his becoming a slave and thus unable to be king over them, since he desired his misfortune and the bringing to naught of his dreams. This plan was a stupid one because you cannot humble anyone whom God wishes to help, and if you have sown well before God, you will reap assistance from him in your misfortune; so do well and you will achieve rest at your end.38

i. Malef This modern work is not an explicitly exegetical book, but contains elements of it in the presentation of Samaritan beliefs. The title is derived from the root ʾlf, “teaching,” “instruction.” Sometimes scholars call it therefore a “catechism,” especially since the teachings in it are conveyed in the form of questions and answers. In Arabic the work is called “Teaching of the Tora (on the five books of Moses) Through the Method of Questions and Answers.” For several reasons, it is, however, not appropriate to call it a catechism. To begin with, many of the answers are too long to be memorized by children (one covers ten 39

folios or twenty pages in the manuscript). Furthermore, some of the “questions” are not really questions but statements which are developed in the “answer.” The work, thus, seems to be meant as a handbook to assist the teacher in the instruction of the Samaritan tradition. The time of the origin of the book is unknown. The eminent Samaritan author Pinḥas b. Isaac (d. 1898), mentioned in the colophons of the two known manuscripts (one, in Arabic, in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, and a second one, in Arabic and Hebrew, in the John Rylands Library in Manchester ), may not have been the author, but only a copyist or a redactor. In the opinion of some scholars, the work goes back to the eighteenth century. Only a small part was published in English translation by John Bowman, but a complete edition of the Hebrew text with an English translation appears in the unpublished doctoral dissertation by Edward C. Baguley. The following is a sample from the section dealing with the giving of the law to Moses, including a reference to the 613 precepts known from Judaism. 40

41

42

43

44

45

Question 148 When was the advent of the law, and the descent of the Torah and the tablets? Answer Moses, upon whom be peace, received them on Mount Sinai at the first, when he stayed on it forty days and nights (Ex. XXIV.18) in accordance with the word which had come to him, even the saying of Him who is to be praised, “Come up to me to the mountain and be there …” until the end (Ex. XXIV.12). And when the time was concluded during which the apostle stayed the above mentioned forty days, according to His saying, “And He gave to Moses, when He had made an end of speaking with him upon Mount Sinai, the two tables of the testimony” (Ex. XXIV.12, 18; XXXI.18). This refers to what happened just before. And it would not have been proper for Him in the first instance to refer to the Law and the tablets and afterwards only give him the tablets. If the matter had been thus, it would have been a distortion (of speech). But the truth of this matter, for which may the Lord be praised, is that the Lord gave to him precisely what He had spoken about; just as the elder Japheth of Tyre ( ) has said, the favour of the Lord be upon him. Question 149 Where was the place of this book which the Lord gave to Moses, upon whom be peace? Answer The place was in the tent which they pitched outside the camp. And its keeper was Joshua the son of Nun, upon whom be peace (Ex. XXXIII.11). The book was retained under the care of the apostle during the ministry of Joshua, for forty years; and he expounded in it two laws. This was during the traversing of Moab, on the first of the month, in the eleventh month; according to the saying of Him who is to be praised, in the section “These are the words” (Deut. 1.1). “And in the fortieth year, on the first day of the eleventh month, Moses spoke …”, up to His saying “Moses undertook to explain this Law”: (Deut. 1.3-5) so he expounded the entire Law, according to the two books, just as we have said. And he gave the one to the priests, and the other to the elders of Israel (Deut. XXXI.9) so that the Law and the tradition might coincide in this. Question 150 What does this Law include? Answer It includes the creation of the world, and the words of the patriarchs, and the sections of the meritorious ones, well defined, and secrets and mysteries and knowledge for their posterity, and what the signs which the Lord did in the first days. (It includes) both commandments and statutes, concerning what was and what is to be; and commemoration of the Day of Vengeance and Resurrection, according to four divisions (lit. columns or pillars) and they are: as regards

the living, and as regards the good, and as regards the dead, and as regards the evil; to both the repentant and disobedient. Question 151 How many commandments and statutes are there in this Law? Answer Six hundred and thirteen. Question 152 Of this number, what did He command us that we should do and what is not good for us to do? Answer Of this number, there are two hundred and forty-eight commandments which He made for us to obey and do, all the days of our life; and three hundred and sixty-five He commanded us not to do. And we must obey the words of the Lord, which He commanded by the hand of the apostle, the righteous prophet.

2. Halakhah Similar to Judaism, Samaritanism possesses a body of religious laws or halakhah. But since religion suffuses the whole life of the Samaritans, halakhah affects not only the religious aspect of their existence but all spheres of life. However, Samaritan halakhah never held the same status as the Oral Law in Judaism, i.e., no authoritative collections of halakhah similar to the Jewish collections exist among the Samaritans. Rather, Samaritan halakhah is embodied in treatises written by distinguished scholars and in collections of questions and answers. Neither the individual treatises nor the collections of questions and answers play an important role in Samaritanism. What is decisive in day-to-day living is tradition. The extant literature dealing with halakhah dates from the Middle Ages and modern times and is written in Arabic. There are indications, however, that the authors of the earliest Arabic halakhic treatises had before them notes, and maybe even entire tractates, in Hebrew or Aramaic from earlier periods, but none of them is preserved. It must be emphasized, though, that our knowledge of Samaritan halakhah is derived from learned medieval works. It would be speculative to conclude on this basis what the methods of arriving at legal decisions was in earlier times. In principle, the Samaritan halakhic regulations are based on the exegesis of the Bible, on logical reasoning, and on oral tradition, whereby the latter controls the former. In other words, often the answer to a question is known from the tradition, but the derivation from the Bible may not be known, or may not even exist. As the Kitāb al-Kāfī says: “There are various traditional practices carried out as standard practice that are not mentioned explicitly by the text of Scripture, but some of which are alluded to by the wording of the passage.” Furthermore, the authority of a judgment does not depend on whether it was rendered by a priest or by a non-priestly member of the community; what counts is the learning of a person. It is, thus, the community which is the bearer of the tradition. In other words, the halakhic books are useful, but they are not sufficient. It should be noted that most of these books deal not exclusively with halakhah, but also with theology, exegesis, and other matters. A number of halakhic works are known only from quotations in other sources. 46

47

48

49

The majority of the Samaritan halakhic writings have not been critically edited and translated. In some cases, older scholarly works have studied select halakhic texts; in other cases, doctoral dissertations exist (some printed as books) or are in the process of being prepared, alleviating this situation somewhat. One specific topic, the uncleanness of men and women caused by a discharge, has been thoroughly treated in I. R. M. Bóid’s book Principles of Samaritan Halachah on the basis of critical editions of the pertinent texts (with English translations and a commentary) in the main halakhic treatises. The following is a description of the most important halakhic works. 50

51

52

a. Book of Insight (Kitab al-Ṭabbakh) Written between 1030 and 1040 C.E. by the distinguished Samaritan scholar and author of books and piyyutim, Abu l-Ḥasan al-Ṣuri (Ab Ḥisda of Tyre), The Kitab al-Ṭabbakh is the oldest extant halakhic work. The name of the work puzzled scholars for a long time because it was usually thought to mean Book of Cooking or Book of Slaughtering, a title little suited to the contents, although the work does include a short discussion of the four kinds of ritual slaughtering. Gerhard Wedel, the editor and translator of the first half of the book, believes that originally the title referred to a work which dealt primarily with food rules, and later redactors, not finding a suitable name, applied this title to the whole book. Bóid believes that it should be read as Kitab al-Ṭubakh or Kitab al-Ṭabbakh, i.e., Book of Insight. The book deals with such halakhic matters as the high priesthood, animals permissible as food, rules of purity, forbidden degrees of marriage, the direction of prayer, and many more. It also refutes Jewish customs and opinions, such as the contention that the Samaritans are not Israelites, and polemicizes against certain Karaite beliefs. Some parts of the work are devoted to philosophical questions and the interpretation of biblical texts. The existence of many extant manuscripts testifies to the wide use of the book. To date, no complete critical edition and translation is available; but, as noted above, Wedel’s dissertation “Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabbāḫ des Samaritaners Abū l-Ḥasan aṣ-Ṣūrī” presents a critical edition and an annotated German translation of the first part. 53

54

55

56

b. Book of the Sufficient (Kitāb al-Kāfī) The Kitab al-Kafi originated at the same time as the Kitab al-Ṭabbakh. It was authored by the eminent Samaritan theologian Yusuf b. Salama b. Yusuf al-ʿAskari in 1042 C.E. The title Book of the Sufficient or the Fully Adequate Book (Bóid) refers to “the one who is satisfied with the knowledge of the Book of God.” The work contains only halakhic material. Similar to the previous book, a good number of manuscripts are extant. No published critical edition exists, but an abridged translation into Italian was published by Sergio Noja. The Arabic text of Chapter 10, Leprosy, was edited by N. Cohn, and some parts are contained in the doctoral dissertation by Dorreya Mohammed ʿAbd al-ʿAl. Book 26 of the work, entitled “On Usury” in the translation by ʿAbd al-ʿAl, deals with the taking of interest and with the conditions applying in the case of a pledge. The following is taken from the first part of Book 26: 57

58

59

60

Taking interest is prohibited and is not allowed except from one who is not a descendant of lord Abraham (Peace be

upon him). Therefore it is prohibited to give a Dirham for a Dirham (as interest) or for less or for more over a specific period, except to him who is not a descendant of lord Abraham, according to His saying: “Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury” [Deut. 23:20]. He indicated by ‘thy brother’ the sons of Ishmael and the sons of Esau. The proof of that is His saying (Exalted is He) of the sons of Esau, “And when we passed by from our brethren the children of Esau” [Deut. 2:8]; and the sons of Ishmael are considered like them by analogy, as he is Isaac’s brother, and the latter is Jacob’s brother (Peace be upon him). Regarding the pledge; if raiment such as a cover or a garment which is required during the night is put in pledge with a person, he must not deprive (the owner) of it at night or keep it from him; for that would be “like usury” according to His saying: “Thou shalt not be to him as an usurer” [Exod. 22:25], and He also said: “Thou shalt deliver it unto him by that the sun goeth down” etc. [Exod. 22:26]. Therefore he must return it back to him and should not use it; and if the holder (of the pledge) made use of it at night either for guests or for himself, or lent it to another, viz. other than the owner, this causes (what He said) “And it shall come to pass, when he crieth unto me” etc. [Exod. 22:27]; and the (money) for which (the article) was put in pledge becomes void as the (article) was used, and he (i.e. the holder of the pledge) must return the article to its owner without taking what was due for it. Also if something affected the cloth which is held in pledge or has changed it as a result of using it, the holder (of the pledge) must return it; and also if the thing in pledge was an animal and the holder made use of it, he must pay something from the money (which the owner owes him), in return for his making use of it (i.e. the animal); but he has the right to deduct from that (money) a charge for feeding and looking after (the animal); but once he makes use of it for the same amount which he lent, he must return it (i.e. the animal) to his owner. If the pledge was an ass, and the holder put it away among mules and horses and they hurt it, he (i.e. the holder) must pay compensation for it; and (this) also (applies to) any kind of animal put with another kind; and it (applies) also (to) any kind of cloth or gold or silver or copper or iron or anything else, if carelessly kept (i.e. he must pay full compensation for whatever damage may happen).61

c. Commentary on the Pericope of Forbidden Marriages (Šarḥ Surat al-Irbot) The work discusses the laws regarding the forbidden degrees of marriage, i.e., sexual intercourse between closely consanguineous persons, as set out in Leviticus 18:6-30. It is preserved in manuscripts written by Naǧi b. Ḫaḍr (Abisha b. Pinḥas) b. Isḥaq b. Salama (1880-1960), who translated the document into Hebrew from a copy in the possession of his father. It goes back to a work by Abu l-Barakat (Abi Barakata) b. Saʿid al-Buṣri al-Suryani (twelfth/thirteenth century) who, according to his own testimony, was asked by Abu l-Ḥasan al-Ṣuri and his son Abu Isḥaq Ibrahim to summarize their teaching on the forbidden marriages. 62

63

d. Book of Questions on the Differences (Kitab Masaʾil al-Ḫilaf) This book was written, in the form of questions and answers, by Munajja b. Ṣadaqa in the mid-twelfth century. As the title indicates, it is mostly concerned with the differences between Samaritan and Jewish halakhic subjects and the defense of the Samaritan position. Again, no critical edition and translation of the work are available. A Latin translation of select passages is contained in a dissertation of 1875, and a German translation of some chapters was published in 1888. 64

65

e. Book of Inheritance (Kitab al-Mirat) This work was written by the important twelfth-century author Abu Isḥaq Ibrahim (c. 11501200), the son of Abu l-Ḥasan of Tyre and a physician by profession (he was one of the Samaritan medical doctors known to have treated Muslim officials ). His standing as a highly 66

67

respected scholar is expressed in his epithet “Sun of Wisdom” (Shams al-ḥukama). As the title indicates, the book deals with one specific area of halakhah — the rules of inheritance. A critical edition and translation into German with a commentary was published by Heinz Pohl in 1974. Pohl has shown that Abu Isḥaq bases himself on Karaite exegesis and Karaite teachings. He sees the reason for this in Abu Isḥaq’s attempt to base Samaritan law again on purely biblical sources and to purge it from Islamic legal influences, a concern he shared with the Karaites. This explains also Abu Isḥaq’s emphasis on the question of women’s right to inheritance which was strongly influenced by Islamic law. 68

69

f. Book of Commandments (Kitab al-Faraʾiḍ) The Book of Commandments is attributed to Nafis ad-Din Abu l-Faraj b. Isḥaq b. Kaththar, who also wrote a commentary on Numbers 26, as discussed above. The partly preserved Book of Commandments is a systematic treatment of the commandments as presented in the Torah. To date, it remains unedited and untranslated. 70

g. Uncoverer of Obscurities (Kashif al-Ghayahib) The full title is Kashif al-Ghayahib ʿan ʾasrar al-mawahib, i.e., The Dissipator of the Darkness That Veils the Secrets of the Gifts. It is a halakhic commentary on the Torah from Genesis to Numbers. The part on Deuteronomy was either never written or lost. The work was composed by several authors, among them Muslim b. Murjan al-Danfi (Gen. 1:1–46:28) at the end of the seventeenth century and, in the eighteenth century, by Ghazal b. Abi alṢurur al-Maṭari al-Yusufi al-Gazzi (Exodus, completed in 1754) and Ibrahim b. Yaʿqub alDanfi (Leviticus and Numbers, completed possibly shortly before 1782). 71

h. Hillukh The literal translation of the title is “Walking.” In Arabic, the work is called Kitab al-Ḫulf (Book of Difference), and in fact, one translation of the Arabic text into modern Samaritan Hebrew by the above-mentioned Naǧi b. Ḫaḍr is entitled Sefer Ḥilluq, Book of Difference. Although (or maybe, because) originally it probably was untitled, there are also other names for it, such as Kitab al-Iʿtiqadat (The Book of Beliefs) or Kitab al-Ṭuqusat (The Book of Rites). It exists in more than one recension which, however, differ little from each other. The author of the book is unknown, but it seems to have been composed in the late nineteenth century to address the questions posed by European scholars. The subjects treated are: the origin of the Samaritans, the direction of prayer (toward Mt. Gerizim), the Sabbath, circumcision, the calendar, rules of purity and impurity, rules of slaughter, marriage and divorce, the Samaritan Torah, and rules regarding the dead and the hereafter. English translations of parts of this work appear in various publications.

72

73

74

75

i. Fatwas (Legal Decisions) Apart from special books devoted to halakhic topics, the Samaritans framed halakhic rulings also in the form of fatwas, that is, judgments given by legal experts in response to questions, 76

similar to the Jewish Responsa and the Muslim fatwas. According to the Kitab of Abu l-Fatḥ, this practice goes back to early times — Abu l-Fatḥ claims that Baba Rabba introduced it. The identification of Samaritan fatwas in the strict sense of the term is complicated due to terminological issues and the fact that “the pattern of question-and-answer is ubiquitous in the literature of antiquity and the middle Ages.” Thus, Samaritan fatwas are not introduced by the names of the questioners and respondents, but use such phrases as “the sheikh says”; or they simply quote the question, followed by the answer of a Samaritan authority. Examples can be found in the Kitab al-Kafi and other medieval halakhic works. The Book of Enlightenment is a modern collection of fatwas assembled at the beginning of the twentieth century by the high priest Jacob b. Aaron b. Salama at the request of the American clergyman William Barton. As Wedel pointed out, the correspondence between Europeans and the Samaritans falls also in the category of fatwas, although it is usually not considered as such. 77

78

79

80

81

3. Liturgy Preserved from approximately the same time as the Samaritan Targum, there are prayers and texts for liturgical services which are still recited on certain days in the synagogue. Samaritan culture experienced a first flowering at that time, and some of their greatest poets and writers lived in this period. The earliest poet known by name is ʿAmram Dare, i.e., ʿAmram the Elder. His poems, written in pure Aramaic, do not contain rhymes, and their lines are of different lengths. He was succeeded by his aforementioned son Marqe, who was not only a poet, but also a scholar best known for his midrashic work Tībåt Mårqe, as explained in the previous section. In the eyes of the Samaritans he is the greatest poet. In comparison to ʿAmram Dare, his poetry is richer in expression, although like ʿAmram he does not use rhyme, and his poems consist of a fixed number of lines (four or seven). The following is an example of a seven-line poem: Look upon us, our Lord We have not whither to turn our faces But to thee for thou art merciful We know that we have sinned And persisted in our wrongdoing Act charitably towards us, our Lord And do not pay us according to our deserts.82

Ninna, the son of Marqe, was the last poet writing in Aramaic in the fourth century. He was less productive than his grandfather and father and introduced no innovations into Samaritan poetry. After the conquest of Palestine by the Muslims the situation changed and Arabic became the dominant language. Although Aramaic was still used in the liturgy, it now was influenced by Arabic. While between the tenth and the twelfth centuries authors still composed poems in Aramaic, gradually Hebrew came into prominence. Poets known from this period are 83

84

Ṭabia b. Darta (probably tenth century), Ab Ḥisda of Tyre (tenth/eleventh century), and Ab Gilluga (probably tenth/eleventh century). After a decline in Samaritan cultural life that lasted about two centuries, the fourteenth century witnessed a spiritual rebirth among the Samaritans. The Hybrid Samaritan Hebrew described above became the language of liturgical composition. The most important authors of this period are Pinḥas b. Joseph Harabban (Finas Arrabban) — the high priest who commissioned Abu l-Fatḥ to write his chronicle — and his two sons, Elʿazar and Abisha “the writer,” so named because he wrote a great number of poems. But even in later centuries poems were written in this style in which rhyme became very important. Eventually the poems were collected into a prayer book, called the Defter, containing ninety-three poems — thirty by Marqe, twenty-eight by ʿAmram Dare, one by Ninna, and thirty-four from later periods. More poems were added in the course of time until it became a weighty tome. Eventually the prayers for holidays were collected into separate prayer books for Passover, Pentecost, and other feasts. With one exception, all the Samaritan authors of the extant poems were men. The lone exception is the poetess Zainab aṣ-Ṣafawiyah, who lived most likely in the seventeenth century, and from whom three poems are preserved. Although nothing is known about her, we conclude that in 1723, the date of the collection in which two of her poems — hymns of supplication — are included, she must have been deceased for some time for her poems to be sufficiently acknowledged for inclusion in the collection. The third poem, in praise of Moses, was added in 1834, showing “that her poems must have had a certain vogue in Samaritan circles.” As an example, the first three stanzas of the second poem (the whole poem consists of twenty-four stanzas) published by Robertson will be quoted here: 85

86

87

88

89

O ever gracious God and Lord, Give heed to him who is abhorred, Who through the weary hours of night Seeks favour in his Master’s sight. All night I lie, all night I lie, And shepherd stars with tiny eye: And in my baseness I desire Salvation from Gehenna’s fire. O Lord our God, who art so great, Behold thy slave in low estate, Who through the weary hours of night Seeks favour in his Master’s sight.

4. Chronicles In the course of these chapters, reference has been made to various Samaritan chronicles — works incorporating the historical writings of the Samaritans. The oldest extant chronicles date from the Middle Ages, the most recent from the early twentieth century. It is probable

that the writing of this literature began with lists of high priests, to which were added short remarks about events concerning the community, resulting eventually in longer accounts. Over time, copyists added to the existing texts, modified them, added marginal glosses, and extended the narrative to their own times — up to the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in the case of the most recent specimens. The composite texts that evolved contain not only names of high priests and short comments on occurrences during their lifetime, but also modified accounts from the Prophets and Writings of the Jewish Bible as well as legends that are clearly not historical and were incorporated from non-Samaritan sources. Even the records of historical events added to the names of high priests must be scrutinized as to their actual historicity. For a reconstruction of the early history of the Samaritans, these chronicles are therefore of very limited usefulness. Instead, they must be read with the awareness that they reflect primarily the self-understanding of the community at the respective times of their compilation. In other words, the authors and compilers of the chronicles retroject into the past, events that occurred at the time of their compilation, and interpret the present with the help of historical memories. However, many a scholar has resorted to using these accounts for the early history of the Samaritans, mostly for lack of reliable and substantive outside sources. In the following, I describe the seven most important Samaritan chronicles. 90

91

92

93

a. Asaṭir This work, written in Aramaic with a strong Arabic influence, is a chronicle only in the sense that it treats, in the first ten chapters, the lives of the Patriarchs from Adam’s sons Cain and Abel to Moses (up to Num. 31), elaborating on the biblical traditions with numerous midrashim and legends. The sources of these legends may be Jewish and Christian; alternatively, they may be elaborations — similar to Jewish and Christian traditions — of the biblical stories which the Asaṭir retells. The eleventh chapter describes the land of Canaan, following Numbers 34 and the death of Moses, and foretells the future until the coming of the Taheb, albeit without mentioning this title. The title Taheb occurs several times in a medieval anonymous Arabic commentary on the work, the Šarḥ al-Asaṭir, translated into Hebrew at the request of Moses Gaster and known as Pitron. The term Asaṭir is Arabic (plural of asṭura) and means “stories,” “fables.” The work was last edited and translated into modern Hebrew by Zeʾev Ben-Ḥayyim in 1943 and 1944. Ben-Ḥayyim dates the composition of the work in the mid-tenth or early eleventh century C.E. 94

95

96

97

98

b. Tūlīda The name of this work is simply “Chronicle,” also Chronicle Neubauer, after its first editor and translator (into French). A modern critical edition was published by Moshe Florentin in 1999. The work is a short account of the history of the Samaritans beginning with the creation of the world and ending with the time of the last redactor. After the introduction about chronological and astronomical calculations, the main body begins by enumerating the names of the patriarchs from Adam to Moses, noting for each one the years of his life. It then presents a list of Samaritan high priests from Eleazar the son of Aaron to ʿAmram b. Salama (1809-1874), together with their years of life and notices about events that happened during 99

100

their time of office in the world at large, as well as lists of influential Samaritan families. The chronicle was written not by one author, but by a succession of writers. The oldest part was composed by Eleazar ben ʿAmram in 1149 C.E., as his great grandson, Jacob b. Ishmael, testifies in his colophon at the end of the second part of the introduction: “I have copied this treatise from a treatise written by my great grandfather Eleazar ben ʿAmram of blessed memory and it is mentioned there that it was written in the year five hundred and forty-four of the rule of the sons of Ishmael (i.e. 1149 C.E.).” Jacob copied his grandfather’s work in 1346. 101

c. The Samaritan Book of Joshua In its present form, the Samaritan Book of Joshua, preserved in Arabic, recounts the history of the Samaritans from the investiture of Joshua by Moses to the time of the Samaritan leader and hero Baba Rabba in the Roman-Byzantine period. The chronicle ends abruptly and once must have extended to a later time; how far is not known. Some scholars thought that it continued to the time of Emperor Alexander Severus (222-235 C.E.); Juynboll thinks it may have included the time of Muhammad. Similar to the Tūlīda, it is based on several sources and, according to the anonymous author of the Prologue, was translated from Hebrew into Arabic. In 1848, Th. Guil. Joh. Juynboll edited the Arabic text and translated it into Latin. He dated the earliest part of it to the beginning or middle of the thirteenth century, although the oldest extant manuscript was copied in 1362/63. The other parts were added later and copied in 1513. The book includes a number of legends derived from several non-Samaritan traditions. A Samaritan Hebrew Book of Joshua was published and translated into German by Moses Gaster in 1908. Its narrative extends from the death of Moses to the thirteenth year after the Entry of the Israelites into Canaan, when Abisha the son of Pinḥas wrote the Torah scroll named after him. Most scholars see in the Samaritan Hebrew Book of Joshua, however, a composition of the high priest, writer, translator, and restorer of manuscripts, Jacob ben Aaron (1840-1916), which he completed in 1902, making use of Abu l-Fatḥ’s chronicle, the Arabic Book of Joshua, and the Jewish text of the Bible. 102

103

104

105

106

d. The Kitāb al-Tarīkh of Abu l-Fatḥ This is the most complete and most important Samaritan chronicle. It was compiled by Abu l-Fatḥ al-Samiri al-Danfi (Abu l-Fatḥ b. Abu l-Ḥasan) in 1355 C.E. In his introduction, Abu l-Fatḥ explains what led him to write the chronicle. In the year 1352, he approached the high priest Pinḥas (b. Joseph) and 107

complained to him about the lack of any familiarity with the affairs of past generations, may Almighty God have mercy upon them, to say nothing of (the lack of) any recent presentations of what took place after the death of the Messenger of God (i.e. Moses) upon whom be peace. And (he further complained) that vast numbers of them and their community were in scattered and dispersed circumstances; and that their Chronicles were in a similar state of disarray. So he (Phinehas) gave the slave (Abū l-Fatḥ) the task of compiling a Chronicle of all the records of events that involved the Fathers — may God have mercy upon them — in full, from the beginning of the world when God created Adam upon whom be peace, up to recent times.108

Abu l-Fatḥ, however, was preoccupied with worldly things and did not set about writing the requested work until, in the month of Ramaḍan of 1355, he again met Pinḥas in Nablus, remembered what he was told to do and asked the high priest to help him with this task. The high priest brought him old chronicles in Hebrew and Arabic which Abu l-Fatḥ used according to his discretion to redact his chronicle. The Kitāb al-Tarīkh begins with Adam and ends with the time of Muḥammad, of whom it speaks favorably. The work ends with a covenant between the Samaritans and Muḥammad and a list of Patriarchs and high priests from Adam to the time of Muḥammad. Summarizing from the “Chronicles of the Fathers,” Abu l-Fatḥ states that, although the Samaritans, together with the Byzantines, fled from before the Muslims, “Muḥammad (himself) never mistreated any of the followers of the Law.” And he closes his chronicle with a quote from the ancestral tradition: “‘Muḥammad was a good and mighty person because he made a treaty of friendship with the Hebrew People.’” Abu l-Fatḥ not only lists the sources he used, but also makes critical use of them. At the same time, like other Samaritan chronicles, his, too, contains legends taken from a variety of sources. All in all, it is a unique document which allows us to study the way the Samaritans saw themselves and their history in the fourteenth century. Later authors extended the history to the rule of the Abbasid caliph al-Raḍi (reigned 934-940 C.E.). This extension is now called the Continuatio of the chronicle of Abu l-Fatḥ. It is different in character from Abu l-Fatḥ’s work, being not the work of an editor but composed of notes recorded by different authors at the time when the events happened. Its style, its detailed descriptions of natural phenomena and of political and social situations, as well as the mention of names and dates from the period, mark it as an authentic eyewitness source for the time between the early Muslim conquests and the first half of the tenth century C.E. The authors of the notes were Samaritans who lived in Nablus or in surrounding villages and who either witnessed the reported events themselves or obtained their information from other members of the community and from outsiders. They were also able to consult various sources about developments in the Muslim empire at large. The information contained in the Continuatio is, therefore, extremely valuable for our knowledge of Samaritan history in the early Muslim period. 109

110

e. Shalshala The full title of this chronicle is Chain of High Priests, and it begins with the words: “These are the Genealogies from Adam to Our Own Day.” It was probably written in Hebrew by the high priest Jacob ben Aaron (1870-1916), and presents a list of Patriarchs and high priests, numbering 144 in all. For the former it gives the years from their birth to the birth of their first son; for the latter, the years of their pontificate (column I). The dates are added up in several columns: column II lists the years from Creation; column III the years after the Entry into Canaan; and column IV the years after the Hijra, i.e., the years in the Muslim calendar. After the names of some of the high priests short notices of historical events were 111

added.

f. The New Chronicle Other names for the same chronicle are Chronicle Adler (after the editor) and Chronicle of Ab Sakwa (after the compiler, Ab Sakwa [Ab Sikkuwwa]). The language of the New Chronicle, compiled in 1900, is “Judaized” Samaritan Hebrew. In compiling his work, Ab Sakwa drew on the Tūlīda, Abu l-Fatḥ’s chronicle, and on other Hebrew-Aramaic or Arabic sources. The narrative of the chronicle extends from Adam to the year 1900 C.E. Apart from this chronicle, Ab Sakwa (Murjan) b. Asʿad b. Ismaʿil al-Danfi (died 1915) also authored linguistic tracts and edited an Aramaic-Arabic dictionary. 112

113

114

g. Sepher Ha-Yamim or Chronicle II This chronicle begins with the entry of Joshua into the land of Canaan and ends with the early twentieth century. It is preserved in two versions — Ryl. Sam. MS 257 and Ryl. Sam. MS 259. In 1969, John Macdonald published the text and an English translation of the first third of MS 257, i.e., the part which covers the biblical books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings. The section treating the time of Jesus and the beginnings of Christianity was published in an article by J. Macdonald and A. J. B. Higgins. The translation of traditions about Muhammad was published by J. Macdonald in another article. J. M. Cohen’s book, A Samaritan Chronicle, translates the passages about Baba Rabba. Macdonald believed that Chronicle II is the best and oldest Samaritan chronicle, written in classical Hebrew. BenḤayyim, however, has shown that the chronicle was written by Ṭabia b. Pinḥas b. Isaac in 1908, the language again being “Judaized” Samaritan Hebrew. It belongs therefore with the late Samaritan Hebrew chronicles written for European scholars. Part of version two (Ryl. Sam. MS 259) was published by Friedrich Niessen. Contra J. M. Cohen, who dates it in the fourteenth century, Niessen dates it at the beginning of the twentieth. The compiler’s aim was to bring together the traditions contained in the nonpentateuchal books of the Jewish canon and the historical accounts of the Samaritans up to the modern times, presenting them from the perspective of Samaritan theology. 115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

5. Linguistic Writings In addition to the literature described above, the Samaritans of the Middle Ages produced tracts on grammatical questions and other linguistic issues, their main motivation being to secure the proper pronunciation of the Torah. The extant works date from the tenth to the fourteenth and the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The reading of the text of the Torah was controlled by punctuation marks which were inserted by the copyists, albeit not always and not consistently from one scribe to another. The oldest work describing these marks is called The Rules of Ibn Darta Regarding the Reading; its author is the tenth-century poet Ṭabia ibn Darta. The signs mark stops between sentences and inflections, but their precise meaning and function are still disputed. Ibn Darta also wrote a treatise on the vowels. The oldest extant systematic grammar, entitled Introduction to the Grammar of the Hebrew 124

125

Language (Kitab al-Tauṭiʾa fi naḥw al-Luġa al-ʿIbraniyya), was written by the twelfthcentury scholar Abu Isḥaq Ibrahim. His work presents the Hebrew as it was pronounced by the Samaritans in the twelfth century. The close similarity between this pronunciation of Hebrew and the modern Samaritan pronunciation testifies to the continuity of the reading tradition. Abu Isḥaq Ibrahim is also the author of the Book of Inheritance (Kitāb al-Mīrāt) discussed above. Other authors too dealt with the punctuation marks inserted at times in the manuscripts of the Pentateuch, and the rules of reading the Torah. In addition to the above writings, later authors, such as Ibrahim al-ʿAyya, produced further grammatical tractates about reading signs and vowels as well as Hebrew-Arabic glossaries, the oldest of which is the Kitab Hameliṣ, by the high priest Pinḥas b. Josef (13081363). When Aramaic fell into disuse in everyday speech, a Hebrew-Aramaic glossary was composed, probably before the twelfth century, to which an Arabic column was added later. On the basis of these and other Samaritan linguistic works as well as his recordings and analyses of present-day oral recitations, Zeʾev Ben-Ḥayyim has carried out a thorough research into Samaritan Hebrew and its pronunciation. He published also a transcript of the whole Pentateuch as pronounced by the Samaritans in volume four of his work The Literary and Oral Tradition Amongst the Samaritans. In his book A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew, Ben-Ḥayyim concludes: the Samaritan Pentateuch, “the sole literary source extant among the Samaritans that dates from the First Temple period, is presented to us in a linguistic redaction that reveals, to the extent possible, features particular to the Hebrew of the Second Temple period … , even though its external appearance, the formation of the letters and the division of words by means of a dot, antedates that of the Jewish Pentateuch.” Ben-Ḥayyim’s students and other philologists specialized in Samaritan languages continue to build and expand on his findings. 126

127

128

129

130

131

132

6. Folktales Folktales are a little-known category of Samaritan literature. Approximately fifty years ago, Dov Noy of the University of Haifa began systematically to collect Samaritan folktales and deposit them in the Israel Folktale Archives. The first and only printed collection of Samaritan folktales was assembled by Ratson Tsedaka and edited by Dov Noy in 1965. It comprises twelve specimens, selected from forty-seven known to Tsedaka. In the meantime, the holdings of the Archives comprise almost sixty Samaritan folktales. A number of individual folktales and autobiographical stories have been published in different journals and books. As Noy wrote in his introduction to the above-cited book: “The whole oral Samaritan literature, transmitted from generation to generation and reflecting ancient beliefs and suppressed feelings, wishful thinking and traditional lore, must be penetrated, if we wish to obtain a true and unbiased picture of the community’s past and present.” Although the term “folktales” refers primarily to oral traditions, many folktales were incorporated into Samaritan chronicles and were then handed down in written form. Suffice it to cite here one example, the story of the daughter of the high priest ʿAmram b. Ṭabia which has affinities with the story of Susanna told in the addition to the Book of Daniel. It is one of the folktales appearing in R. Tsedaka’s collection, but it is also recounted by Abu l-Fatḥ in 133

134

135

his chronicle and repeated in Chronicle Adler. Samaritan tales often deal with subjects that are found in one form or another also in other traditions, especially in Judaism and Christianity. Jewish and Christian sources, in turn, frequently incorporate motifs from other traditions. The same applies to Samaritan proverbs which occur throughout Samaritan literature. Many are translations of Arabic sayings. As opposed to the large amount of scholarly work on Jewish folklore that has been done, the study of Samaritan folklore presently exists only in a rudimentary state. 136

137

7. Interactions with European Scholars As mentioned, in modern times the Samaritans prepared books of questions and answers for inquiring European scholars. One of these books, written in Arabic by Jacob ben Aaron, was translated into English under the title “The Book of Enlightenment” and was edited by William E. Barton. Several European scholars prepared questionnaires which they sent to the Samaritans in order to elicit their answers to certain questions, mainly to gauge the differences between the Samaritans and the Jews. They are a valuable source of knowledge for the state of the Samaritan community and its beliefs and practices of the time in which they were written. Moses Gaster was one of the more recent scholars who sent such questionnaires to the Samaritans. In the two extant manuscripts (JRL Sam MSS 317 and 318), both dated 1931, the questions are written in red ink and the answers in black ink. The correspondence between the Samaritans and European scholars began with two letters sent to Nablus and to Cairo by the French scholar of oriental languages, Joseph Scaliger (15401609). Unfortunately, they have been lost, and we can only reconstruct their contents from the answers which were published posthumously by the French Bible scholar Richard Simon (1638-1712) and, in an improved edition, by the French orientalist Antoine-Isaac Silvestre de Sacy (1758-1838). It is with these and the subsequent letters that the rediscovery of the Samaritan religion by Europeans began. In their first letter to Scaliger, written in Samaritan majuscule, they describe their Sabbath observance. They do not leave their houses except to go to prayers, and they devote themselves to reading the Bible. Contrary to the Jews, they do not sleep with their spouses on the eve of the Sabbath or light a fire. They also talk about their seven feasts and their purification rituals. Furthermore, they emphasize that they follow faithfully the Law of Moses, whereas the Jews include the laws decreed by their sages and elders. Unlike the priests of the Jews, their priests are descended from Pinḥas. They ask Scaliger to send them some fabric so that the high priest can make garments out of it to wear when he blesses the people. They also wanted to know whether Scaliger is a Samaritan or a Jew, adding that the Jews hate and curse the Samaritans. A new series of letters began with Robert Huntington (1637-1701), the scholar of oriental languages and Anglican chaplain in Aleppo. During his stay in Palestine he visited the Samaritans, proved to them that he could read their script, answered their question whether there were Samaritans in England in the affirmative, and encouraged the Samaritans to write to them, explaining their beliefs and observances and describing the differences between themselves and the Jews. Thus began a sequence of correspondence which lasted from 1672 138

139

140

141

to 1688. The deception continued with the letters from the Oxford scholar Thomas Marshall (1621-1685), pretending that he represented the Samaritans in England. The aim of this duplicity was to obtain manuscripts from the Samaritans and possibly to convert them to Christianity. This strain of correspondence seems to have come to an end because the purported Samaritans in England did not send a high priest from the line of Pinḥas. As mentioned, the last such high priest in Nablus had died in 1624; from then on, the high priests were Levites. Between 1686 and 1691, three more letters were received by the German scholar Job Ludolf (1624-1704) who had heard about the Samaritans from the Jewish scholar, resident in Hebron, Jacob Levi. Ludolf also led the Samaritans to believe that he too was a Samaritan. Among the subjects of the letters was the question about the Messiah — whether he has come yet or not. The Samaritans explain that the figure predicted in Genesis 49:10, “until Shiloh comes,” has already come — he was Solomon. The Messiah is yet to come; his name will be the Taheb. The information about the Sabbath observances, the feasts, the Torah, and other such subjects conform to what earlier letters contained. Similarly, in this correspondence the Samaritans ask for monetary donations. Several letters represent answers to questionnaires sent to the Samaritans by French scholars via diplomatic channels at the beginning of the nineteenth century. In 1807, the French priest Henri Grégoire (1750-1831), as part of his inquiry into the religions of the time, drew up a questionnaire of thirty questions which he sent to French diplomats in the Near East. Unfortunately, the diplomats did not consult the Samaritans, but a number of Jews. The answers are therefore to be taken with great caution. In 1808, the French Consul in Aleppo, Louis Alexandre Olivier de Corancez (1770-1832), sent a questionnaire to the Samaritans of Nablus. Unfortunately, it too is lost and must be reconstructed from the answers. The reply, received in October 1808, was written in Arabic by the high priest Salama b. Ṭabia (lived 1784-1855; high priest 1798-1855). In addition to the information known from other letters, Salama speaks of a copy of the Torah in Samaritan script which the Samaritans received from Europe, referring probably to a copy of the first volume of the London Polyglot. This seems to have led the high priest to the erroneous belief that there were Samaritans in Europe. Salama notes that for twenty years already the Samaritans have been unable to ascend Mt. Gerizim and offer the Passover sacrifice on the mountain; instead, they offer it in the city. Silvestre de Sacy edited Grégoire’s reply to Salama and added thirty-six questions to it. Among other issues, he was interested to know whether the Samaritans had an Arabic translation of the Pentateuch (if so, could they send a copy — the French consul in Aleppo will pay for it); do they have Torah commentaries (when and by whom were they written); and what other writings (such as chronicles) are in their possession. Unfortunately, the answers were rather vague and did not add to what was already known. The nineteenth-century correspondence with European scholars came to an end with the exchange of letters between the high priest Jacob ben Aaron and the Viennese linguist Isaac Rosenberg (b. 1847). In his 1901 manual of the Samaritan language and literature, Rosenberg published a facsimile comprising a transcription and a German translation of a letter in 142

Hebrew and Arabic from the high priest. After listing the books in the possession of the Samaritans, the priest offers to sell him manuscripts at the price of 4 Francs per 8 leafs or of 1 Napoleon d’or for 40 leafs. He also notes that the teruma offering (an offering given to the priests) has ceased since there are no rich people among them. In the twentieth century it was above all Moses Gaster who corresponded with the Samaritans. Besides the acquisition of manuscripts (in particular, he was interested in an old manuscript of the Samaritan Book of Joshua, but none could be found), Gaster inquired about beliefs and practices. His letters are now in the John Rylands Library in Manchester. They remain unedited, but work on an edition has been initiated. Another type of interaction with European scholars began early in the twentieth century — anthropological, biological, and genetic studies carried out among the Samaritans. Some of this research was undertaken with the view to determining whether the Samaritans were in fact an isolated group or whether there are connections with the Jews, and if so, of what kind. In a 2004 study of genetic differences between Samaritans and adjoining populations, the researchers conclude that “Principal component analysis suggests a common ancestry of Samaritan and Jewish patrilineages.” Furthermore, the authors speculate on the grounds of the Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA sequence variation that certain Samaritan lineages 143

144

145

146

present a subgroup of the original Jewish Cohanim priesthood that did not go into exile when the Assyrians conquered the northern kingdom of Israel in 721 BC, but married Assyrian and female exiles relocated from other conquered lands, which was a typical Assyrian policy to obliterate national identities. This is in line with biblical texts that emphasize a common heritage of Jews and Samaritans, but also record the negative attitude of Jews towards the Samaritans because of their association with people that were not Jewish.147

Thus, for the authors of this study biblical lore and modern genetics appear to confirm each other. Other genetic research is used to provide counseling to prospective marriage partners in the community. The interaction with European savants recorded in travel literature and correspondence resulted in a good deal of ethnographic information on the beliefs, concerns and practices of past generations of Samaritans. For the present, scholars have begun to undertake systematic ethnographic and sociological studies based on extensive fieldwork, as mentioned in the Introduction. 148

1. For a concise overview see Alan D. Crown, “Samaritan Hellenistic Literature,” in Encyclopedia of Religious and Philosophical Writings in Late Antiquity: Pagan, Judaic, Christian, ed. Jacob Neusner and Alan J. Avery-Peck (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2007), pp. 374-75. 2. For the texts, English translation and thorough discussions of the fragments of these authors see Carl R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Volume I: Historians (SBL: Texts and Translations, 20; Pseudepigrapha, 10; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983); and Carl R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Volume II: Poets (SBL: Texts and Translations, 30, Pseudepigrapha, 12; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1989). 3. John J. Collins, “The Epic of Theodotus and the Hellenism of the Hasmoneans,” HTR 73, 1-2 (Jan-April, 1980): 93-104. 4. See, for instance, Pieter W. van der Horst, “Samaritans and Hellenism,” Studia Philonica Annual 6 (1994): 32. 5. See the earlier chapter “Archaeological Excavations.” 6. See, for instance, Gregory E. Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography (Leiden: Brill, 1992), pp. 189 and 205, who believes that, contrary to the Jews, the Samaritans acquiesced in the Hellenization policies of the second century B.C.E. Purvis considers Pseudo-Eupolemus a Samaritan and thinks that there were Hellenizing Samaritans who called themselves Sidonians, but he underlines that “Hellenization was not a complete adoption of Greek culture with the loss of Israelite traditions, but a blending of the two.” However, he adds: “There may have been, on the other hand, Samaritan Hellenists who had a more cavalier regard for their Israelite heritage. Such would not be surprising, given the

mixed ethnic and religious background of northern Palestine” (James D. Purvis, “The Samaritans,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism, 2: The Hellenistic Age, ed. W. D. Davies and Louis Finkelstein [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989], pp. 606-607). 7. van der Horst, “Samaritans and Hellenism,” p. 31. 8. This was underlined by Erich S. Gruen, “Hellenism, Hellenization,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2010), p. 723. 9. On Samaritan Hebrew see Zeʾev Ben-Ḥayyim, A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew Based on the Recitation of the Law in Comparison with the Tiberian and Other Jewish Traditions. A Revised Edition in English (Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000). 10. See the earlier chapter on “The Samaritan Pentateuch.” 11. Gaster’s article on the Arabic literature of the Samaritans (Moses Gaster, “The Samaritan Literature,” in Encyclopaedia of Islām 4 [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1925]) is still useful, although it needs updating. For recent publications on Samaritan Arabic, see the works of Haseeb Shehadeh, such as “Arabic Versions of the Pentateuch,” in A Companion to Samaritan Studies, ed. Alan D. Crown, Reinhard Pummer, and Abraham Tal (Tübingen: J. C. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1993), pp. 22-24; and The Arabic Translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch: Edited from Manuscripts with an Introductory Volume (Publications of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities; Section of Humanities, 1989 and 2002). (See the earlier chapter “The Samaritan Pentateuch.”) 12. For a detailed study of it, see Moshe Florentin, Late Samaritan Hebrew: A Linguistic Analysis of Its Different Types (Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics, 43; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2005). 13. See Florentin, Late Samaritan Hebrew, p. 357. 14. Oliver Turnbull Crane, trans., The Samaritan Chronicle or the Book of Joshua, the Son of Nun. Translated from the Arabic with Notes (New York: John B. Alden, 1890), p. 126; Th. Guil. Joh. Juynboll, Chronicon Samaritanum, Arabice conscriptum, cui titulus est Liber Josuae. Ex unico codice Scaligeri nunc primum edidit, Latine vertit, annotatione instruxit, et dissertationem de codice, de chronico, et de quaestionibus, quae hoc libro illustrantur, praemisit Th. Guil. Juynboll (Lugduni Batavorum: S. & J. Luchtmans, 1848), ch. 47 (text). 15. Paul Stenhouse, The Kitāb al-Tarīkh of Abū ‘l-Fatḥ: Translated into English with Notes (Studies in Judaica, 1; Sydney: Mandelbaum Trust, University of Sydney, 1985), pp. 165-67. 16. For useful lists, organized by countries and cities where the manuscripts are kept, see Maurice Baillet, “Samaritains,” in DBSup 11 (1991): 874-93; Jean-Pierre Rothschild, “Samaritan Manuscripts,” in The Samaritans, ed. Alan D. Crown (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989); and the subject entry “Manuscripts” in Alan D. Crown and Reinhard Pummer, A Bibliography of the Samaritans: Third Edition: Revised, Expanded, and Annotated (ATLA Bibliography, 51; Lanham, MD; Toronto; Oxford: Scarecrow, 2005). See now also a map of manuscript holdings outside of Palestine as well as a map of digitized Samaritan manuscripts at http://samaritanrepository.org/. These maps were created in connection with the project of digitizing Samaritan manuscripts, directed by Jim Ridolfo. For a description of the project see Jim Ridolfo, William Hart-Davidson, and Michel McLeod, “Rhetoric and the Digital Humanities: Imagining The Michigan State University Israelite Samaritan Scroll Collection as the Foundation for a Thriving Social Network,” The Journal of Community Informatics 7, no. 3 (2011); http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/article/view/754; and Ofer Aderet, “Digitization of the Ancient Samaritan Manuscripts,” A.B.–The Samaritan News 1113-1114 (22.6.2012): 87-93. 17. See Iain Ruairidh Mac Mhanainn Bóid, “Use, Authority and Exegesis of Mikra in the Samaritan Tradition,” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. Martin Jan Mulder (Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1988), pp. 595-633. See now the thorough article by Frank Weigelt, “Die exegetische Literatur der Samaritaner,” in “Durch Dein Wort ward jegliches Ding!”: 2. Mandäistische und samaritanistische Tagung. Zum Gedenken an Rudolf Macuch (1919-1993) = “Through Thy Word All Things Were Made!”: 2nd International Conference of Mandaic and Samaritan Studies, ed. Rainer Voigt (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2013), pp. 343-90, which discusses both the exegetical and halakhic literature of the Samaritans. 18. See Haseeb Shehadeh, “Commentaries on the Torah,” in A Companion to Samaritan Studies, ed. Alan D. Crown, Reinhard Pummer, and Abraham Tal (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1993), pp. 59-61. 19. For an earlier edition and English translation, see John Macdonald, Memar Marqah: The Teaching of Marqah, 2 vols., BZAW, 83 (Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1963). This edition was, however, superseded by that of Ze’ev Ben-Ḥayyim, Tībåt Mårqe: A Collection of Samaritan Midrashim (Publications of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Section of Humanities; Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1988, with a translation into modern Hebrew). 20. Abraham Tal, Tībåt Mårqe (Berlin: De Gruyter, forthcoming), Introduction, p. 1, n. 1. 21. Tal, Tībåt Mårqe. 22. See below in the section on Halakhah. 23. It was edited and translated into modern Hebrew by Abraham S. Halkin, “From Samaritan Exegesis: The Commentary of Abu-l-Ḥasan of Tyre on Deuteronomy 32” [in Hebrew], Leshonenu 32 (1967-68): 208-46. 24. Weigelt, “Die exegetische Literatur der Samaritaner,” pp. 369-85. 25. Abraham Kuenen, Specimen e literis Orientalibus exhibens librum Geneseos, secundum Arabicam Pentateuchi Samaritani versionem, ab Abū Sa’īdo conscriptam, quos, auspice viro clarissimo T. G. J. Juynboll, ex tribus codicibus edidit Abrahamus Kuenen. Tarjamat al-Tawrāh al-muqaddasah ilakh (Libri Exodi et Levitici) (Lugduni Batavorum: Apud E. J. Brill, 1851); and Libri exodi et levitici secundum arabicam pentateuchi Samaritani versionem, ab Abu Saido conscriptam, quos ex tribus codicibus edidit A. Kuenen (Lugduni Batavorum: Apud E. J. Brill, 1854). 26. Abraham S. Halkin, “The Scholia to Numbers and Deuteronomy in the Samaritan-Arabic Pentateuch,” JQR 34 (1943-44): 41-59. 27. On this work and the author, see Ferdinand Dexinger, Der Taheb: Ein “messianischer” Heilsbringer der Samaritaner (Kairos; Religionswissenschaftliche Studien, 3; Salzburg: Otto Müller, 1986), p. 94. 28. Adalbert Merx, Der Messias oder Ta’eb der Samaritaner, nach bisher unbekannten Quellen. Mit einem Gedächtniswort von Karl Marti, BZAW, 17 (Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1909), pp. 50-66. 29. Moses Gaster, Samaritan Eschatology (The Samaritan Oral Law and Ancient Traditions, I; London: Search Publishing Company, 1932), pp. 237-47. Gaster added comments on pp. 247-253. 30. For the translation of a short text from this work, see Dexinger, Der Taheb, pp. 136-38. 31. See below the section on Halakhah. On the author see Zeʾev Ben-Ḥayyim, The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic Amongst the Samaritans [in Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1957-1977), vol. I, pp. . 32. For a description of the manuscript in the Bibliothèque Nationale of France, see Jean-Pierre Rothschild, Catalogue des manuscrits samaritains (Paris:

Bibliothèque Nationale, 1985), pp. 66-67. 33. Zuhair Shunnar, “Kitāb sair al-qalb ilā maʿrifat ar-rabb (Die Reise des Herzens zur Erkenntnis des Herrn) von Ibrāhīm bin Yūsuf al-Qabāṣī. Kritische Edition und Übersetzung” (Ph.D. diss., Freie Universität Berlin, 1969). 34. On Ibrahim al-ʿAyya, see the earlier chapter on “The Samaritans in History.” 35. Gladys Levine Rosen, ed. and trans., “The Joseph Cycle (Genesis 37–45) in the Samaritan Arabic Commentary of Meshalma ibn Murjan” (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1951). 36. Meir Klumel, Mischpâtîm. Ein samaritanisch-arabischer Commentar zu Ex. 21 - 22, 15 von Ibrâhîm Ibn-Jakûb (Berlin: H. Itzkowski, 1902). 37. Sigmund Hanover, Das Festgesetz der Samaritaner nach Ibrâhîm ibn Ja‘ḳûb. Edition und Uebersetzung seines Kommentars zu Lev. 23 nebst Einleitung und Anmerkungen (Berlin: H. Itzkowski, 1904). John Bowman (Samaritan Documents Relating to Their History, Religion and Life [Pittsburgh Original Texts & Translations Series, 2; Pittsburgh, PA: Pickwick, 1977], pp. 216-19) published English translations of the commentary on Exod. 21:1-3 and Lev. 23:1-32 (texts from Klumel and Hanover). 38. Rosen, “The Joseph Cycle,” p. 9. 39. See Rothschild, Catalogue, p. 147. 40. Described by Rothschild, Catalogue, pp. 147-48. 41. Described by Edward Robertson, Catalogue of the Samaritan Manuscripts in the John Rylands Library, II (Manchester: John Rylands Library, 1962), pp. 246-47. 42. So Dexinger, Der Taheb, p. 54. 43. John Bowman, “The Malef,” AbrN 20 (1981-82): 1-19. 44. Edward C. Baguley, “A Critical Edition, with Translation, of the Hebrew Text of the Malef; and a Comparison of Its Teachings with Those in the Samaritan Liturgy” (Ph.D. diss., University of Leeds, 1962). 45. Baguley, “A Critical Edition,” pp. 69-71. The numbering of the questions is by Baguley. On the 613 precepts see the earlier chapters “Identity of the Samaritans” and “Geographical Distribution and Demography.” 46. Cf. Iain Ruairidh Mac Mhanainn Bóid, “The Samaritan Halachah,” in The Samaritans, ed. Alan D. Crown (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), p. 628. 47. This was underlined by Jean-Pierre Rothschild, “État et perspectives de la recherche sur la halakha samaritaine,” in Samaritan, Hebrew and Aramaic Studies Presented to Professor Abraham Tal (Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute, 2005), p. 88*. 48. Bóid, “The Samaritan Halachah,” p. 637. 49. Chapter 3.15-16. See Bóid, Principles of Samaritan Halachah (Leiden: Brill, 1989), pp. 151-52; and Sergio Noja, Il Kitāb al-Kāfī dei Samaritani (Istituto Orientale di Napoli; Pubblicazioni del Seminario di Semitistica. Ricerche, 7; Napoli, 1970), p. 33. 50. See the survey of the present state of knowledge in Bóid, Principles of Samaritan Halachah, pp. 5-15. 51. For instance, the unpublished doctoral dissertation by Dorreya Mohammed ‘Abd al-ʿAl, “A Comparative Study of the Unedited Work of Abu ʿlḤasan al Ṣūrī and Yūsuf Ibn Salamah” (Ph.D. diss., Leeds University, 1957) compares selected texts from Kitāb al-Kāfī and Kitāb al-Ṭabbākh. 52. Bóid, Principles of Samaritan Halachah. 53. Gerhard Wedel, “Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabbāḫ des Samaritaners Abū l-Ḥasan aṣ-Ṣūrī. Kritische Edition und kommentierte Übersetzung des ersten Teils” (Ph.D. diss., Freie Universität Berlin, 1987), pp. 33-34. 54. See Bóid, Principles of Samaritan Halachah, p. 22. 55. Wedel has shown that the work exhibits tendencies found in the Islamic philosophy of the Muʿtazilites (Gerhard Wedel, “Muʿtazilitsche Tendenzen im Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabbāḫ des Samaritaners Abu l-Ḥasan aṣ-Ṣūrī,” in A Common Rationality: Muʿtazilism in Islam and Judaism, ed. Camilla Adang, Sabine Schmidtke, and David Sklare [Istanbuler Texte und Studien, 15; Würzburg: Egon Verlag in Kommission, 2007], pp. 349-75; and Gerhard Wedel, “Gebrauch von muʿtazilitischer Terminologie in der samaritanischen Theologie – Eine Neubewertung des Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabbāḫ von Abū l-Ḥasan aṣ-Ṣūrī,” in “Durch Dein Wort ward jegliches Ding!”: 2. Mandäistische und samaritanistische Tagung. Zum Gedenken an Rudolf Macuch (1919-1993) = “Through Thy Word All Things Were Made!”: 2nd International Conference of Mandaic and Samaritan Studies, ed. Rainer Voigt (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2013), pp. 313-41. 56. Wedel, “Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabbāḫ.” 57. See Noja, Il Kitāb al-Kāfī, p. 11. 58. See Noja, Il Kitāb al-Kāfī, p. 11. 59. Naphtali Cohn, Die Zarâath-Gesetze der Bibel nach dem Kitâb al-Kâfi des Jûsuf ibn Salâmah. Ein Beitrag zur Pentateuchexegese und Dogmatik der Samaritaner (Frankfurt a.M.: J. Kauffmann, 1899). 60. ‘Abd al-ʿAl, “A Comparative Study.” 61. ‘Abd al-ʿAl, “A Comparative Study,” pp. 609-11. See also the Italian translation in Noja, Il Kitāb al-Kāfī, pp. 147-48. 62. On him see Yaacov Shavit, Yaacov Goldstein, and Haim Be’er, eds., Personalities in Eretz-Israel 1799-1948: A Biographical Dictionary [in Hebrew] (Tel-Aviv: Am Oved Publishers, 1983), p. 17. 63. See Maurice Baillet, “Quelques manuscripts samaritains,” Semitica 26 (1976): 150-51. On Abu Isḥaq Ibrahim see below. 64. Abraham Drabkin, “Fragmenta Commentarii ad Pentateuchum Samaritano-Arabici sex, nunc primum edita atque illustrata,” Ph.D. diss., University of Bratislava, 1875. 65. Leopold Wreschner, Samaritanische Traditionen, mitgeteilt und nach ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung untersucht (Berlin: H. Itzkowski, 1888). 66. On the name of the author see Heinz Pohl, Kitāb al-Mīrāt: Das Buch der Erbschaft des Samaritaners Abū Isḥāq Ibrāhīm. Kritische Edition mit Übersetzung und Kommentar (Studia Samaritana, 2; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1974), pp. 23-27. 67. See Gerhard Wedel, “Transfer of Knowledge and the Biographies of Samaritan Scholars: Careers of Samaritan Physicians Under Muslim Patronage,” in Samaritan Researches, vol. V, ed. Vittorio Morabito, Alan D. Crown, and Lucy Davey (Mandelbaum Studies in Judaica, 10; Sydney: Mandelbaum Publishing, 2000), pp. 3.75-83. 68. Pohl, Kitāb al-Mīrāt. 69. Pohl, Kitāb al-Mīrāt, pp. v-vi.

70. The Arabic text of the chapter on vaginal bleeding was published in Bóid, Principles of Samaritan Halachah, pp. 108-12. 71. Cf. Gaster, “The Samaritan Literature,” p. 13; and Bóid, Principles of Samaritan Halachah, p. 23. 72. Hasseb Shehadeh, “On the Manuscript of Kitab al-Chulf by the Priest Phinhas b. Iytzhaq the Haftawi,” A.B.–The Samaritan News 1084-1085 (17.4.2011): 109. 73. Cf. Bóid, Principles of Samaritan Halachah, pp. 23-25. 74. According to Bóid, one recension is by Jacob b. Aaron, the second by Khiḍr b. Isḥaq (Principles of Samaritan Halachah, pp. 23-24). 75. Bowman, Samaritan Documents, pp. 300-09 (on marriage); Bóid, Principles of Samaritan Halachah, pp. 187-92 (on purity and impurity of women); Gaster, Samaritan Eschatology, pp. 129-87 (on the dead and the hereafter). The Introduction and the chapters on Mt. Gerizim, on the Sabbath, and on circumcision were published in English translation (by Abdullah Ben Kori) under the name Jacob ben Aaron and edited by William E. Barton in Bibliotheca Sacra: “The History and Religion”; “Mount Gerizim”; “The Samaritan Sabbath”; and “Circumcision.” Ryl. Gaster Sam. 1812 is a translation of Ryl. Gaster Sam. 182 (872); see Robertson, Catalogue II, pp. 144-45. 76. The Arabic plural is fatawa. 77. See Stenhouse, Kitāb, p. 141. 78. Gerhard Wedel, “The Question of the Samaritan Responsa and the Transmission of Knowledge Around the Mediterranean in Classical Antiquity and Medieval Times,” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of the Société d’Études Samaritaines, ed. Haseeb Shehadeh, Habib Tawa, and Reinhard Pummer (Paris: Geuther, 2005), p. 73. 79. Jacob ben Aaron, “The Book of Enlightenment,” BSac 70 (1913). Note Wedel’s comment: “As in no case the asking person is named, it is impossible to decide clearly whether this collection is based on questions put forward in the lifetime of Jacob ben Aaron, or a collection put together for the Western recipient. For all intents and purposes it is a collection of a [sic] responsa directed to Barton in response to a formal letter from him” (Wedel, “The Question of the Samaritan Responsa,” pp. 69-70). 80. See Section 7 below. 81. Wedel, “The Question of the Samaritan Responsa,” p. 62, n. 38. 82. Abraham Tal, “Samaritan Literature,” in The Samaritans, ed. Alan D. Crown (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), p. 454. 83. The name is probably derived from (Ben-Ḥayyim, The Literary and Oral Tradition, vol. III, part 2, p. 16). 84. On Arabic in the Samaritan liturgy see Haseeb Shehadeh, “The Samaritan Arabic Liturgy,” in Samaritan Researches, vol. V, ed. Vittorio Morabito, Alan D. Crown, and Lucy Davey (Mandelbaum Studies in Judaica, 10; Sydney: Mandelbaum Publishing, 2000), pp. 2.47-84. 85. From Greek διφθέρα “prepared hide, piece of leather” (as writing material). 86. The most extensive collection of liturgical texts was published by Cowley in his two-volume work The Samaritan Liturgy. A new edition is in preparation. Selected liturgical texts were published by Ben-Ḥayyim, The Literary and Oral Tradition [in Hebrew], vol. III, part 2. 87. In the late 1970s, Rachel Tsedaka, granddaughter of Abraham b. Marḥiv Haṣafri (Tsedaka), daughter of Yefet Tsedaka, and wife of the scholar and scribe, Abraham Tsedaka, and a teacher by profession, published several volumes of secular poems in Hebrew for which she was excluded from the Samaritan community. See Monika Schreiber, The Comfort of Kin: Samaritan Community, Kinship, and Marriage (Brill’s Series in Jewish Studies, 51; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2014), pp. 143-44. 88. Edward Robertson, “Notes and Extracts from the Semitic MSS in the John Rylands Library, IV. Zainab Aṣ-Ṣafawīyah, a Samaritan Poetess,” BJRL 21 (1937): 428. Robertson prints all three poems in Arabic and in an English translation. Cf. also Shehadeh, “The Samaritan Arabic Liturgy,” 2.51-53. 89. Robertson, “Notes and Extracts, IV,” p. 437. 90. The process is still continuing. Thus, the recently published Summary of the History of the Israelite-Samaritans by Benyamim Tsedaka (in Hebrew) has as its subtitle “From the Exodus from Egypt to the Year 2000.” 91. As an example see Reinhard Pummer, “Alexander und die Samaritaner nach Josephus und nach samaritanischen Quellen,” in Die Samaritaner und die Bibel: Historische und literarische Wechselwirkungen zwischen biblischen und samaritanischen Traditionen = The Samaritans and the Bible: Historical and Literary Interactions between Biblical and Samaritan Traditions, ed. Jörg Frey, Ursula Schattner-Rieser, and Konrad Schmid (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012), pp. 157-79. Also Nodet: “In literary terms, the Samaritan Chronicles have the status of a midrash” (Etienne Nodet, A Search for the Origins of Judaism: From Joshua to the Mishnah [JSOTSup, 248; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997], p. 201). 92. Diebner points out that this is the case with the “History of Israel” and was common in ancient historiography. See Bernd Jørg Diebner, “Die antisamaritanische Polemik des TNK als konfessionelles Problem,” in The Bible in Cultural Context, ed. Helena Pavlinková and Dalibor Papoušek (Brno: Czech Society for the Study of Religions, 1994), p. 75. 93. In addition to these, A. D. Crown edited and translated three Hebrew chronicles preserved in JR(G)863 (= Ryl. Sam. MS 257), JR(G)864 (= Ryl. Sam. MS 268), and JR(G)1167; they are only accessible in Crown’s unpublished Ph.D. dissertation: “A Critical Re-Evaluation of the Samaritan Sepher Yehoshua,” University of Sydney, 1966. Another chronicle from the early twentieth century, JR(G)1168 (= Ryl. Sam. MS 259) was partially published by several authors (for details see Friedrich Niessen, “A Judaeo-Arabic Fragment of a Samaritan Chronicle from the Cairo Geniza,” JSS 47 [2002]: 218). 94. See Moses Gaster’s annotations in his book 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 (Oriental Translation Fund, N. S., 26; London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1927). 95. See Jean-Marie Duchemin, “La question des sources de l’Asaṭīr: l’exemple des récits antédiluviens,” in Die Samaritaner und die Bibel: Historische und literarische Wechselwirkungen zwischen biblischen und samaritanischen Traditionen = The Samaritans and the Bible: Historical and Literary Interactions between Biblical and Samaritan Traditions, ed. Jörg Frey, Ursula Schattner-Rieser, and Konrad Schmid (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012), pp. 323-38. 96. For English translations of both the Asaṭir and the commentary see Gaster, The Asatir. 97. See Ze’ev Ben-Ḥayyim, “The Asaṭīr with Translation and Commentary,” Tarbiz 14 (1943): 104-25, 174-90; 15 (1944): 44, 71-87, 128. 98. A critical edition of the work is in preparation: Christophe Bonnard, “Asfar Asâtîr, Critical Edition, Linguistic Commentary and Interpretation” (Ph.D. diss., University of Strasbourg). 99. Adolf Neubauer, “Chronique samaritaine, suivie d’un appendice contenant de courtes notices sur quelques autres ouvrages samaritains,” JA 14 (1869): 385-470. 100. See Moshe Florentin, Tulida: A Samaritan Chronicle: Text, Translation, Commentary [in Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Yad Yitzchak Ben Zvi; The Rabbi David Moshe and Amalia Rosen Foundation, 1999).

101. See Florentin, Tulida, p. 71, IX. 102. Th. Guil. Joh. Juynboll, Chronicon Samaritanum, Arabice conscriptum, cui titulus est Liber Josuae. Ex unico codice Scaligeri nunc primum edidit, Latine vertit, annotatione instruxit, et dissertationem de codice, de chronico, et de quaestionibus, quae hoc libro illustrantur, praemisit Th. Guil. Juynboll (Lugduni Batavorum: S. & J. Luchtmans, 1848), p. 51. 103. It seems that the Samaritan dialect of Aramaic is meant, rather than Hebrew. So also Haroutyun S. Jamgotchian, “The Earliest Known Manuscripts of Samaritan Arabic Chronicles and Other Texts in the Russian National Library in St. Petersburg,” in Congress Volume Ljubljana 2007, ed. André Lemaire (VTSup, 133; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2010), p. 149. 104. Cf. Juynboll, Chronicon. For an English translation see Crane, The Samaritan Chronicle. 105. Moses Gaster, “Das Buch Josua in hebräisch-samaritanischer Rezension. Entdeckt und zum ersten Male herausgegeben,” ZDMG 62 (1908): 209-79, 494-549. 106. Cf. Florentin, Late Samaritan Hebrew, pp. 357-58. Crown tried to show that the Hebrew version presents an earlier text than the Arabic version; “it seems to be the source of the Arabic versions or rather it preserves with fair faithfulness the tradition of the Hebrew text which seems to underlie the Arabic version” (Crown, “A Critical Re-Evaluation,” p. 351). 107. An English translation was published by Stenhouse in his book Kitāb. The following quotes are taken from this translation. Stenhouse edited the Arabic text in his unpublished Ph.D. dissertation: Paul Stenhouse, “The Kitāb al-Tarīkh of Abu ‘l-Fatḥ,” University of Sydney, 1980. 108. Stenhouse, Kitāb, pp. 2-3. 109. Stenhouse, Kitāb, p. 249. 110. For introduction, text and translation see Milka Levy-Rubin, The Continuatio of the Samaritan Chronicle of Abū l-Fatḥ al-Sāmirī al-Danafī (Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam, 10; Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press, 2002). 111. For an edition and translation see Moses Gaster, “The Chain of Samaritan High Priests: A Synchronistic Synopsis,” in Moses Gaster, Studies and Texts in Folklore, Magic, Medieval Romance, Hebrew Apocrypha and Samaritan Archaeology I, 483-502 (English) and III, 131-38 (Hebrew) (London: Maggs Bros., 1923 and 1928). 112. For an edition and French translation see Elkan Nathan Adler and Max Séligsohn, Une nouvelle chronique samaritaine (Paris: Durlacher, 1903); originally published in three installments in REJ (see the section “Bibliography”). 113. For a discussion of the language of this chronicle see Florentin, Late Samaritan Hebrew, pp. 361-71. 114. See Shavit, Goldstein, and Beʾer, eds., Personalities [in Hebrew], p. 21; and Haseeb Shehadeh, “Ab Sakwa (Murğān) b. Asʿad,” in A Companion to Samaritan Studies, ed. Alan D. Crown, Reinhard Pummer, and Abraham Tal (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1993), pp. 3-4. 115. See John Macdonald, The Samaritan Chronicle No. II (or: Sepher Ha-Yamim) From Joshua to Nebuchadnezzar (BZAW, 107; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1969). 116. John Macdonald and A. G. B. Higgins, “The Beginnings of Christianity According to the Samaritans: Introduction, Text, Translation, Notes, and Commentary,” NTS 18 (1971): 54-80. 117. John Macdonald, “An Unpublished Palestinian Tradition about Muhammad,” AJBA 1 (1969): 3-12. 118. Jeffrey M. Cohen, A Samaritan Chronicle. A Source-Critical Analysis of the Life and Times of the Great Samaritan Reformer, Baba Rabbah (Studia Post-Biblica, 30; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981). 119. John Macdonald, The Theology of the Samaritans (New Testament Library; London: SCM Press, 1964), p. 44. 120. See Florentin, Late Samaritan Hebrew, pp. 358-61. 121. Friedrich Niessen, Eine samaritanische Version des Buches Yehošuaʿ und die Šobak-Erzählung. Die Samaritanische Chronik Nr. II, Handschrift 2: JR(G) 1168 = Ryl. Sam. MS 259, Folio 8b – 53a (Texte und Studien zur Orientalistik, 12; Hildesheim; Zürich; New York: Georg Olms, 2000). 122. Cohen, A Samaritan Chronicle, p. 176. 123. Niessen, Eine samaritanische Version des Buches Yehošuaʿ, p. 55. 124. See above all Ben-Ḥayyim, The Literary and Oral Tradition, vol. I [in Hebrew]; Ben-Ḥayyim discusses, edits and translates into Hebrew many of these works. 125. On the Samaritan pointing system see Ben-Ḥayyim, A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew, pp. 5-9. 126. The work was edited and translated into Hebrew by Ben-Ḥayyim, The Literary and Oral Tradition [in Hebrew], vol. I, pp. 3-127. 127. See Ben-Ḥayyim, A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew. See also the summary in Abraham Tal, “Grammarians and Grammatical Treatises,” in A Companion to Samaritan Studies, ed. Alan D. Crown, Reinhard Pummer, and Abraham Tal (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1993), pp. 105-07; and Tal, “Samaritan Literature,” pp. 414-28. 128. See the earlier chapter “The Samaritans in History.” 129. For an annotated publication see Ben-Ḥayyim, The Literary and Oral Tradition, vol. II [in Hebrew], pp. 440-616. See also Ali Watad, “The 14th Century Lexicon of Pinḥas Hakohen ben Joseph Harrabban,” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of the Société d’Études samaritaines, Helsinki, August 1-4, 1988, ed. Haseeb Shehadeh, Habib Tawa, and Reinhard Pummer (Paris: Librairie orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 2005), pp. 149-57. 130. See Ben-Ḥayyim, A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew, an English translation and adaptation of volume 5 of his five-volume opus magnum The Literary and Oral Tradition; see also Ze’ev Ben-Ḥayyim, “Samaritan Hebrew — An Evaluation,” in The Samaritans, ed. Alan D. Crown (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 517-30. 131. Ben-Ḥayyim, A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew, p. 4. 132. See, e.g., Abraham Tal, “‘Hebrew Language’ and ‘Holy Language’ in Judea and Samaria,” Language Studies 11-12 (2008): 121-32; Stefan Schorch, “Spoken Hebrew of the Late Second Temple Period According to the Oral and the Written Samaritan Tradition,” in Conservatism and Innovation in the Hebrew Language of the Hellenistic Period: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls & Ben Sira, ed. Jan Joosten and Jean-Sebastien Rey (STDJ, 73; Leiden: Brill, 2008), pp. 175-90; and Moshe Florentin, “Some Thoughts About the Evaluation of the Samaritan Reading of the Pentateuch and the Hebrew Dialect Reflected in This Reading,” in Die Samaritaner und die Bibel: Historische und literarische Wechselwirkungen zwischen biblischen und samaritanischen Traditionen = The Samaritans and the Bible: Historical and Literary Interactions between Biblical and Samaritan Traditions, ed. Jörg Frey, Ursula Schattner-Rieser, and Konrad Schmid (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012), pp. 339-53. 133. Ratson Tsedaka, Samaritan Legends: Twelve Legends from Oral Tradition, Edited by Dov Noy [in Hebrew] (Haifa Municipality, Ethnological

Museum and Folklore Archives, Israel Folktale Archives [IFA] Publication Series, 8; Haifa, 1965). 134. See, e.g., Stefan Schorch, “Das Lernen der Tora bei den Samaritanern heute und drei samaritanische Erzählungen über das Lernen,” Wort und Dienst 26 (2001): 107-26, for three stories about the teaching and learning of the Torah in the past. Werner Arnold, “Zwischen Nablus und Holon. Aus dem Leben der Samaritanerin Batya Tsedaka. Ein Text im arabischen Dialekt der Samaritaner von Holon (Israel),” in “Der Odem des Menschen ist eine Leuchte des Herrn.” Aharon Agus zum Gedenken, ed. Ronen Reichmann (Schriften der Hochschule für Jüdische Studien Heidelberg, 9; Heidelberg: Winter, 2006), 18195 contains the transcript, in Arabic, and an English translation of an interview with Batya Tsedaka, the mother of Benyamim Tsedaka, who was a teacher by profession and taught Torah to the Samaritan children. In the interview she recounts her life. The recording can be accessed at http://www.semarch.unihd.de. This site contains also two interviews, in Arabic, with Benyamim Tsedaka, one autobiographical and one historical. 135. R. Tsedaka, Samaritan Legends, p. 90. 136. See R. Tsedaka, Samaritan Legends, pp. 18-22; Stenhouse, Kitāb, pp. 149-55; Adler and Séligsohn, “Une nouvelle chronique samaritaine,” REJ 45 (1902): 78-79; and cf. Moses Gaster, “The Story of the Daughter of Amram: The Samaritan Parallel to the Apocryphal Story of Susanna,” in Moses Gaster, Studies and Texts in Folklore, Magic, Medieval Romance, Hebrew Apocrypha and Samaritan Archaeology (London: Maggs Bros., 1925), vol. I, pp. 199210; and Paul Stenhouse, “Further Reflections on the Falasha and Samaritan Versions of the Legend of Susanna,” in Between Africa and Zion: Proceedings of the First International Congress of the Society for the Study of Ethiopian Jewry, ed. Steven Kaplan, Tudor Parfitt, and Emanuela Trevisan Semi (Jerusalem: Yad Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, 1995), pp. 94-112. 137. On a modern collection of such proverbs see Sylvia Powels, “Samaritan Proverbs,” AbrN 28 (1990): 76-95; Sylvia Powels, “Samaritan Proverbs,” in Proceedings of the First International Congress of the Société d’Études Samaritaines, Tel Aviv, April 11-13, 1988, ed. Abraham Tal and Moshe Florentin (Tel Aviv: Chaim Rosenberg School for Jewish Studies, Tel Aviv University, 1991), pp. 249-60; and, earlier, T. H. Gaster, “Samaritan Proverbs,” in Studies and Essays in Honour of Abraham A. Neuman, ed. Meir Ben-Horin, Bernard D. Weinryb, and Solomon Zeitlin (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1962), pp. 228-42. 138. See above under “Legal Decisions.” 139. See Robertson, Catalogue, vol. II, pp. 238-39. 140. On this correspondence see Mathias Delcor, “La correspondance des savants européens, en quête de manuscrits, avec les Samaritains du XVIe au XIXe siècle,” in Études samaritaines. Pentateuque et Targum, exégèse et philologie, chroniques. Actes de la table ronde: “Les manuscrits samaritains. Problèmes et méthodes” (Paris, Institut de Recherche et d’Histoire des Textes, 7-9 octobre 1985) (Collection de la Revue des Études Juives, 6; Louvain; Paris: E. Peeters, 1988), pp. 27-43; and Robert T. Anderson, “Samaritan History During the Renaissance,” in The Samaritans, ed. Alan D. Crown (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 104-12. On the type of Hebrew in this correspondence see Florentin, Late Samaritan Hebrew, pp. 8789. For a collection of letters in Hebrew, Arabic, and French translation, see Antoine-Isaac Silvestre de Sacy, “Correspondance des Samaritains de Naplouse, pendant les années 1808 et suiv,” Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la bibliothèque du roi et autres bibliothèques 12 (1831): 1-235. For a list of the letters, with bibliography, see also Baillet, “Samaritains,” pp. 893-913. Gaster presents an account and a translation of some letters in Gaster, The Samaritans, pp. 159-80. 141. See John Macdonald’s article “The Discovery of Samaritan Religion,” Religion 2 (1972): 141-53. See also Philippe de Robert, “La naissance des études samaritaines en Europe aux XVIe et XVIIe siècles,” in Études samaritaines: Pentateuque et Targum, exégèse et philologie, chroniques. Communications présentées à la table ronde internationale “Les manuscrits samaritains. Problèmes et méthodes” (Paris, Institut de Recherche et d’Histoire des Textes, 7-9 Octobre 1985), ed. Jean-Pierre Rothschild and Guy Dominique Sixdenier (Louvain-Paris: E. Peeters, 1988), pp. 15-26. 142. On Salama b. Ṭabia see Shavit, Goldstein, and Beʾer, eds., Personalities [in Hebrew], p. 404. 143. Isaac Rosenberg, Lehrbuch der samaritanischen Sprache und Literatur. Mit Facsimile eines samaritanischen Briefes vom gegenwärtigen Hohenpriester der Samaritaner zu Nablus (Die Kunst der Polyglottie, 71; Vienna, Pest and Leipzig: A. Hartleben, 1901), pp. 153-59. 144. See Robertson, Catalogue II. However, Gaster’s correspondence with the Samaritans fills four boxes in the John Rylands Library of Manchester, comprising approximately 500 letters (Maria Haralambakis, “A Survey of the Gaster Collection at the John Rylands Library, Manchester,” BJRL 89 [2012/2013]: 115). 145. See the project initiated by Maria Haralambakis, “Publication of Moses Gaster’s Correspondence with the Samaritans,” at http://www.manchesterjewishstudies.org/moses-gaster-project/. 146. Peidong Shen et al., “Reconstruction of Patrilineages and Matrilineages of Samaritans and Other Israeli Populations From Y-Chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA Sequence Variation,” Human Mutation 24 (2004): 248. 147. Shen, “Reconstruction of Patrilineages,” p. 258. A recent article on genetics in Israel in the 1950s subsumes the Samaritans under the non-Jewish population of the country: see Nurit Kirsh, “Population Genetics in Israel in the 1950s: The Unconscious Internalization of Ideology,” Isis 94, 4 (December 2003): 645, n. 31. 148. Most of the recent research has been conducted by Batsheva Bonné-Tamir, whose publications on the subject span fifty years, from her 1963 article “The Samaritan Isolate,” in The Genetics of Migrant and Isolate Populations: Proceedings of a Conference on Human Population Genetics in Israel Held at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1961, ed. Elisabeth Goldschmidt (New York: William and Wilkins, 1963), pp. 354-55; to “Maternal and Paternal Lineages of the Samaritan Isolate: Mutation Rates and Time to Most Recent Common Male Ancestor,” Annals of Human Genetics 67 (2003): 153-64. The physical anthropologist, Dr. Yossi Nagar, came to the conclusion that the Samaritans are descendants of the twelve tribes of Israel who have kept the biological continuity during the last 2800 years. See also Yossi Nagar, Who Are We? The Ancient Story of the Populations of Israel [in Hebrew] (Tel Aviv: Raḳiaʿ, 2003).

XI. Samaritan Rituals and Customs What binds the Samaritans together and enables them to survive in the face of a myriad obstacles is their religion. From daily prayers to the celebration of the High Holy days, from the circumcision on the eighth day of the life of a boy to the final rites at the burial, rituals are the life blood of the community. A clear expression of this is the large quantity of liturgical compositions accumulated throughout the centuries and continuing to be produced today. The Samaritans have their own calendar governing their religious year. It differs from the Jewish calendar so that the respective biblical festivals of the two communities are celebrated on different days. With the Samaritans, the customs marking these celebrations also vary over time. An example is the use of the shofar or ram’s horn for certain festivals. In Judaism the shofar is ceremonially blown on New Year and on Yom Kippur (cf. Lev. 23:24; Num. 29:1). In Samaritanism the custom has undergone changes in the course of time. In his commentary on the first four books of the Pentateuch, the eighteenth-century scholar Ibrahim al-ʿAyya (Ibrahim b. Yaʿqub) comments on the passages in Leviticus and Numbers in a contradictory fashion, but neither explicitly nor implicitly rules out that the shofar is to be blown by the Samaritans of his day. The contemporary Samaritans changed their practices within the span of thirty years. In 1983, it was stated that the shofar is not being blown because its use was restricted to the time of the temple. In what seems to be a sign of slow assimilation to Jewish customs, recently (2013) it was declared that on the first day of the seventh month the shofar is blown as it is at the end of the Day of Atonement. In addition to the festivals observed at certain times during the liturgical year, the Samaritans celebrate specific events in an individual’s life with the life-cycle ceremonies of Circumcision, Completion of the Reading of the Torah, Betrothal and Wedding, and Funeral. All festivals and ceremonies are accompanied by prayers, singing, and the recitation of Scripture. 1

2

3

4

5

6

1. The Samaritan Calendar The Samaritan calendar is a combination of the lunar and solar systems, which developed over several centuries, incorporating elements from different traditions. It is based on the Bible, but combines also components from the Julian calendar and the Arab astronomical tables. As opposed to the Jewish calendar which was determined by the observation of the moon, the Samaritan calendar is determined by calculation. Up to the twentieth century, the calculation of the calendar was kept a secret by the Samaritans. It was computed by the high priest and distributed to all male members of the congregation older than nineteen years against the payment of the symbolic sum of half a shekel (equated today to five New Israeli shekels). This was and is done twice a year for the following six months. Since the 1980s, a computer has been used to calculate and print the calendar. The religious year begins with the month which corresponds to Nisan in the Jewish calendar, called the “First Month” in the Samaritan calendar according to Exodus 12:2 and 7

8

the “Month of Aviv” in Deuteronomy 16:1. However, instead of the Jewish month-names, the Samaritans use ordinal numbers — from the First to the Twelfth Month, the First Month corresponding to April/May in the Gregorian calendar. In the course of time, Muslim and Christian month-names were also used in certain contexts. To date their manuscripts, the Samaritans count either from the year of creation or from the year of the entry of the Israelites into Canaan. As in the case of the month-names, however, they use also the Hijra era and other eras. Although the figures for the two events, creation and entry, vary in the different sources, approximate correspondences in the Gregorian calendar are the year 4438 B.C.E. for the year of creation and 1638 B.C.E. for the year of the entry into Canaan. These are the figures presently used by the Samaritans as the basis of their calculations. Thus, the Gregorian years 2014-2015 correspond to the Samaritan years 36523653 after the entry, and 6452-6453 after the creation. In order for the seasons to occur always in the same months in the combined lunar-solar calendar, an additional month had to be inserted seven times in nineteen years. Both Jews and Samaritans do this, but while the former add one month in leap years before the month Adar, the last month in the religious year (February-March in the Gregorian calendar), the Samaritans add it when necessary. As a consequence, Jewish and Samaritan feasts are celebrated one month apart in some years. For instance, in 2013 Passover began on March 25 for the Jews, but on April 23 for the Samaritans. In 2014, however, both Jews and Samaritans celebrated Passover on almost the same day (the Jews on April 14 and the Samaritans on April 13). In the course of the liturgical year, the Samaritans celebrate several feasts: Passover (Pesaḥ) on the fifteenth of the first month; the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Maṣot) on the twenty-first of the first month; the Feast of Weeks (Shavuot) on the sixth of the third month; Ṣimmut Sukkot on the fifteenth of the fifth month; the First Day of the Seventh Month; the Day of Atonement (Yom ha-Kippurim) on the tenth of the seventh month; Tabernacles (Sukkot) on the fifteenth of the seventh month; the Eighth Day of Tabernacles (Shemini Aṣeret) on the twenty-second of the seventh month; and Ṣimmut Pesaḥ on the fifteenth of the eleventh month. On the three pilgrimage festivals (ḥaggim) of Passover, Feast of Weeks, and Tabernacles, the Samaritans go on a pilgrimage to the top of Mt. Gerizim. In addition, the Day of the New Moon is a minor festival. As mentioned in the Introduction, the Samaritans do not observe the Jewish festival of Purim, commemorating the deliverance of the Jews in Persia as narrated in the Book of Esther. However, in his book Three Months’ Residence in Nablus, the Rev. John Mills (18121873), who visited the Samaritans in 1855 and 1860, describes the celebration of a form of Purim-feast by the Samaritans. It took place in the month of Shevat, prior to the month Adar in which the Jews celebrate it, and was observed “on the three last sabbaths in the month, to commemorate, not the deliverance of the Jews by Esther, but the mission of Moses to deliver the Israelites out of Egypt.” The service lasts six hours. Mills adds: “There is no authority in the law, as the priest observed, for holding this feast.” We do not know when this feast entered the Samaritan calendar and when its celebration was discontinued. No later source mentions it and it is not part of the festivals today. It goes without saying that the eight-day 9

10

11

12

festival of Hanukkah, which marks the restoration and rededication of the Jerusalem temple by Judas Maccabaeus in 164 B.C.E. (1 Macc. 4:36-59; 2 Macc. 1:10–2:18), is not celebrated by the Samaritans.

2. Passover and Masṣot Passover (Pesaḥ) is the Samaritan festival best known to outsiders. Every year large numbers of tourists, onlookers, and reporters gather on Mt. Gerizim to watch the celebration. Unlike the Jews, the Samaritans have not replaced the sacrifice of sheep with a domestic ceremony around the family table, the Passover Seder, but celebrate it as prescribed in Exodus 12. It is the only sacrifice which, according to Samaritan beliefs, can be performed without a temple because it was already offered before Moses had built a sanctuary. Another difference from Judaism is the Samaritans’ celebrating the Feast of Unleavened Bread as a feast separate from Passover. 13

14

Fig. 27. Preparing the lambs for roasting. (Reinhard Pummer)

Fig. 28. Putting a lamb on the roasting spit. (Reinhard Pummer)

According to Samaritan tradition, the Passover sacrifice has been offered on Mt. Gerizim without interruption since biblical times, although it was not always held in the same location due to the conditions imposed on them by their political overlords. Details of the celebration underwent changes in the course of time, but the essence was preserved. The number of yearold male lambs sacrificed changes of course with the size of the community, since the Bible decrees that “a lamb for each household” is to be offered, and “if a household is too small for a whole lamb, it shall join its closest neighbor in obtaining one” (Exod. 12:3-4). For instance, in the late 1970s, when the community was small, seven lambs were sacrificed; now that the community has grown, well over forty are slaughtered. They are fleeced, inspected for possible blemishes (Fig. 27), put on skewers (Fig. 28), salted, and lowered into “ovens” (tannurim), that is, stone-lined pits in the ground, where they are roasted (Fig. 29 and Fig. 30). While this is done, the biblical passages dealing with Passover are read and prayers are recited. Around midnight, the lambs are removed from the ovens and eaten.

Fig. 29. Tannurim and fire wood. (Ori Orhof)

Fig. 30. Fire in roasting pits. (Ori Orhof)

On the twenty-first of the first month, the Feast of Unleavened Bread is celebrated and the first pilgrimage of the year to the top of Mt. Gerizim takes place in fulfillment of the commandments given in Deuteronomy 16:16; Exodus 23:14-17; and Exodus 34:18-23. In the past (i.e., in the fourteenth and early-twentieth centuries), the pilgrims set out from the foot

of the mountain in Nablus; today the pilgrimage starts at the synagogue on Mt. Gerizim at about 4:00 a.m. and ends on the top of the mountain around 9:00 a.m. Several times the pilgrims halt at stations or altars where prayers are recited. 15

3. The Feast of Weeks The Feast of Weeks (Shavuot) is celebrated fifty days after Passover, as prescribed in Leviticus 23:15-16: “And from the day after the sabbath, from the day on which you bring the sheaf of the elevation offering, you shall count off seven weeks; they shall be complete. You shall count until the day after the seventh sabbath, fifty days; then you shall present an offering of new grain to the Lord.” While the Jews understand “sabbath” as referring to Passover, the Samaritans — as did and do other Jewish groups — take it literally, i.e., the Feast of Weeks is always celebrated on the first day (Sunday) of the eighth week. This is the second pilgrimage feast of the liturgical year. On the whole, the feast lasts seven days. The Wednesday in the festival week is called the Day of Reading (the Torah) ( ) or the Day of Standing on Mount Sinai” ( ), because on it the Samaritans commemorate God’s revelation of the Ten Commandments to Moses. The day is marked by a special service lasting from midnight on Tuesday to 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday; it includes the reading of the complete Torah. At the recitation of each of the Ten Commandments the high priest lifts up the Torah scroll. The Sabbath immediately preceding Shavuot is called the Sabbath of the Ten Commandments ( ).

4. The First Day of the Seventh Month In Judaism, this is the religious beginning of the new year, the first day of Tishri. For the Samaritans the day is a festival, but not the New Year’s day. As opposed to the celebration of the Jewish New Year, the Samaritans did not blow the shofar on this day in the past, but they do now, as discussed above. It is the first day of the Days of Penance or the Ten Days of Forgiveness. The prayers emphasize the subject of repentance in view of the approaching Day of Atonement.

5. The Day of Atonement The Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) is one of the most important days in the Samaritan liturgical year. Every member of the community older than one year is obliged to fast for twenty-four hours, i.e., men, women, and children must abstain from food and drink. Only babies who are nursed by their mothers are exempt, although their mothers must fast. Like the fast, the prayers in the synagogue last twenty-four hours, although this does not mean that every single individual must spend twenty-four hours in the synagogue. No work is permitted on this day. It is the second day on which the Samaritans now blow the shofar — once at its beginning and again at its conclusion — and on which women participate in the prayers in the synagogue. The whole congregation is to repent for its sins, as prescribed in the Bible (Lev. 16; 23:27-32; Num 29:7-11). In the synagogue on Mt. Gerizim the Abisha Scroll is taken out and the congregation is blessed with it; the community members in turn “bless” the 16

high priest, i.e., wish him well during the festival. After the conclusion of the Day of Atonement, a festive meal is eaten, and on the next morning the preparations for the feast of Tabernacles begin with the erection of the framework of the sukkah or “booth.”

Fig. 31. Sukkah. (Reinhard Pummer)

6. Tabernacles Celebrated on the fifteenth day of the seventh month, Tabernacles (Sukkot) is the third pilgrimage festival. The mode of celebration, as it is performed now, differs in several respects from that of the Jews. The most obvious difference is the erection of the sukkot or “booths” inside the house, a custom which, according to Samaritan oral tradition, began in the days of the Romans or the Byzantines or early in the time of the Muslim rule. The Samaritans buy the four species of Leviticus 23:40 (“On the first day [of the festival of the booths] you shall take for yourselves a beautiful fruit tree, palm branches, and branches of a leafy tree, and willows of the brook,” and build their sukkot with them, whereas the Jews make a bunch with them, hold it in their hands and wave it. Another Samaritan peculiarity is that the booths have only a roof from which the fruits and branches are hung, but no side walls (Fig. 31). Today’s Samaritans interpret the four species thus: any citrus fruits, palm branches, branches from trees with dense foliage, and a special plant which grows on river banks, although red peppers can also be used. For the beginning of the practice of building booths with the four species we have, as noted above, the oral tradition of the Samaritans. However, it may well be older than that. According to Nehemiah 8:15 the Israelites were to “Go out to the hills and bring branches of olive, wild olive, myrtle, palm, and other leafy 17

18

19

trees to make booths, as it is written.” Karaite Jews also build their sukkot with the four species. The pilgrimage takes place on the first of the seven-day festival. Special prayers, a festive mood, and a spirit of community mark the period. The families visit each other to sit under the sukkot and to admire them. As opposed to Jewish practice, they do not sleep under the sukkah.

7. The Eighth Day of Tabernacles — Shemini Asṣeret On the twenty-second day of the seventh month, i.e., the eighth day of the festival of Tabernacles, the service concludes with the priest or cantor carrying the Torah scroll around the synagogue congregation in a kind of dance. In a custom traced back to Byzantine times, the Samaritans burn the palm branches of the sukkot in the evening of Shemini Aṣeret; the booths are dismantled and the dry branches are burned. Abu l-Fatḥ and the late Chronicle II, compiled in 1908, derive this custom from a victory celebration under their leader Baba Rabba and his nephew Levi. This is also the explanation given by the contemporary Samaritans: it is a memorial for the Samaritan victory over the Byzantine forces. 20

8. Ṣimmut Pesahṣ and Ṣimmut Sukkot These are two semi-festivals, of which one is celebrated sixty days before Pesaḥ, the other sixty days before Sukkot, always on a Sabbath. The high priest distributes the calendar for the next six months in the week before these festivals, and the recipients pay the “ransom” of Exodus 30:11-16, a symbolic sum of money, presently fixed at five New Israeli shekels. Literally, ṣimmut means “meeting,” “conjunction,” but its precise sense here is not clear. On Ṣimmut Pesaḥ contemporary Samaritans memorialize the meeting between Moses and Aaron in the desert, where Moses told Aaron all that God had said when sending him (Exod. 4:27-28), and on Ṣimmut Sukkot they commemorate Eleazar’s induction into the priesthood on Mount Hor (Num. 20:22-29).

9. Pilgrimage By making a pilgrimage three times a year to the top of Mt. Gerizim, the Samaritans follow the biblical command: “Three times a year all your males shall appear before the Lord your God at the place that he will choose [according to the SP: that he has chosen]: at the festival of unleavened bread, at the festival of weeks, and at the festival of booths” (Deut. 16:16; cf. Exod. 23:17 and 34:23; in both Exodus passages the SP reads “before the Ark of Yahweh” instead of “before the Lord your God”) (Fig. 32 and Fig. 33). The point of departure for the pilgrims is the synagogue on Mt. Gerizim, although in the past it was the synagogue in Nablus. In the course of the ceremony, a number of places, called “stations” or “altars,” are visited, each connected with biblical personages or events: the Twelve Stones of Joshua (Deut. 27:4 SP and Josh. 4:20), the Altar of Adam and his son Seth (cf. Gen. 4:25), the Eternal Hill (Deut. 33:15 SP), “God will provide” (Gen. 22:8), the Altar of Isaac (Gen. 22:9) (Fig. 34), the Altar of Noah (Gen. 8:20), and, for the second time, the Eternal Hill (Fig. 35). 21

These are the stations that the pilgrims visit today; in the period of the Aramaic sources, they visited only two: the Altar of Abraham and the Altar of Noah. The Eternal Hill is of special importance. Physically, it is a flat limestone formation on the highest peak of Mt. Gerizim. Religiously, it is seen as the place where the most significant events in the history of Israel took place. At the end of the pilgrimage, the participants go around the rock two and a half times, the high priest blesses them with the Torah scroll, as he has done at every stop, and, with the congregants embracing and wishing each other peace, the pilgrimage concludes. The ceremony lasts from approximately 4:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. All through the pilgrimage, special prayers are said and biblical texts are recited, mostly in an abbreviated form, the qaṭaf. 22

Fig. 32. Pilgrims on Mt. Gerizim. (Ori Orhof)

Fig. 33. Pilgrims praying on Mt. Gerizim. (Reinhard Pummer)

Fig. 34. Mt. Gerizim — Isaac’s Altar, view from the west. (Yitzhak Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan, p. 263)

Fig. 35. Prayers on the “Eternal Hill.” (Ori Orhof)

10. Circumcision The Samaritans perform circumcision on the eighth day after the birth of every male child. The ceremony is never postponed, because the Samaritan version of Genesis 17:14 reads: “And an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin on the eighth day, that soul shall be cut off from his people, he has broken My covenant.” The “eighth day” is specifically mentioned here in the Samaritan Pentateuch, and also in the Septuagint. To illustrate the seriousness of carrying out the circumcision precisely on the eighth day even in the face of adversity and, at the same time, the inventiveness of the Samaritan elders, Samaritans recount an incident from the time of Yitzhak Ben-Zvi’s presidency. The problem concerned the need to keep twin boys in the incubator beyond the eighth day. If they were to be taken out and circumcised, they would not survive. After urgent consultations among the elders, the high priest and his counselors declared that the incubator was an extension of the womb and the boys were to be circumcised on the eighth day after they came out of the incubator. All available historical evidence testifies that the Samaritans strictly observed this commandment throughout their history. Neither Flavius Josephus nor the rabbis accuse them of being lax in this point, and later sources seem to confirm this attitude. Samaritan chronicles narrate an episode from Roman-Byzantine times when the Samaritans were forbidden to circumcise their boys. Using a ruse, the high priest’s newborn son was circumcised, and the official in charge of watching them, Germanus (Garmon), let it happen. Out of gratefulness, the Samaritans still bless his name during the circumcision ceremony. As pointed out above, the chronicles reflect first and foremost the customs of the times when they were compiled. Thus, the account about Garmon may not be a valid argument for the 23

24

25

26

customs of earlier times. In the past, a priest officiated as circumciser; today, a Jewish mohel (circumciser) performs the operation. Another change is the venue of the occasion: previously it was the house of the boy’s father, now it is the community hall. In contrast to the Jews, the Samaritans do not perform periʿah, the uncovering of the glans, nor meṣiṣa, the sucking of the blood from the wound. During the ceremony, a female relative holds the child; there is no sandaq, or “godfather,” as in Judaism. After the circumcision is completed, the boy receives his name. Circumcision is a joyous occasion for the community and is celebrated as such.

11. Redemption of the First Born According to Exodus 13:11-16, 34:20 and Numbers 18:15-16, all firstborn males are to be redeemed in remembrance of the exemption of the Israelite firstborn, when God punished the Pharaoh for not letting the Israelites go and slew all the firstborn in Egypt. In the course of the history of Samaritanism, this occasion was not always observed, as recorded by past eyewitnesses. Today, when the firstborn is one month old or shortly after, a small ceremony is held in which the family invites the high priest to say a blessing over the child and presents him with a token payment, representing the five shekels of silver in Numbers 18:16. 27

12. Completion of the Reading of the Torah Both male and female Samaritan children are instructed in the traditions of the community and, in particular, are taught the reading of the Torah, beginning at the early age of four or five years. Today, their teachers can be priests, scholars, or the children’s fathers and female members of the community. The children begin with learning the Samaritan alphabet and the special Samaritan pronunciation through frequent reading of the text. When the complete text of the Torah has been read, the accomplishment is celebrated in a special ceremony called Ḥatimat Torah, “Completion of the Torah.” This occurs at different times in the lives of different children, but in the majority of cases it takes place when children are between six and ten years of age. The community gathers for the occasion as complete as possible. The boy, standing on a chair and wearing children’s clothing, is stripped to his undergarments by his father and then is clothed with adult clothes. After this, he puts on the white prayer robe and, to prove his achievement, he recites by heart in front of the community the blessing of Moses from Deuteronomy (Deut. 33 and 34) and gives a short speech. The girls do not go through the ritual of changing clothes but take part in their best dresses. They do recite the blessing of Moses and deliver a short speech. Ḥatimat Torah is a coming-of-age ceremony for boys and girls. As opposed to the boys, the girls do not participate in the synagogue service even after proving their proficiency in the reading of the Torah, but they read the Torah at home on Sabbath mornings. Clearly, the occasion is similar to the Jewish Bar and Bat Mitzvah ceremony, but the age difference between Samaritan and Jewish children joining the adult community is significant. 28

13. Betrothal and Wedding

A number of changes in the customs and laws of marriage among Samaritans can be documented for the last several centuries. One is the marriage age which in the nineteenth century was still very low, although different authors cite different ages, varying from fourteen, fifteen, or sixteen for boys and eight, ten, or twelve for girls. It goes without saying, that today’s brides are more mature in age. Another change concerns the eligibility of nonSamaritan women. As discussed, some Samaritan sources in the past forbid marrying such women altogether, but reports by Western travelers and scholars from the nineteenth century present contradictory evidence. According to certain authors, Samaritans never marry nonSamaritans, but other observers state that Jewish and Christian girls were admissible as long as they agreed to live according to the Samaritan religion. As I discussed earlier, presently Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and non-religious women are acceptable if they agree to live as Samaritans. A third change concerns the practice of polygamy. While once it was permitted, later its legality was denied. The chronic imbalance between men and women in the community in itself put an end to the practice, and there certainly is no polygamy among Samaritans today. Historically, the actual performance of the wedding fluctuated also in the course of time. The Samaritans observe three steps: proposal (qiddushin), betrothal (ʾerusin), and marriage (nissuʾin). The first step, the proposal, makes final the already informally existing agreement by asking the girl for her assent in the presence of her parents, some male relatives, and a priest, and by reciting short prayers. From now on the couple is engaged to each other, but sexual relations are not yet permitted. The betrothal is agreed upon by the representative of the bride who may be her father or her uncle or a guardian, and the groom who hands over the bride price (mohar). The betrothal can only be severed through divorce. For the third stage, marriage, a contract is drawn up, called in the past by different names, but today’s Samaritans call it ketubbah in imitation of the Jewish terminology. Written — and often decorated with geometrical and plant motifs — by a priest, the document begins with a religious hymn, states the date of the marriage, names the groom and the bride and their respective fathers and grandfathers (all with numerous honorific titles), sets out the bride price (bride wealth), lists the mutual obligations of groom and bride, and finishes with the signatures of the scribe and the names of the witnesses. The bride-price is now a symbolic sum paid by the groom’s family to the bride’s father. In the past, the amount depended on the status of the bride: for a virgin, 4,900 silver pieces, for a priest’s daughter 6,100, and for a widow or divorcee 2,500. The reading of the marriage contract (Fig. 36) by the priest in front of the congregation is the high point of the ceremony. The wedding celebrations, most often combined now with the betrothal, last a week, incorporating various folk customs and socializing events among the whole community. As in other societies, not every Samaritan marriage is successful; some end in divorce. Although no ritual takes place at such occasions, divorce is formalized through a contract, the deed of divorce, called in Hebrew , which cites Deuteronomy 24:1: “Suppose a man enters into marriage with a woman [SP, English translation by Tsedaka: When a man shall take a wife and has come on to her], but she does not please him because he finds something objectionable about her, and so he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her 29

30

31

32

33

hand, and sends her out of his house.” The question of what constitutes “something objectionable” in the wife has found different answers in different periods. While in the past the term was understood in a very wide sense, today three causes are enumerated: “(1) abominable practices committed by either party, or by both together; (2) quarreling that makes the life of either party unbearable; (3) immorality, i.e., rumors or proofs that either party maintains extramarital relations.” Two or three witnesses are needed to substantiate these reasons. If, after a period of at least a year, attempts at reconciliation are unsuccessful, the high priest performs the divorce (although in practice today the high priest performs only consensual divorces; other cases are arbitrated by an Israeli civil court). 34

35

36

Fig. 36. Marriage contract (1820). (Reinhard Pummer)

14. Funeral Funeral customs and practices related to death and dying among the Samaritans have changed over the centuries just as other rituals have undergone developments. It is difficult to know what the Samaritan rites were in antiquity due to the lack of sources. Even the 37

graves of the large community on Mt. Gerizim in the Hellenistic period have so far not been found. In the Roman period, some Samaritans seem to have buried their dead in stone sarcophagi. Rock-cut tombs unearthed in the area of Qedumim and Khirbet Samara, two clearly Samaritan sites, date from the Roman-Byzantine period. Samaritan cemeteries and burial caves from the late Roman and Byzantine periods have also been found in Khirbet alʿAura/Tel Barukh, Khirbet al-Ḥadra, and Tell Qasile, all located in northern Tel Aviv, i.e., outside of the area of Samaria. Some were arcosolia-type tombs, i.e., they had arched recesses for the sarcophagi; others were kokhim-type tombs, i.e., they consisted of a central chamber from which several ledges branched off on which the corpses were placed. A third kind combined different types of burial, such as Tomb E in Qedumim which contains burial on ledges, in kokhim, and in sarcophagi, and Cave 5 in Khirbet al-ʿAura. As with all Samaritan material culture, it is difficult to distinguish Samaritan and Jewish tombs; only the location and inscriptions allow us to assign tombs to Samaritans with a certain degree of confidence. It should also be noted that the so-called “Samaritan” sarcophagi constitute a special category, but are not limited to the use by Samaritans, nor did they originate in Samaria. Samaritans at times did bury their dead in sarcophagi, but the custom probably arrived from the Shephelah and the coastal areas, where it had spread from Jerusalem and was taken up by both Samaritans and pagans. 38

39

40

41

Fig. 37. Funeral on Mt. Gerizim. (Reinhard Pummer)

Burial of the dead on Mt. Gerizim was avoided as long as possible because the mountain is holy. It is possible that at one time the dead were buried at the foot of Mt. Ebal. Eventually the Samaritans did establish a cemetery on Mt. Gerizim (Fig. 37). Today, those who touch the corpse when washing or carrying it remain unclean for one day. After the burial, which takes place on the day the person died, they bathe in water and are clean again. The washing of the body, its clothing with white garments, and the burial are all done by the relatives of the deceased. The eldest priest of a place walks after the casket, reciting Deuteronomy 32. After the interment, the recitation is continued to the end of Deuteronomy. The period of mourning lasts one week, and after thirty days the family of the dead person prepares a meal and invites the community to it. Samaritans may stay in the house for a week, but, unlike the Jews, they do not exhibit external signs of mourning. An important part of the mourning ceremonies is the repeated reading of the whole Pentateuch in the house of the family of the deceased. Before the funeral, the whole Torah is read up to Deuteronomy 31:24, and the rest is read during the funeral. For the next seven days the Torah is read daily up to Deuteronomy 31, and every evening the remaining chapters (Deut. 32–34) are read at 42

43

44

special prayer meetings in the house of the deceased. Every day (except on Sabbath) in the early morning, the qaṭaf of the Torah is recited; it includes all the passages from the Torah that have to do with death. After that, the immediate relatives of the dead read the entire Torah every day for seven days, except on Sabbath.

15. Prayer Formal prayer is said in the synagogue twice a day on weekdays, once in the morning and once in the evening; a third service, at noon or in the afternoon, is added on Sabbaths, and other services are added on holidays (Fig. 38). To prepare for the prayers, the Samaritan men perform ritual ablutions, accompanied by prayers. They wash their hands, mouth, nose, face, ears, and legs, doing this in their homes because the contemporary Samaritans have no ritual baths or miqvaʾot (although such baths are documented for antiquity through archaeological excavations from Byzantine times). Women do not pray in the synagogue, except on the Day of Atonement. Today’s Samaritans explain this practice with precepts regarding female purity as laid down in Leviticus 15:19-24 and Leviticus 12, i.e., women are ritually impure during menstruation and after the birth of a child (for forty days after a male and for eighty days after a female child); but, so the Samaritan argument goes, they may unexpectedly bleed at other times. Thus, it is advisable that they do not attend synagogue services. Men become ritually impure for one day through intercourse or nocturnal emissions (cf. Lev. 15:16-17; and Deut. 23:1o-11). 45

46

Fig. 38. Prayers in the synagogue. (Reinhard Pummer)

The layout and furnishings of the modern synagogues and the prayer gestures are reminiscent of Islamic institutions and practices: there are no benches in the Samaritan

synagogues, but carpets on which the worshipers stand and sit. Shoes are removed before entering the synagogue. The prayer gestures include holding the hands with the palms up while praying; wiping the face with the right hand at the mention of the names of God, Moses, and the Patriarchs; and prostrations at certain points in the prayers. At first glance, these elements appear to be due to Islamic influence, given the long centuries during which the Samaritans lived under Islamic rule. But it is possible that the influence has gone in the opposite direction — from Samaritanism to Islam, i.e., from the older religion to the newer. There is, however, at least one instance where Islamic influence may be detectable. The excavated Samaritan synagogues from the Roman-Byzantine period have benches on which the worshipers could sit, whereas the present-day custom of sitting on the floor on carpets, with shoes left at the entrance, corresponds to Muslim practices. Thus, at least in this case there may have been a measure of adaptation to Islamic customs by the Samaritans. On the other hand, it appears likely that in Jewish synagogues of antiquity the worshipers sat not only on benches but also on mats. As Lee Levine points out, “It is hard to imagine that the synagogue generally accommodated only those who sat on the stone benches lining the walls.” And he concludes: “If Byzantine churches are any example, then congregations may have sat in all parts of the assembly hall, in the nave as well as in the aisles — on stone benches, wooden benches, and mats.” Although the same may be true for the Samaritan synagogues of the Byzantine period, it does not rule out possible Islamic influence on the use of carpets to the exclusion of any benches in the contemporary Samaritan synagogues. A voluminous literature of prayers and hymns exists, going back to the fourth century C.E. and continuing to the present. Scholars think that originally the services consisted of the recitation of Scripture, probably in the form of qeṭafim (singular qaṭaf), i.e., a string of scriptural passages representing an abbreviated form of reciting biblical texts. By reading a sequence of abbreviated Pentateuch passages, the whole Pentateuch, or at least large parts of it, can be read in a shorter time. The passages are not continuous, but only short phrases are quoted. The following example cites the beginning of the qaṭaf for the morning service of the Sixth Day of Tabernacles. The initial verses, quoting the creation of trees bearing fruit, are befitting the particular feast. The qeṭafim for the other days of Tabernacles also cite verses that have to do with fruit trees. The complete qaṭaf comprises many pages. 47

48

49

50

51

And fruit trees bearing fruit (Gen. i,11) and trees bearing fruit (Gen. i,12). Then God said “Let us make man” (Gen. i,26). So God created man (Gen. i,27). And God blessed them, and God said to them (Gen. i,28). And God said “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit (Gen. i,29). And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day (Gen. i,31). And on the sixth day (M. T. seventh) God finished (Gen. ii,2);52 then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being (Gen. ii,7). And out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. ii,9).53

Later, prayers were added and the basic prayer book, the Defter, developed. Most of the prayers are chanted by the whole congregation in the distinctively Samaritan cantillation. Usually a priest leads the prayers, but laymen can also lead them. 54

55

Another difference between Samaritans and Jews in the practice of prayer is their diverse understanding of the biblical commands concerning tefillin and mezuzot. Following the giving of the Ten Commandments, God instructs the Israelites to bind his words “as a sign upon your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. And you shall write them on the doorposts of your house and your gates” (Deut. 6:8-9; cf. Deut. 11:13-21). Judaism takes the injunction literally, i.e., Jewish men tie two cube-shaped black leather capsules containing certain biblical verses with black leather straps on the left upper arm and on the forehead between the eyes. The second part of the command, the writing of God’s words on the doorposts, is fulfilled, according to Jewish tradition, by placing on the doorposts small pieces of parchment inscribed with the text of the first two paragraphs of Deuteronomy 6:4-9 and enclosed in a case of metal or other material. The Samaritans, on the other hand, understand these injunctions figuratively, translating the Hebrew word as “memorial” rather than “frontlets.” They are always to remember what God commanded them. They do not therefore use tefillin. By mezuzot the Samaritans mean passages from the Torah which contain blessings or similar concepts engraved on stone or written on parchment and affixed to a wall in their houses (Fig. 39). 56

57

Fig. 39. Modern mezuzah on the wall of a house in Nablus. (Reinhard Pummer)

During the prayers on Sabbath and feasts, the Samaritan men now wear a prayer “shawl” which is different from that of the Jews — the ṭallit, a four-cornered cloth with fringes (see Num. 15:38). For the Samaritans it is not what we usually understand by “shawl,” but rather a long white robe worn over another long striped robe, the Sabbath dress. A head covering in the form of a red tarboosh, i.e., a brimless red felt cap, or any other kind of cap, and white turbans for the priests, completes the Sabbath synagogue attire. No minyan or minimum

number of ten adult male participants is required for public prayer.

16. Music Samaritan cantillation is unaccompanied by musical instruments. Moreover, it is not committed to writing but is handed on orally from generation to generation through teaching and participation in the synagogue service. Their music is thus another element that sets the Samaritans apart from every other community in Palestine. Most scholars believe that the Samaritans were able to preserve their musical tradition unadulterated from antiquity into the present, and consider Samaritan music to be at least as old as Yemenite music if not older. Other scholars have identified innovations, introduced especially by younger non-priestly Samaritans in Ḥolon, which take “the form of exaggerated emphasis on certain of those idiosyncratic elements of Samaritan music which have a dramatic and identifying quality,” possibly to highlight the difference from the Jewish community among which they live. To ears accustomed to European music, Samaritan music sounds archaic and dissonant, or, as Menashe Ravina described it: “A person brought up in the European spirit may find this religious music monotonous, incapable of developing or contrasting the different themes that make up a composition.” But Ravina continues: “the monotony of the Samaritan songs is no sign of poverty, nor does it prove any disinclination to basic development; these sound-lines are strictly planned and stem from the atmosphere of public worship.” 58

59

60

61

62

Fig. 40. Musical notations of Exod. 15:1 and 3, as corrected by the author. (Ulrike-Rebekka Nieten, “Die Kantillation bei den Samaritanern,” p. 236)

The Samaritans chant their prayers by dividing the community into two choirs, one standing on the right side of the synagogue, the other on the left. The group on the right side, together with the priest, sings the first verse and then immediately the third verse; at the same time the group on the left begins to sing the second verse and so on. The right choir sings the odd numbered verses, the left the even numbered verses (Fig. 40). What results is a homophone polyphony, the Organum, which developed in Europe only in the ninth century C.E. Although scholars have been writing about Samaritan music since the early twentieth century, albeit articles and chapters in books rather than monographs, much remains to be researched about the subject. In the meantime, the Samaritans are making their music known to a wider public. In 1980, they founded a choir, the Samaritan Singers, that participates in international concerts and music festivals in Europe and the United States, and makes available recordings of their music. 63

64

65

17. Art

Samaritan pictorial art is as little known outside the Samaritan community as is Samaritan music, since both forms of art serve first and foremost the Samaritans’ own religious purposes. Moreover, similar to Samaritan music, Samaritan pictorial art is unique in that in all their artistic endeavors destined for religious use — from antique synagogue mosaics to contemporary marriage contracts — the Samaritans hold fast to the biblical prohibition of making images of living beings (Exod. 20:4). The discovery of beautiful multicolored floor mosaics in Samaritan synagogues from the Byzantine period proves that Samaritan art always was aniconic — it depicts neither human nor animal figures, graphically illustrated by the empty bird cages on the mosaic from the synagogue in Khirbet Samara. The only decorations in these mosaics are geometrical designs, plant motifs, vases, and objects with a relation to the cult. The latter include the picture of a synagogue façade resembling that of a temple with columns and a curtain, a table with vessels and bread displayed on it (Showbread Table), a menorah, a makhta (firepan), and trumpets. Magen assumes that these items, probably copied from the Jews, were pictured in accordance with pentateuchal texts rather than being based on memories of the temple, be it the one in Jerusalem or the one on Mt. Gerizim. The Ark and other cult objects are also depicted on oil lamps once belonging to Samaritans, as is proved by the inscriptions in Samaritan script. Samaritan Torah scroll cases are also decorated either with geometric designs and arabesques or with cultic motifs, the oldest extant case dating from the fifteenth century, another five from the sixteenth century, and others from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The earliest extant cases were made in Egypt and Damascus. The ancient as well as the recent scroll cases are cylindrical in shape and are made of three curved metal sheets connected through hinges. Two handles in the bottom are used to lift the scroll during the prayer service, and the scroll itself is wound around two metal rods which protrude, together with a third rod, above the top of the case (Fig. 41). The scroll and the case are wrapped individually in green cloth. The use of scroll cases probably dates to Roman-times capsae (containers of scrolls), but whereas the latter were opened on the top, Jewish and Samaritan scroll cases were eventually opened in the front, as they still are today. Since the Samaritans do not read the Torah from the scroll, but from a codex, the scroll is only used to bless the congregation; when it is stored, it is always open at Leviticus 9:22a: “Aaron lifted his hands [hand, SP] toward the people and blessed them.” The waving of the raised and open scroll case performed by the priest (hanafah) when blessing the faithful may be based on the elevation of the sacrifice described in the same Leviticus passage: “and the breasts [of ox and ram] and the right thigh Aaron raised as an elevation offering before the Lord, as Moses had commanded” (Lev. 9:21). 66

67

68

69

70

71

72

Fig. 41. Waving of the Torah scroll. (Ori Orhof)

The central panel of the sixteenth-century scroll case in the Mt. Gerizim synagogue and a hanging from the same period are decorated with representations of the Tabernacle and its implements, the same type of designs as found in Samaritan Tabernacle drawings executed on sheets of parchment and paper. These multicolored drawings are the main expression of Samaritan representational art. Some are entitled “depiction of the holy Tabernacle which our lord Moses made in the desert”; others “this is a depiction of the holy Tabernacle on Mount Gerizim.” In the Holy of Holies are shown the Ark, the Mercy-Seat, two winged creatures (cherubs), and the rods of Aaron and Moses (see Exod. 25:10-22; 37:1-9; Num. 17). Outside the Holy of Holies are represented the Menorah (Exod. 25:31-40; 37:17-24), the Table of Showbread (Exod. 25:23-30; 37:10-16), the Altar of Incense or the Golden Altar (Exod. 30:27; 30:1; 39:38; et al.), a jar for the Manna (Exod. 16:32-33), tongs (Num. 4:9), fire pans (Num. 4:9), and the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. In the court, the following implements are seen: the laver (Exod. 30:17-21; 38:8), the garments of the high priest (Exod. 28:1-43), including the headdress (Exod. 28:4, 39), two trumpets (Num. 10:1-10), a jug (Exod. 30:18), basins (Exod. 27:3; 38:3; Num. 4:14), two pairs of knives, the bronze altar (with the bronze 73

74

75

grating; Exod. 38:30; 39:39; on the altar of burnt offering see Exod. 27:1-8 and 38:1-7), two hooks and two oblong objects that look like pipes (Exod. 27:3; 38:3; Num. 4:14). These representations underline that for the Samaritans the Tabernacle is the only true sanctuary: in it the high priests from Aaron to Uzzi officiated. It was erected on Mt. Gerizim by Joshua and hidden at the end of Uzzi’s high priesthood; and it will be revealed again by the Taheb. Although the oldest extant drawings date from the sixteenth century, as does the Torah scroll case on Mt. Gerizim, synagogue mosaics and oil lamps from the Byzantine period exhibit some of the Tabernacle implements. The decorative features of manuscripts offer another expression of Samaritan art. Some manuscripts are adorned with non-representational art, either with lattice-work finials at the end of pentateuchal books, or with special arrangements of the text, or with geometric and floral designs. At times, colored ink or colored paper is used, especially for the collection of hymns for joyous occasions (Mimar hašama), i.e., birthdays, circumcisions, and weddings, written between the fourteenth and seventeenth centuries and preserved in manuscripts of the eighteenth century. In comparison to the manuscript art of other traditions, such as the Persian and the Jewish, however, it has rightly been said that “the decorative elements in Samaritan MSS are simple and modest, resembling a folk craft more than a scribal art.” More artistry is displayed on marriage contracts, especially those drawn up in modern times. A new phenomenon among Samaritans is the first professional artist specializing in Samaritan subjects, Miriam Tsedaka, the wife of the editor of A.B.–The Samaritan News. 76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

1. For a comparison of the respective festivals see Ferdinand Dexinger, “Samaritan and Jewish Festivals: Comparative Considerations,” in New Samaritan Studies, ed. Alan D. Crown and Lucy Davey (Sydney: Mandelbaum, 1995), pp. 57-78. 2. See the earlier chapter on “The Samaritans in History.” 3. See the discussion in Siegmund Hanover, Das Festgesetz der Samaritaner nach Ibrâhîm ibn Ja‘ḳûb. Edition und Uebersetzung seines Kommentars zu Lev. 23 nebst Einleitung und Anmerkungen (Berlin: H. Itzkowski, 1904), pp. 28-29. The contradictions seem to stem from a blending of Samaritan and Rabbanite traditions. 4. See Reinhard Pummer, “Samaritan Rituals and Customs,” in The Samaritans, ed. Alan D. Crown (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), p. 686. 5. See The Samaritan Update 13,1 (September/October 2013) at http://www.thesamaritanupdate.com. See also the photograph of the blowing of the shofar on the Day of Atonement on the web page of the “Israelite Samaritan Information Institute” at http://www.israelite-samaritans.com/religion. 6. For additional illustrated descriptions of the liturgical year, see Reinhard Pummer, The Samaritans (Iconography of Religions, 23.5; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1987); and Pummer, “Samaritan Rituals.” 7. The main work on the Samaritan calendar is Sylvia Powels, Der Kalender der Samaritaner anhand des Kitāb ḥisāb as-sinīn und anderer Handschriften (Studia Samaritana, 3; Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1977). See also her English account, “The Samaritan Calendar and the Roots of Samaritan Chronology,” in The Samaritans, ed. Alan D. Crown (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 691-742; and her article “Calendar of the Samaritans,” in A Companion to Samaritan Studies, ed. Alan D. Crown, Reinhard Pummer, and Abraham Tal (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1993), pp. 46-49. 8. See Benyamim Tsedaka, “Calculation of the Israelite Samaritan Calendar,” A.B.–The Samaritan News 1125 (14.10.2012): 94-95. 9. For the Gregorian dates of the Samaritan Passover from 1988 to 2125, see Pummer, “Samaritan Rituals,” p. 682. 10. For a detailed discussion, see Pummer, “Samaritan Rituals.” For illustrations, with explanations, see Pummer, The Samaritans. 11. John Mills, Three Months’ Residence at Nablus and an Account of the Modern Samaritans (London: John Murray, 1864), pp. 266-67. 12. Cf. Richard J. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews: The Origins of Samaritanism Reconsidered (Growing Points in Theology; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1975), pp. 137-38. 13. For observations and reflections on today’s Passover celebration by a social anthropologist, see Fanny Urien-Lefranc, “Construction d’un discours prophétique pendant la Pâque samaritaine: Annonce d’une paix future entre Israéliens et Palestiniens sur le mont Garizim,” in Penser la fin du monde, ed. Emma Aubin-Boltanski and Claudine Gauthier (Paris: CNRS Éditions, 2014), pp. 363-90. 14. See Reinhard Pummer, “The Mosaic Tabernacle as the Only Legitimate Sanctuary: The Biblical Tabernacle in Samaritanism,” in The Temple of Jerusalem: From Moses to the Messiah: Studies in Honor of Professor Louis H. Feldman, ed. Steven Fine (Brill Reference Library of Judaism, 29; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2011), p. 130, n. 35. 15. See below. 16. As mentioned, this practice was not always observed; see József Zsengellér, “The Day of Atonement of the Samaritans,” in The Day of Atonement: Its Interpretation in Early Jewish and Christian Traditions (Themes in Biblical Narrative: Jewish and Christian Traditions, 15; ed. Thomas Nieke and

Tobias Nicklas; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2012), p. 150. 17. Reconfirmed by Benyamim Tsedaka in a private note of June 16, 2013. 18. Translation from Benyamim Tsedaka, ed. and trans., The Israelite Samaritan Version of the Torah: First English Translation Compared with the Masoretic Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013). 19. See A.B.–The Samaritan News 395-396 (1.11.1985): 62-63; and Pummer, “Samaritan Rituals,” pp. 687-88. 20. See Jeffrey M. Cohen, A Samaritan Chronicle. A Source-Critical Analysis of the Life and Times of the Great Samaritan Reformer, Baba Rabbah (Studia Post-Biblica, 30; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981), p. 23. The translation quoted in Hagith Sivan, Palestine in Late Antiquity (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), p. 111, is, as she herself notes, a composite from John Bowman, Samaritan Documents Relating to Their History, Religion and Life (Pittsburgh Original Texts & Translations Series, 2; Pittsburgh, PA: Pickwick, 1977), pp. 154-55, Abu l-Fatḥ, Kitāb, p. 199, and Cohen, A Samaritan Chronicle, p. 206. The latter two chronicles have the children gathering wood from the beginning of the seventh month and, on the last day of Sukkot, setting fire to the booths. 21. For these sites, see also the earlier chapter “Archaeological Excavations.” 22. See below, Section 15, “Prayer.” 23. Translation from Tsedaka, The Israelite Samaritan Version of the Torah, p. 36. 24. For the eighth day see also Lev. 12:3. 25. See the discussion in Pummer, “Samaritan Rituals,” pp. 655-59. 26. For the account of the event see Paul Stenhouse, The Kitāb al-Tarīkh of Abū ʾl-Fatḥ: Translated into English with Notes (Studies in Judaica, 1; Sydney: Mandelbaum Trust, University of Sydney, 1985), pp. 209-11. 27. See Mills, Three Months’ Residence, pp. 191-92. 28. That female children were not always included is shown by reminiscences of older Samaritans (see Stefan Schorch, “Das Lernen der Tora bei den Samaritanern heute und drei samaritanische Erzählungen über das Lernen,” Wort und Dienst 26 [2001]: 107-26). 29. See Reinhard Pummer, Samaritan Marriage Contracts and Deeds of Divorce (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1993), vol. 1, p. 26. 30. The texts, photographs and discussion of almost 120 Samaritan marriage contracts are published in Pummer, Samaritan Marriage Contracts and Deeds of Divorce. 31. For a discussion of present issues around the bride price see Monika Schreiber, The Comfort of Kin: Samaritan Community, Kinship, and Marriage (Brill’s Series in Jewish Studies, 51; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2014), pp. 111-114. 32. The contract in Fig. 36 is written on paper, 68.0 x 49.0 cm. The groom was Abraham b. Shelaḥ b. Ab Sakwa of the Danfi family; the bride was Sheluḥa ( ) b. Abrahm b. Marḥib of the Marḥib family. The scribe was the High Priest Salama b. Ṭabia (see the earlier chapters “The Samaritans in History” and “Samaritan Literature”). Seven persons signed as witnesses. For a description and transcription of the contract see Pummer, Samaritan Marriage Contracts and Deeds of Divorce, vol. 1, pp. 104-105 and 200-01. For a translation of the introductory poem and corrections of the transcription see Pummer, Samaritan Marriage Contracts and Deeds of Divorce, vol. 2, pp. 236-237 and 355. 33. From Deut. 24:1, 3. 34. See the rules laid down in the Kitab al-Kafi as quoted in Pummer, “Samaritan Rituals,” p. 664. It included discarding of the veil in public, the wife’s raising her voice above that of her husband, certain kinds of permanent illness, gossiping, and others. 35. Benyamim Tsedaka in Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed., vol. 17, p. 732. Schreiber, The Comfort of Kin, describes several cases of divorce. 36. See Schreiber, The Comfort of Kin, p. 61. 37. For a nineteenth-century text on burial, see the Hillūkh (for text and English translation see below in this section) and Alan David Crown, “A Critical Edition and Translation of the Samaritan Burial Services and a Comparative Study of the Related Jewish Liturgies” (M. A. thesis, University of Leeds, 1958). 38. See Yitzhak Magen, “Samaritan Burial,” in The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan (Judea and Samaria Publications, 7; Jerusalem: Staff Officer of Archaeology — Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria; Israel Antiquities Authority, 2008), p. 197. 39. For a thorough account of these finds see the recently published book by Oren Tal and Itamar Taxel, Samaritan Cemeteries and Tombs in the Central Coastal Plain: The Archaeology and History of the Samaritan Settlement Outside Samaria (ca. 300-700 CE) (Ägypten und Altes Testament 82; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2015). 40. Concerning the Samaritan character of the cemeteries and burial caves in the Southern Sharon, see Tal and Taxel, Samaritan Cemeteries and Tombs, p. 193: “certain artifactual and architectural remains, combined with historical and geographical considerations, seem to indicate with a high degree of certainty that the population that used the cemeteries at Tel Barukh, Khirbet al-Ḥadra and Tell Qasile was indeed Samaritan.” In the remainder of the book, the authors present a detailed rationale for their judgment. 41. Magen gives a thorough and illustrated analysis in “Samaritan Burial,” pp. 209-16. 42. Between 1951 and 1966, all the deceased were buried in the Kiryat Shaul cemetery north of Tel Aviv. Since June of 1967, all Samaritan burials take place in the cemetery of Kiryat Luza on Mt. Gerizim. 43. This rule was established by the High Priest Jacob b. Aaron (1840-1916) to avoid the necessity of having Muslims carry the casket. I want to thank Benyamim Tsedaka for providing me with up-to-date information on the customs around death and burial among the Samaritans. 44. Unless the person died on a Sabbath, in which case he/she will be buried on Saturday night. If the deceased was a very important person who died on Friday, the community reads the Torah seven times, and the burial takes place on Sunday. 45. See the earlier chapter “Archaeological Excavations.” 46. See below, the chapter “The Samaritans Today.” 47. Similarly, in Karaite synagogues the seating facilities are mats and carpets. 48. See the discussion in Pummer, The Samaritans, pp. 15-16. 49. See Lee I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2000), pp. 314-15. See also S. D. Goitein, A Mediterranean Society: The Jewish Communities of the Arab World as Portrayed in the Documents of the Cairo Geniza (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press, 1967-93), vol. 2, p. 149. Speaking of the “Synagogue of the Palestinians” in Fustat (Old Cairo), founded in 882 C.E., Goitein points out that “According to the seating habits of that period, pews or chairs were not used for the purpose. Instead, the

synagogue was covered with mats and carpets, while the individual members would bring in cushions to sit and to recline on.” 50. For a collection see Arthur F. Cowley, The Samaritan Liturgy (Oxford: Clarendon, 1909). 51. The term is derived from , “to pluck, to pick,” i.e., to choose, to select. 52. The Septuagint and the Syriac version also read the “sixth day.” 53. L. C. Green, “A Critical Edition and Translation of the Samaritan Feast of Hag Ha-Succoth with Special Reference to the Historical Development Involved” (Ph.D. diss., University of Leeds, 1958), pp. 157-58. 54. For the further development see the earlier chapter “Samaritan Literature.” 55. See below the section on music. 56. As do the Karaites. 57. See Tsedaka, The Israelite Samaritan Version of the Torah, p. 422, with the marginal commentary. 58. Joachim Braun thought archaeological objects, such as coins, oil lamps, and synagogue mosaics excavated in Samaria show that once the Samaritans must have used musical instruments (see Joachim Braun, Music in Ancient Israel/Palestine: Archaeological, Written, and Comparative Sources, trans. Douglas W. Stott [Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2002], pp. 274-87). However, in a critique of the original German edition of the book, Hans Seidel has shown that Braun’s theses are not tenable (“Kritische Anmerkungen zur sogenannten Instrumentalmusik der Samaritaner,” leqach 1 [2001]: 15158). A recent study of Samaritan music is Ulrike-Rebekka Nieten, “Die Kantillation bei den Samaritanern,” in “Und das Leben ist siegreich!”: Mandäische und samaritanische Literatur. Im Gedenken an Rudolf Macuch (1919-1993) = “And Life Is Victorious”: Mandaean and Samaritan Literatures. In Memory of Rudolf Macuch (1919-1993), ed. Rainer Voigt (Mandäische Forschungen, 1; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2008), pp. 227-36; and a short description, in English, is Schlomo Hofman, “Samaritans. Musical Tradition,” Encyclopaedia Judaica 17: 738-39. 59. On Samaritan music see also http://www.israelite-samaritans.com/music-dvd/, abridged from Benyamim Tsedaka’s notes accompanying the DVD, “The Sounds of Samaritan Music and the Samaritan Choir.” Earlier, beginning in the 1950s and continuing her interest in and recording of Samaritan music, the ethnomusicologist Johanna Spector (1915-2008) published several articles on it, and in 1971 she produced a film-documentary on the Samaritans, including their chants, entitled The Samaritans: The People of the Sacred Mountain. 60. So Menashe Ravina, Organum and the Samaritans, trans. from Hebrew by Alan Marbé (Tel Aviv: Israel Music Institute, 1963), pp. 8-9; and Nieten, “Die Kantillation bei den Samaritanern,” pp. 227 and 235. 61. Ruth Katz, “The Reliability of Oral Transmission: The Case of Samaritan Music,” Yuval 3 (1974): 109-35, 134; and Ruth Katz, “Samaritan Music,” in The Samaritans, ed. Alan D. Crown (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 743-70. 62. Ravina, Organum, pp. 10-11. 63. For the following see Nieten, “Die Kantillation bei den Samaritanern,” p. 228. See also the description of the reading of the respective Torah portion in the synagogue after the Sabbath noon prayer in Tsedaka, The Israelite Samaritan Version of the Torah: First English Translation, p. xxxv. 64. Katz, Ravina, and Nieten present detailed analyses of this music. 65. Already in 1940, Samaritan music was recorded. The Palestine Post of May 10, 1940, reports on p. 8 that thirteen records were made in Tel Aviv of “Samaritan festive and funeral music, prayers and songs … by a group of Samaritan musicians, among whom were the Assistant High Priest, two other priests and a small boy.” Moses Gaster recorded liturgical texts on cylinder records which, however, do not seem to have survived (Maria Haralambakis, “A Survey of the Gaster Collection at the John Rylands Library, Manchester,” BJRL 89 [2012/2013]: 112). 66. The only exception are the two winged creatures (cherubs) depicted in the Holy of Holies on the Tabernacle drawings discussed below. 67. See Fig. 74 to Fig. 76 on p. 161 of Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan. 68. See Fig. 13. 69. See Fig. 18 and the illustrations, many in color, in Magen, “Samaritan Synagogues” (2008); the cultic symbols are discussed on pp. 136-37. 70. See the illustrated articles in Varda Sussman, “Samaritan Oil-Lamps” [in Hebrew], in The Samaritans, ed. Ephraim Stern and Hanan Eshel (Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi, Israel Antiquities Authority, Staff Officer for Archaeology — Civil Administration for Judea and Samaria, 2002), pp. 330-71; and Varda Sussman, “Samaritan Oil-Lamps,” in Samaritan Researches, vol. V, ed. Vittorio Morabito, Alan D. Crown, and Lucy Davey (Mandelbaum Studies in Judaica, 10; Sydney: Mandelbaum Publishing, 2000), pp. 4.14-26. According to Sussman, on one lamp the binding of Isaac is represented (Varda Sussman, “The Binding of Isaac as Depicted on a Samaritan Lamp,” IEJ 48 [1998]: 183-89). Concerning the category “Samaritan lamps,” Magen pointed out that the distribution of these lamps shows that they were not used by the Samaritans only, but also by Jews and pagans (Yitzhak Magen, “‘Samaritan’ Oil Lamps,” in The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan [Judea and Samaria Publications; Jerusalem: Staff Officer of Archaeology — Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria; Israel Antiquities Authority, 2008], pp. 243-48). 71. In Fig. 41, notice the designs on the scroll case, especially on the center panel, in the style of the sixteenth-century case discussed below. 72. For a reconstruction of the development of the Samaritan Torah scroll case see Bracha Yaniv, “The Samaritan Torah Case,” in Samaritan Researches, vol. V, ed. Vittorio Morabito, Alan D. Crown, and Lucy Davey (Mandelbaum Studies in Judaica, 10; Sydney: Mandelbaum Publishing, 2000), pp. 4.3-13; see also her detailed study The Torah Case: Its History and Design [in Hebrew] (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press; Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute, 1997), especially pp. 208-13. 73. The case is called by the Samaritans “the scroll case of images.” 74. Leo Ary Mayer, “A Sixteenth Century Samaritan Hanging,” BJPES 13 (1946-47): 169-70. See also A.B.–The Samaritan News 405 (16.3.1986): 6-8; and, for the recent fate of this hanging, see Osher Sassoni, “A Samaritan 16th Century Curtain,” in The Samaritan Update 5, 1 at http://www.thesamaritanupdate.com (August 2005). 75. For a detailed discussion see Reinhard Pummer, “Samaritan Tabernacle Drawings,” Numen 45 (1998): 30-68. 76. See James D. Purvis, “The Sanctuary and Holy Vessels in Samaritan Art,” in Samaritan Researches, vol. V, ed. Vittorio Morabito, Alan D. Crown, and Lucy Davey (Mandelbaum Studies in Judaica, 10; Sydney: Mandelbaum Publishing, 2000), pp. 4.27-38. 77. A drawing in the Russian State Library was dated to the seventh century; however, this seems to be a reading error (see Haroutun Sizefrovich Jamgotchian [Арутюн Сизефрович Жамкочян], “Самаритянский рисунок РГБ: Ошибка в датировке на тысячу лет? [The Samaritan Drawing from the Russian State Library: A Thousand-Year Error in Dating?],” Вестник еврейского университета [Jewish University Papers] 6, no. [24] [2001]: 367-70). 78. Pummer, “Samaritan Tabernacle Drawings,” pp. 37-38. 79. On the function of Samaritan manuscript decoration see Robert T. Anderson, “Craft and Function in Samaritan Hebrew Manuscript Decoration,”

Hebrew Studies 33 (1992): 37-49. 80. For illustrations see Jean-Pierre Rothschild, Catalogue des manuscrits samaritains (Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, 1985), p. 186; and Alan D. Crown, A Catalogue of the Samaritan Manuscripts in the British Library (London: British Library, 1998), Plates. 81. See, e.g., MS Add. 19790 in the British Library (Crown, A Catalogue, pp. 106-07; Brad Sabin Hill, Carta Azzurra: Hebrew Printing on Blue Paper [London: The British Library, 1995]). The paper for various parts was dyed saffron, coffee, orange, and pink. 82. Anderson, “Craft and Function,” p. 37. 83. For samples of decorated marriage contracts see the plates in Pummer, Samaritan Marriage Contracts and Deeds of Divorce (1993 and 1997); an especially artistic contract is shown on Pl. XXX in vol. 1. 84. See the online article on her, with illustrations of her art works, http://www.israelite-samaritans.com/samaritan-art/.

XII. The Samaritans Today For over two millennia the Samaritans have succeeded in maintaining their identity, more often than not in the face of seemingly overpowering odds. They have survived persecutions, religious and economic discrimination, natural disasters, forced conversions and apostasies from their ranks, economic deprivations, and the lure of an easier life by forsaking their distinctive traditions and integrating in other societies. Their tenacious holding fast to their sacred Scripture, the Torah; their sacred center, Mt. Gerizim; and their unshakable faith in their origin as the true Israelites — these have enabled them to overcome all adversity and to preserve a nucleus of their community into the twenty-first century. Clearly, their identity derives from their religion. He or she who rejects the religious tradition of the community ceases to be a Samaritan. Participation in religious observances is therefore a crucial marker of belonging. The other criterion of belonging is descent from a Samaritan father, the patrilineal principle, as discussed previously. In various publications and on websites, the Samaritans enumerate the four principles which identify someone as a member of their community: 1

2

1. To live forever in the Holy Land; 2. Compulsory participation in the Sacrifice on Mount Gerizim at Pesaḥ (Passover); 3. Celebration of the Sabbath, as written in the Torah; and 4. Adherence to the laws of purity and impurity as prescribed in the Torah. Principle 1 has been discussed in the section on the Samaritan diaspora in the chapter on “Geographical Distribution and Demography.” Not always did all Samaritans live in the Holy Land in the past, and the formulation of this principle expresses either the ideal or the situation as it has existed for a long time. In this context, it bears repeating that in medieval Samaritan halakhah it was forbidden for Samaritans even to travel except in the company of fellow-Israelites, especially if the journey is to a place that is more than three days away. Principles 2 and 3 highlight the obligation to participate in the community’s religious devotions; but beyond that they mean that someone who does not observe Passover and the Sabbath regularly without a valid reason will be ostracized and excluded from the community. The Sabbath commandment is more strictly observed by the Samaritans than by the Jews. As with the Jews, the Sabbath lasts from sunset on Friday to sunset on Saturday. Prayers are said in the synagogue on Sabbath eve, Sabbath morning (between 3:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.), noon and evening. The Sabbath morning service is followed by the reading of the weekly portion of the Torah in the homes. Unlike the Jews, the Samaritans do not circumvent the biblical prohibitions of making fire (Exod. 35:3), understood to include the use of electricity and the starting of a car, and carrying out any kind of work (Exod. 20:8-11; 31:1217; and Deut. 5:12-15). Food is eaten cold and driving is forbidden. However, it does occasionally happen that non-Samaritans are asked to drive Samaritans on a Sabbath or perform other tasks forbidden to Samaritans. Unlike Jews, Samaritans are not to have sex on Sabbath, as this falls under the category of “work.” 3

The laws of purity and impurity (Principle 4) are another area in which the Samaritans are very strict; their conscientious observance functions as a tangible touchstone of one’s identity as a Samaritan. As I explained in connection with the institution of the ritual bath, menstruation, child birth, sexual intercourse, and nocturnal emissions cause ritual impurity that must be cleansed by bathing. A particularly characteristic custom is the strict regulations for menstruants. Observing the law of Leviticus 15:19-24 to the letter, whatever and whomever they touch becomes ritually impure: 4

5

19When a woman has a discharge of blood that is her regular discharge from her body, she shall be in her impurity for

seven days, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening. 20Everything upon which she lies during her impurity shall be unclean; everything also upon which she sits shall be unclean. 21Whoever touches her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe in water, and be unclean until the evening. 22Whoever touches anything upon which she sits shall wash his clothes, and bathe in water, and be unclean until the evening; 23whether it is the bed or anything upon which she sits, when he touches it he shall be unclean until the evening. 24If any man [her husband, SP] lies with her, and her impurity falls on him, he shall be unclean seven days; and every bed on which he lies shall be unclean.

The observance of these precepts is much stricter among the Samaritans than among contemporary Jews. During their period (called niddah in Samaritan halakhic literature, as in Judaism), Samaritan women usually have their own rooms for seven days, with their own bed and dishes which must be purified at the end of the menstruation — the dishes through immersion in a sink or the bath tub, the bed-frame by symbolically passing burning paper over it, and the woman herself through immersion in the bath tub. While many young women are proud of this practice because it identifies them as Samaritans, others find it hard and rebel against it. Due to the implications of the purity regulations for the whole family and beyond, their impact on the life of the community is profound. Particular problems arise with regard to children and their mothers. As already indicated, a woman is ritually impure for forty days following the birth of a boy, and eighty days following the birth of a girl. During this time, only other women can help her with the care of the baby. Since everything and everybody a menstruant touches becomes impure, a baby that is cared for by his or her mother also renders impure any persons or items which he or she touches. The ensuing upset to the life of a family has manifold and difficult consequences. In contrast, men’s ritual impurity has virtually no impact on the life of the family. As explained in the chapter on Samaritan Rituals and Customs, men incur ritual impurity when they have a discharge from their body (Lev. 15:1-18; Deut. 23:10-11). In practice, this applies today to sexual intercourse and nocturnal emission. According to Leviticus 15:16-17, “if a man has an emission of semen, he shall bathe his whole body in water, and be unclean until the evening. Everything made of cloth or of skin on which the semen falls shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the evening.” If a man had an emission of semen the night before he attends synagogue prayers, he must wash in the morning and remain in the back of the synagogue without joining aloud in the prayers or touching holy books. In addition to the four principles identifying someone as Samaritan, certain fundamentals 6

7

8

of faith are emphasized in many of the ancient and modern Samaritan texts, although they do not represent a formal and fixed creed as it exists in Christianity. It is possible, in fact, that in antiquity Samaritans subscribed to a two-tenet formula — belief in God and in Moses, which by the fourteenth century was expanded to a five-tenet formula: belief in God, Moses, the Law, Mt. Gerizim, and the Day of Recompense. The same elements are found in the seventeenth-century correspondence with European scholars. Modern formulations enumerate four principles, but add belief in the Taheb to the fourth principle, as the following statement in a recent article on the beliefs, practices, and community life of the Samaritans illustrates: 9

10

11

The Samaritans are guided by four principles of faith: 1. one God, who is the God of Israel; 2. one prophet, Moses son of Amram; 3. one holy book, the Pentateuch — the Torah handed down by Moses; 4. one holy place, Mount Gerizim. To these is added the belief in the Taheb son of Joseph, “a prophet like Moses,” who will appear on the Day of Vengeance and Recompense in the latter days.

The first principle is the belief in one God, Yhwh. Like the Jews, the Samaritans do not pronounce the name Yhwh, but say instead “the Name” (shema in Samaritan Hebrew) or “Elohim” (pronounced eluwam). The other principles of faith are clearly identity markers of the Samaritans. Moses is the only prophet and the Pentateuch is their only Scripture. The prophetic status of Moses is unique. The Samaritans do not acknowledge the prophets in the books of the Jewish Bible as prophets, and in their literature they extol Moses’ preeminent status through numerous honorific epithets, including “Son of the House” and “Lord of the World.” Nor do the Samaritans recognize the other books of the Jewish canon as sacred writings, as related above. For them, their version of the Pentateuch is the only holy book. The fourth principle, the holiness of Mt. Gerizim to the exclusion of other sacred places, above all Jerusalem, is what sets the Samaritans apart from the Jews ever since they rejected the Jerusalem temple as a legitimate Yhwh sanctuary. The added point, belief in the Taheb, plays hardly a role in the contemporary day-to-day religion. In their interactions with outsiders, the Samaritans refer to the Taheb sometimes as “Messiah,” and some scholars use this term when they write about the Taheb. To equate the concept of the Taheb with the Jewish or Christian ideas of the Messiah is, however, not accurate. For the Samaritans the Taheb is not a redeemer or liberator. The term “Taheb” is derived from the Aramaic root “to return” (twb); thus, the Taheb is the “returning one,” that is, the prophet like Moses promised in Deuteronomy 18:15 (“The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you shall heed such a prophet”), and 18:18 (“I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their own people; I will put my words in the mouth of the prophet, who shall speak to them everything that I command”). In the Samaritan Pentateuch, Deuteronomy 18:18 is inserted in the expansion after the Samaritan Tenth Commandment about Mt. Gerizim in Exodus 20, and thus links the Taheb with the mountain. Although the term “Taheb” is Aramaic, the concept is older than the Aramaic period, and, as the extant sources show, it has undergone a development during which authors of different 12

13

14

15

periods ascribe to the Taheb a variety of attributes. In the latest stages, the Taheb is connected with eschatological events. In the most recent Samaritan treatise on the Taheb available, written by the high priest Jacob b. Aaron (1841-1916) in answer to questions put to him by Christians, the Taheb is said to be a king in addition to being a prophet like Moses; but, so Jacob emphasizes, he certainly will not be a son of God. In 2004, the Samaritans issued a short popular introduction pamphlet from which I have previously quoted, The SamaritanIsraelites and Their Religion: Educational Guide, which contains a section entitled “The Added Belief in the Taheb,” described in the following terms: 16

17

18

there will come a restorer, a prophet like Moses according to Deuteronomy XVIII, 15 and 18. This restorer will carry the rod of Moses working signs in proof of his mission. He will not be a priest but a prophet. His name is not known but he may be of the tribe of Joseph, which is Ephraim. He will join Ephraim (Israel) and Juda to the initial place of worship on Mount Gerizim. He will restore all that was lost through the years from the Torah. He will discover and erect the Tabernacle with its vessels that were buried in a cave beneath the mount (buried 261 years after Moses’ death) along with the Omer of Mana.19 He will place the Ark of the Testimony in its proper place.

The very wording of some of these explanations indicates that in the practical religiosity of the community the Taheb does not occupy a prominent position. The Day of Vengeance and Recompense mentioned in the Four Principles guiding the Samaritans, refers to Deuteronomy 32:35 according to the text of the Samaritan Pentateuch (and the Septuagint). While the Masoretic text reads “vengeance is mine ( ), and recompense,” the Samaritan Pentateuch reads “to the day of vengeance ( ) and recompense.” The belief in this day is part of Samaritan eschatology. Other aspects are the belief in the return of the era of Divine Favor, the Raḥuta; the resurrection of the dead; the Second Kingdom; the life after death; the Garden of Eden; and the Fire. Similar to the eschatological beliefs of other religions, however, Samaritan eschatology evolved through several centuries and was systematized only at a late period, different elements being added and modified at different times. In Christian writings about the Samaritans, the figure of the Taheb looms particularly large due to the European Christian scholars’ interest in the Samaritans’ ideas about a Messiah, evident already in the correspondence between the community and the Europeans in the seventeenth century. By way of contrast, the same popular introduction to Samaritan religion from 2004, The Samaritan-Israelites and Their Religion: Educational Guide, passes the subject of eschatology over in silence. Mention of the Taheb does occur, though, in prayers recited by the worshipers. For instance, on Friday evening, at the Sabbath meal, the eldest reader of the Sabbath portion recites a prayer by the well known author Abraham ben Marḥiv Tsedaka Haṣṣafri, which contains the verse: “Sweeten our tongues and lighten our countenance, and make the days of good will and the coming of the Taheb closer, and quench our thirst.” However, beyond the mention of the term “Taheb” and the wish that he may come soon, no further statement about him is made in this hymn. Religiously, demographically, socially, and economically Samaritans are now better off than their forbears were for many centuries. They are free to follow their religious beliefs and practices without interference from other religious or political bodies. Neither Jewish nor 20

21

22

23

Muslim authorities impose any such restrictions on them as past regimes have done. While previously the access to Mt. Gerizim was difficult and, at times, impossible for Samaritan Ḥolon residents, especially between 1948 (the founding of the state of Israel) and 1967 (the Israeli conquest of the West Bank), today the two halves of the community can visit each other without problems. All members can partake as one body in the celebrations of the religious festivals on Mt. Gerizim. Marriages can now be concluded in the normal fashion and do not have to be arranged in the short time available during the celebrations of Passover, as was the case in the twenty years of separation. Since 1996, the Samaritans living in the West Bank can have double citizenship, Palestinian and Israeli, if they so choose. Nevertheless, from time to time the Samaritans face difficult situations because of their religion. Among them were clashes in the recent past with ultra-orthodox Jews and elements of the Palestinian population, as will be discussed below. Even more serious was the deprivation of the Right of Return originally granted to the Samaritans in 1949, when Yitzhak Ben-Zvi raised the question in the parliament whether Samaritans from Nablus are to be granted this right. He was assured that they qualified as Jews under the law, that is, they were equal to Jews immigrating from Arab countries. In 1970, the parliament amended the Law of Return to read: “For the purpose of this law, ‘a Jew’ means a person born to a Jewish mother or converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion.” In 1992, the Israeli government, influenced by the orthodox members of the parliament, declared that the Samaritans are not born of a Jewish mother and are members of a different religion and do therefore not qualify to receive immigrant visas as Jews. Already in 1985/86, two Samaritan women who had left their community and wanted to marry Jewish men were declared Gentiles by the Rabbinate and had to undergo conversion to Judaism. For the Samaritans, who see themselves as the true Israelites who had never left the land of their ancestors, this was of course a great insult and injustice. They petitioned the High Court of Justice to be recognized as falling under the definition of a Jew, “since they hold themselves to be the true keepers of the Law and the genuine representatives of the ancient people of Israel, affirming their kinship to the tribes of Israel.” In 1994, they succeeded in their request, although this decision changed nothing for the verdict of the Rabbinate. Demographically, the Samaritans have come back from the abyss, i.e., for a long time their numbers were so minute that many commentators predicted their imminent demise, as illustrated above. As recently as 1919, they numbered only 141 persons. At the present time they number approximately eight hundred individuals. Improvements in the political situation after World War I; marriages to Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and non-religious women; and genetic counseling — all have substantially contributed to this change in fortunes. Traditionally, the Samaritans favor marriages between first cousins. One consequence of this practice is, however, that children are born with various birth defects. Genetic counseling was supposed to remedy this problem, and to some extent it has done so. Clearly, the Samaritans appreciate “new blood,” and marriages with women from outside the community have increased steadily. Recently, Benyamim Tsedaka has tried to set the record straight on genetically deficient offspring by pointing out that the foremost researcher’s work 24

25

26

27

28

on genetics among the Samaritan population, Batsheva Bonné-Tamir, was carried out some time ago. Today, he maintains, the percentage of birth defects from close relative marriages is no larger than 2-3 percent, the same as in the Israeli and Palestinian societies. In her recent work on marriage among the Samaritans, Monika Schreiber is skeptical regarding any decrease of the preference for cousin marriages, noting that such a preference persists: “All in all, in spite of their rather advanced consciousness of the problems of inmarriage, the Samaritans today stick to consanguinity…. It would seem as if its social advantages still outweighed its individual disadvantages, especially given the ongoing development of medical interventions that diminish or eliminate the risk of genetically transmitted conditions.” On the whole, though, she points out that genetic variance was introduced with marriages to Jewish women. In addition, prenatal screening reduces the number of seriously disabled children. “As a result, some Samaritans take a more relaxed view of the risks of conception.” According to Samaritan beliefs, the members of the community are descended from the Israelite tribes of Levi and the two Joseph tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh. The Samaritans assign the existing family groups or “households” to these tribes. At the present time, they count four such households: Levi, the priestly household; Danfi (Dinfi) and Marḥib/Mufarrij from the tribe of Ephraim; and Ṣadaqa from the tribe of Manasseh. As mentioned, since 1624, the high priest is always a member of the tribe of Levi. In Samaritan counting, the present high priest, ʿAbdel b. Asher b. Maṣliaḥ, is the 133rd high priest since Aaron, Moses’ brother. Socially, the Samaritans are generally well integrated into the societies among which they live, although they jealously guard their separateness as a society grounded in their special religion. However, from time to time frictions do occur, as illustrated by controversies with secular Israeli youths in the Neot Yehudith neighborhood of Ḥolon, who, some years ago, not only complained about the traditional Samaritan Sabbath dress and ridiculed Samaritan Passover celebrations, but also felt that Samaritan Sabbath prayers disturbed their rest after their late night parties. Other incidents occurred in the same year on Mt. Gerizim, when a number of radical Jews from the settlement of Har Brakha beat Samaritan women with heavy clubs, threw stones at Samaritan cars, and shouted insults at the passengers. Since many orthodox Jews still subscribe to the story contained in 2 Kings 17, as interpreted by Flavius Josephus and later writings, they see the Samaritans as Gentiles with whom contact must be avoided. As a consequence, Samaritans prefer not to identify themselves as such, thereby avoiding unpleasant experiences. Arabs in Nablus have also mistreated Samaritans, calling them not-Jewish and even harassing them physically. In 1995, Arabs stole from the synagogue in Nablus two ancient Torah manuscripts, a fourteenth-century scroll and a fifteenth-century codex. The thieves demanded large sums of money for the return of the valuable manuscripts, which, so far, the community has not been able to retrieve. Already in the days of Moses Gaster, a silver Torah scroll case was stolen and a ransom was demanded. Another target is the tomb of Eleazar in ʿAwarta, which has been defaced several times in recent years. These conflicts are, however, exceptions to a generally peaceful coexistence between the various communities. 29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

There is, however, another aspect that must be taken into account for an understanding of the relationship between the members of the three religions in Nablus — Samaritans, Christians, and Muslims — and this is the political situation. As citizens of Palestine, the members of the three religions represented in the city and the district of Nablus live in the shadow of a common adversary, that is, the Jewish Israelis. While the numbers of the Christian community in the city are as minute as those of the Samaritans, each group consisting of less than one thousand individuals, the Muslims constitute the vast majority of the population, numbering around 134,000. This state of affairs is bound to lead, on the one hand, to the formation of many traits common to all three groups, particularly in such areas as marriage patterns, culinary and hospitality practices, and dress. On the other hand, aspects of these practical sides of life are used to mark out the boundaries of the different identities, especially among the religious minorities who want to emphasize how dissimilar they are from the others. Moreover, in the interest of survival in the face of an overpowering presence of the occupying forces, the necessity arises for both the dominant Muslims and the minority Christians and Samaritans to form a common front vis-à-vis these forces. This complex of questions has recently been analyzed by Julia Droeber of An-Najah University in Nablus in her book, The Dynamics of Coexistence in the Middle East: Negotiating Boundaries Between Christians, Muslims, Jews and Samaritans. Using James C. Scott’s concept of hidden and public transcripts, she explains how in Nablus the members of the three religions have come to be similar in many respects, showing a common resolve when it comes to confronting the outside powers and defending Palestinian peoplehood. “Public transcript” refers thereby to the direct communication between the dominated and the dominant, that is, in the case of Nablus, between the members of the two minority religions of the Samaritans and the Christians on the one hand, and the Muslim majority on the other. “Hidden transcript” means what is said about the respective other in situations where the latter is not present. Thus, in speeches at official events and religious holidays, the peaceful coexistence of the three religions is emphasized by all sides, the operative words being harmony, unity, and brotherhood. As Droeber notes, “For the ‘national project’ of Palestine … it is crucial that differences between communities are downplayed.” Were some members of the two minorities suspect of being unfaithful to this project, they would be subject to penalties. What is said about the other in private, is a different matter. The “hidden transcript” includes stereotyping and even “swearing, cursing, and ridiculing” of the other. Thus, members of minorities express hidden transcripts in their homes or at gatherings and events where only their own are present. But the hidden transcript includes also behaviors and practices that impact the relationships between the different groups. For instance, rarely do the members of the three religions intermarry. The non-Samaritan women married to Samaritan men are all from abroad. As Droeber notes, “the boundary between Samaritans and the local Christians and Muslims in terms of marriage relations remains absolute.” Hospitality practices, such as the sharing or non-sharing of food, are another aspect of the hidden transcript. Droeber emphasizes the ambiguous position in which the Samaritans in particular find themselves. Both Israelis and Palestinians view them at times with suspicion. Although the 39

40

41

42

43

Samaritans are protected by both the Israeli and the Palestinian governments, they sometimes fall between the cracks where they do not receive the promised protection and services from either side, or where some of them are actually attacked by members of both sides. Being considered Jewish by the Israeli government has its advantages and disadvantages. In order to avoid being painted with the same brush as the Jewish Israelis, they insist vis-à-vis their Muslim neighbors that they are not Jewish, but the oldest inhabitants of the Holy Land. They also try to inform their Muslim fellow citizens about their identity through lectures, exhibitions, and other educational activities. In 2009, they founded for this purpose the “Samaritan Legend Organization” with the goal of informing their Muslim compatriots who they are and what they stand for. If they are seen as Jews, the majority of the population would perceive them as occupiers and enemies. As the subtitle of Droeber’s book indicates, however, the boundaries between the three communities are not static but subject to ceaseless reshaping, manipulation, and negotiation. 44

Fig. 42. Amulet, modern, paper, original size 7 x 8.8 cm. (Reinhard Pummer)

Economically, the situation has also greatly improved in comparison with the past. In

general, the Samaritans of both communities are prospering and none have to suffer from a lack of life’s necessities. A great variety of occupations are represented among men and women of both halves of the community: teachers, bank employees, civil servants of the Palestinian and Israeli governments, life insurance brokers, high-tech workers, tradesmen, and others. A lucrative “trade” is the making and selling of amulets (Fig. 42) and the dispensing of advice for a fee by members of the Nablus community, as noted in the chapter on “The Samaritans in History.” However, not everyone in the wider Samaritan community is happy about this method of making money, seeing it as a case of fraudulently taking advantage of people in distress, especially since in the present economic situation such “dubious” means of enriching oneself are not needed. In sum, today the Samaritan community is thriving as it has not thrived since the time of its greatest strength in antiquity, when it was vastly larger than now. At the same time, it has to be on constant guard not to be overlooked by the powers that be because it is so small. It also has to ensure that its existence is secure in view of both demographics and faithfulness to its religious tradition by each new generation. 45

1. See the earlier chapter on “Geographical Distribution and Demography.” 2. The following formulation is found on the website http://www.israelite-samaritans.com/. 3. Sergio Noja, Il Kitāb al-Kāfī dei Samaritani (Pubblicazioni del Seminario di Semitistica, Ricerche, 7; Napoli: 1970), p. 92. The three days were deduced through analogy (qiyas) from Num. 10:33 (“the ark of the covenant of the Lord going before them three days”) and Exod. 3:18 (“let us now go a three days’ journey into the wilderness, so that we may sacrifice to the Lord our God”). 4. See the chapter “Archaeological Excavations.” 5. For a thorough treatment of Samaritan halakhah on sexual impurity as found in Samaritan Arabic works from the eleventh to the nineteenth century see Iain Ruairidh Mac Mhanainn Bóid, Principles of Samaritan Halachah (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity, 38; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1989). 6. In everyday life it is called imsammad, a word of uncertain derivation (see Monika Schreiber, The Comfort of Kin: Samaritan Community, Kinship, and Marriage [Brill’s Series in Jewish Studies, 51; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2014], p. 126). 7. See the photographs in Monika Humer, “Symbole samaritanischer Ethnizität: Ethnographische Fallstudie an einer levantinischen Minderheit” (Magisterarbeit, Universität Wien, 1993), pp. 17-21; and Schreiber, The Comfort of Kin, Fig. 17 and Fig. 18. 8. For a description see Dan Ross, Acts of Faith: A Journey to the Fringes of Jewish Identity (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1982), p. 114. For more details see Schreiber, The Comfort of Kin, pp. 125-33. 9. See the discussion in John Macdonald, The Theology of the Samaritans (New Testament Library; London: SCM Press, 1964), pp. 49-55. 10. See the references in James Alan Montgomery, The Samaritans, The Earliest Jewish Sect: Their History, Theology and Literature (Philadelphia: The J. C. Winston Co., 1907), p. 207. 11. See A.B. Services [Benyamim Tsedaka], “The Israelite Samaritans,” A.B.–The Samaritan News 820-821 (15.7.2002): 103. 12. For a concise summary see Ferdinand Dexinger, “Moses,” in A Companion to Samaritan Studies, ed. Alan D. Crown, Reinhard Pummer, and Abraham Tal (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1993), pp. 160-62; also Ferdinand Dexinger, “Die Moses-Terminologie in Tibåt Mårqe: Einige Beobachtungen,” in Frankfurter judaistische Beiträge 25 (1998): 51-62. Macdonald devotes part 2 of his book on the Samaritan Theology to Moses (The Theology, pp. 147-222). 13. It is not mentioned in older popular pamphlets produced by the Samaritans for visitors, but instead, point 5 is only “The day of Judgment of the Lord.” See, for instance, Jacob ben Uzzi (Jacob Ben-Ezzi Cohen) [Shafik], Who Are the Samaritans? [Nablus], 1968. 14. This is confirmed for the present by Ireton’s experience when he notes: “Not one of the Samaritans that I spoke to in the two weeks I spent in Israel and Palestine volunteered any information about the Taheb” (Sean Ireton, “The Samaritans: Strategies for Survival of an Ethnoreligious Minority in the Twenty-First Century” [Master’s thesis, Canterbury: University of Kent at Canterbury, Department of Anthropology, 2003], p. 15). 15. See also the chapters “Samaritans and the New Testament,” “Samaritans in Jewish Writings in Antiquity,” and “Samaritan Literature.” 16. For a thorough treatment of the beliefs about the Taheb as they developed between the fourth and the eighteenth centuries see Ferdinand Dexinger, Der Taheb: Ein “messianischer” Heilsbringer der Samaritaner (Kairos. Religionswissenschaftliche Studien, 3; Salzburg: Otto Müller, 1986). Pages 27-29 contain a table of the development of the various elements of the Taheb expectations. For a concise description see Ferdinand Dexinger, “Taheb,” in A Companion to Samaritan Studies, ed. Alan D. Crown, Reinhard Pummer, and Abraham Tal (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1993), pp. 224-26. In “Samaritan Eschatology” (in The Samaritans, ed. Alan D. Crown [Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1989], p. 272), Dexinger emphasizes that “No single Samaritan text contains all the elements of the fully developed picture of the Taheb.” 17. See William E. Barton, “The Samaritan Messiah. Further Comments of the Samaritan High Priest,” Open Court 21 (1908): 530 and 531. 18. Anonymous, “The Samaritan-Israelites and Their Religion: Educational Guide” (Ḥolon, 2004). 19. See Exod. 16:33. 20. For a detailed discussion of the beliefs concerning this day see Macdonald, The Theology, pp. 380-90. The Septuagint reads: ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐκδικήσεως ἀνταποδώσω, “In a day of vengeance, I will repay.”

21. See Ferdinand Dexinger, “Samaritan Eschatology,” p. 287. 22. See the earlier chapter on “The Samaritans in History.” 23. As quoted by Benyamim Tsedaka on the website http://www.israelite-samaritans.com/selection-of-prayers-and-poems/. 24. For the question and answer see Itzhak Ben-Zvi, The Book of the Samaritans [in Hebrew], rev. Shemaryahu Talmon (Jerusalem: Yad Itzhak Ben-Zvi, 1970), p. 365. 25. Quoted in Michael Corinaldi, “The Personal Status of the Samaritans in Israel,” in Samaritan Researches, vol. V, ed. Vittorio Morabito, Alan D. Crown, and Lucy Davey (Mandelbaum Studies in Judaica, 10; Sydney: Mandelbaum Publishing, 2000), p. 2.90. 26. See Schreiber, The Comfort of Kin, pp. 58-59. 27. Corinaldi, “The Personal Status,” pp. 2.90-91. Corinaldi was the lawyer who represented the Samaritans in their petition to the High Court of Justice. 28. See the various studies by B. Bonné-Tamir, as, for instance, the article “Usher Syndrome in the Samaritans: Strengths and Limitations of Using Inbred Isolated Populations to Identify Genes Causing Recessive Disorders,” AJPA 104 (1997): 193-200. 29. See Benyamim Tsedaka, “The Current Genetic Situation,” A.B.–The Samaritan News 1128-1129 (1.2.2013): 63. 30. Schreiber, The Comfort of Kin, p. 282. 31. Schreiber, The Comfort of Kin, p. 281. 32. On the history of these “households” see Benyamim Tsedaka, “The Samaritan Households,”A.B.–The Samaritan News 1111-1112 (1.6.2012): 88-92. On the Tsedaka household specifically, see Nathan Schur, “The Tsedaka Family: Its History and Importance in Recent Samaritan Annals,” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of the Société d’Études Samaritaines, ed. Haseeb Shehadeh, Habib Tawa, and Reinhard Pummer (Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 2005), pp. 83-86. If one takes into account de facto divisions, one arrives at five or six households. See Schreiber, The Comfort of Kin, p. 164. See also her discussion in Chapter 5 entitled “It’s All in the Family: From Ethnic Identity to Practical Kinship” (pp. 159-179). 33. See the list of high priests, compiled at Moses Gaster’s request by Jacob b. Aaron b. Shalmah in 1907, in “The Chain of Samaritan High Priests: A Synchronistic Synopsis,” in Moses Gaster, Studies and Texts in Folklore, Magic, Medieval Romance, Hebrew Apocrypha and Samaritan Archaeology (London: Maggs Bros., 1925-1928), vol. I, pp. 483-502 (English) and vol. III, pp. 131-138. It begins with Adam; Aaron, the first high priest, is number 26. 34. See A.B. Services [Benyamim Tsedaka], “Radicals and Eccentric Hassids Are Waylaying Samaritans on the Road to Mt. Gerizim,” A.B.–The Samaritan News 820-821 (15.7.2002): 100-101; and www.thesamaritanupdate.com for April 25, 2002, and October 24, 2002. 35. Some of them are described by Schreiber in The Comfort of Kin, p. 63: eviction from a taxi driven by a religious Jew; losing Jews as customers; children being called “dove-worshipers.” 36. See A.B. Services [Benyamim Tsedaka], “Appeal for Israeli-Palestinian Cooperation to Secure the Roads to Mount Gerizim,” A.B.–The Samaritan News 785-788 (6.4.2001): 187-88. 37. Private communication from Benyamim Tsedaka (June 18, 2013). 38. For the latest incident of this kind see http://www.israelite-samaritans.com/tomb-elazar/. 39. James C. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1990). 40. For the Samaritan side see Julia Droeber, The Dynamics of Coexistence in the Middle East: Negotiating Boundaries Between Christians, Muslims, Jews and Samaritans (Library of Modern Middle East Studies, 135; London; New York: I. B. Tauris, 2014), pp. 92-94. 41. Droeber, The Dynamics of Coexistence in the Middle East, p. 94. 42. Droeber, The Dynamics of Coexistence in the Middle East, p. 128. 43. Droeber, The Dynamics of Coexistence in the Middle East, p. 141. 44. Droeber, The Dynamics of Coexistence in the Middle East, p. 80. 45. To my knowledge, no statistics of occupations among the Samaritans has been published since the census of 1931. See Itzhak Ben-Zvi, “The Origin of the Samaritans and Their Tribal Division,” in Eric Mills, Census of Palestine 1931 (Alexandria: Printed for the Government of Palestine by Whitehead Morris, 1933), p. 90.

XIII. New Challenges Better acquaintance with the present state of Samaritan religious and cultural life through new research and publications has laid to rest a concept fashionable for a long time, viz. that Samaritanism represents Israelite religion as it existed around the turn of the eras. Many writers of the recent past have regarded Samaritanism as a fossil from an earlier age. But eighty years ago, Moses Gaster had already rejected such a notion in the face of the continuing developments of exegesis and halakah as documented in the Samaritan writings. Today, even a cursory look at the Samaritan community and its lively and diversified religious, social, and cultural life confirms that we do not have before us a fossilized group of people, but a vibrant community that is continuously adapting its traditions and way of life to the changes of our times, while at the same time striving to preserve the essence of its faith. Small as that community may be, there are many strands of opinion within it — primarily in Ḥolon — as to how their future should develop. Many young members want to blend in with Israeli society, though they also wish to conform (or are made to do so) to the traditional religious rules and to the decisions of their families. Others tend to emphasize strict conservatism in their attempts to uphold their heritage undiluted. A few try to promote what they see as progress within the framework of the community, while a sizable number of individuals leave the community altogether. Then there are those who do not want or are unable to identify with any of these attitudes and are leading lives as outsiders. Finally, many do not concern themselves at all with the problems arising from the community’s encounters with modernity. What remains true is that the Samaritans are a society that emphasizes the demands of tradition and family over the needs of the individual. But how this will play out within the context of modernity remains to be seen. In 2005, Gadi Tsedaka, a grandson of the Yefet Tsedaka, who early in the twentieth century left Nablus and established a new Samaritan settlement, made a documentary film entitled The Wandering Samaritan, which candidly but sensitively depicts these conflicts. He describes how already as an infant he did not want to go through the undressing (as a child) and dressing (as an adult) in front of the whole congregation at his ceremony of the Completion of the Torah, but how, despite the promise of privacy, he was unknowingly watched by the community. There are other memories from his youth that also make him want to fit better into the majority society. He recounts the negative experiences he had in his days as a schoolboy in Nablus, where the Arab students shouted at him and his friends that they were not Jews and threw stones at them, turning their walk to school into an ordeal. Later in life he decided to study theater, a field that his elders considered dangerous for his religious life. He insisted and was able not only to perform on stage, but also to found a company that performs plays. In all of this, he realized that he did not want simply to repeat the life his parents, grandparents, great grandparents, and earlier ancestors had lived. Moreover, he desired privacy rather than the constant control by his relatives and neighbors. In his preparations for one play, he met a Jewish girl whom he married and with whom he has three children. To find privacy, he moved away from Ḥolon to Binyamina (south of Haifa) where he built for himself and his family a house with a studio. He does attend the Passover 1

2

sacrifice on Mt. Gerizim, but other Samaritans tell him that this is not enough for him to count as a member of their community. Gadi emphasizes that he is not out to oppose his fellow Samaritans, but only to show them that there are new ways. Thus, he is determined not to force on his children the teaching of the Torah as it was forced upon him. Rather, he wants them to enjoy studying it when the time for such study comes. Gadi’s father, Hillel Tsedaka, is most unhappy with the ways of his son and does not even visit him in Binyamina. Conversely, while Gadi’s mother is also unhappy, she takes a more conciliatory attitude toward her son and his family. The important question is, of course, Will it be possible for future generations to go forward into the modern society and, at the same time preserve their tradition and their identity as Samaritans? Gadi Tsedaka thinks this is possible, but other Samaritans decidedly disagree with him. They too want to go forward, but they also want to stay within the tradition in a much more circumscribed way than the one Gadi has pursued. What they are really looking for, at least from today’s vantage point, is almost a coincidentia oppositorum. Only the future will tell which direction the Samaritans will choose. But judging by the survival skills which have enabled them to carry forward their traditions over many centuries full of challenges — from the hostile attitude first of John Hyrcanus, to the Byzantines and the hardships under Muslim rule, to the times when they had shrunk to a minority far fewer in number than their present population — and by their ability to adapt to the changing circumstances as much as their faith permitted, it is safe to assume that the Samaritans will find a modus vivendi and survive, in some shape and form, even in a world undergoing changes that seem more radical and threatening to ancient traditions than at any time before. They have reinvented themselves in the past and may well do so again in our time. 1. Moses Gaster, Samaritan Eschatology, The Samaritan Oral Law and Ancient Traditions, I (London: Search Publishing Company, 1932), p. 59. 2. Directed by Ohad Ofaz (Hebrew with English subtitles): http://www.snagfilms.com/films/title/the_wandering_samaritan. Gadi Tsedaka was also the main character in an earlier film entitled Our Hearts Are in Dancing, paralleling Sophocles’ play Antigone with the Samaritan Passover.

Bibliography 1. Bibliographies

Crown, Alan D., and Reinhard Pummer. A Bibliography of the Samaritans: Third Edition: Revised, Expanded, and Annotated. ATLA Bibliography, 51. Lanham, MD; Toronto; Oxford: Scarecrow, 2005. Pummer, Reinhard. “Samaria/Samaritans.” Oxford Bibliographies in “Biblical Studies.” New York: Oxford University Press, October 10, 2013. Ed. Christopher R. Matt. http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/. 2. Reference Works

Crown, Alan D., Reinhard Pummer, and Abraham Tal, eds. A Companion to Samaritan Studies. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1993. Tal, Abraham. A Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic. Handbuch der Orientalistik. Erste Abteilung: Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten, 50. 2 vols. Leiden, Boston, and Cologne: Brill, 2000. 3. Primary Sources

ʿAbd al-ʿAl, Dorreya Mohammed. “A Comparative Study of the Unedited Work of Abu ʿlḤasan al Ṣūrī and Yūsuf Ibn Salamah.” Ph.D. diss., Leeds: Leeds University, 1957. Adler, Elkan Nathan, ed. Jewish Travellers. London: G. Routledge, 1930. Adler, Elkan Nathan, and Max Séligsohn. “Une nouvelle chronique samaritaine.” REJ 44 (1902): 188-222. ———. “Une nouvelle chronique samaritaine.” REJ 45 (1902): 70-98, 223-54. ———. “Une nouvelle chronique samaritaine.” REJ 46 (1903): 123-46. ———, eds. and trans. Une nouvelle chronique samaritaine. Paris: Durlacher, 1903. Adler, Marcus Nathan. The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela. London: Henry Frowde, 1907. ʿAlī, Abdullah Yūsuf. The Holy Qurʾān: Text, Translation and Commentary. New Revised Edition. Brentwood, MD: Amana Corporation, 1989. Arnold, Werner. “Zwischen Nablus und Ḥolon. Aus dem Leben der Samaritanerin Batya Tsedaka. Ein Text im arabischen Dialekt der Samaritaner von Ḥolon (Israel).” In “Der Odem des Menschen ist eine Leuchte des Herrn.” Aharon Agus zum Gedenken, edited by Ronen Reichmann, pp. 181-95. Schriften der Hochschule für Jüdische Studien Heidelberg, 9. Heidelberg: Winter, 2006. Baguley, Edward C. “A Critical Edition, with Translation, of the Hebrew Text of the Malef; and a Comparison of Its Teachings with Those in the Samaritan Liturgy.” Ph.D. diss., University of Leeds, 1962. Begg, Christopher T. Judean Antiquities Books 5-7. Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, vol. 4. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

Begg, Christopher T., and Paul Spilsbury. Judean Antiquities Books 8-10. Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, vol. 5. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Ben-Ḥayyim, Zeʾev. “The Asaṭīr with Translation and Commentary.” [In Hebrew.] Tarbiz 14 (1943): 104-25, 174-90; 15 (1944): 44, 71-87, 128. ———. The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic Amongst the Samaritans. [In Hebrew.] 5 vols. Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1957-1977. ———. Tībåt Mårqe: A Collection of Samaritan Midrashim. Publications of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Section of Humanities. [In Hebrew.] Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1988. Bóid, Iain Ruairidh Mac Mhanainn. Principles of Samaritan Halachah. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity, 38. Leiden: Brill, 1989. Bonnard, Christophe. “Asfar Asâtîr, Critical Edition, Linguistic Commentary and Interpretation.” Ph.D. diss., University of Strasbourg, in preparation. Bowman, John. “The Malef.” AbrN 20 (1981-82): 1-19. ———. Samaritan Documents Relating to Their History, Religion and Life. Pittsburgh Original Texts & Translations Series, 2. Pittsburgh, PA: Pickwick, 1977. Chiesa, Bruno, and Wilfrid Lockwood. Yaʿqūb al-Qirqisānī on Jewish Sects and Christianity. A Translation of “Kitāb al-anwār,” Book I, With Two Introductory Essays. Judentum und Umwelt, 10. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1984. Cohen, Jeffrey M. A Samaritan Chronicle. A Source-Critical Analysis of the Life and Times of the Great Samaritan Reformer, Baba Rabbah. Studia Post-Biblica, 30. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Cohn, Naphtali. Die Zarâath-Gesetze der Bibel nach dem Kitâb al-Kâfi des Jûsuf ibn Salâmah. Ein Beitrag zur Pentateuchexegese und Dogmatik der Samaritaner. Frankfurt a.M.: J. Kauffmann, 1899. Coleman-Norton, P. R. Roman State and Christian Church: A Collection of Legal Documents to A.D. 535. 3 vols. London: S.P.C.K., 1966. Cowley, Arthur E. The Samaritan Liturgy. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1909. Crane, Oliver Turnbull, trans. The Samaritan Chronicle or the Book of Joshua, the Son of Nun. Translated from the Arabic with Notes. New York: John B. Alden, 1890. Crown, Alan David. “A Critical Edition and Translation of the Samaritan Burial Services and a Comparative Study of the Related Jewish Liturgies.” Master’s thesis. University of Leeds, 1958. ———. “A Critical Re-Evaluation of the Samaritan Sepher Yehoshua.” 3 vols. Ph.D. diss., University of Sydney, 1966. Drabkin, Abraham. “Fragmenta Commentarii ad Pentateuchum Samaritano-Arabici sex, nunc primum edita atque illustrata.” Ph.D. diss., Leipzig: University of Bratislava, 1875. Florentin, Moshe. The Tulida: A Samaritan Chronicle: Text, Translation, Commentary. [In Hebrew.] Jerusalem: Yad Yitzchak Ben Zvi; The Rabbi David Moshe and Amalia Rosen

Foundation, 1999. Freedman, Harry, trans. Sanhedrin, II. The Babylonian Talmud: Translated into English with Notes, Glossary and Indices, ed. I. Epstein. London: Soncino, 1935. Gall, August von. Der Hebräische Pentateuch der Samaritaner. Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1914-18. Gaster, Moses. 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. Oriental Translation Fund, N. S., 26. London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1927. ———. “Das Buch Josua in hebräisch-samaritanischer Rezension. Entdeckt und zum ersten Male herausgegeben.” ZDMG 62 (1908): 209-79, 494-549. ———. “The Chain of Samaritan High Priests: A Synchronistic Synopsis.” [In Hebrew.] In Moses Gaster, Studies and Texts in Folklore, Magic, Medieval Romance, Hebrew Apocrypha and Samaritan Archaeology, I, pp. 483-502 [In English] and III, pp. 131-38 [In Hebrew]. London: Maggs Bros., 1925-1928. ———. Samaritan Eschatology. The Samaritan Oral Law and Ancient Traditions, I. London: Search Publishing Company, 1932. ———. “The Story of the Daughter of Amram: The Samaritan Parallel to the Apocryphal Story of Susanna.” In Moses Gaster, Studies and Texts in Folklore, Magic, Medieval Romance, Hebrew Apocrypha and Samaritan Archaeology I, pp. 199-210. London: Maggs Bros., 1925. Gaster, Theodor Herzl. “Samaritan Proverbs.” In Studies and Essays in Honour of Abraham A. Neuman, edited by Meir Ben-Horin, Bernard D. Weinryb, and Solomon Zeitlin, pp. 228-42. Leiden: Brill, 1962. Goldstein, Yitzhak, and Tuvia Katzman, eds. Tractate Kutim of the Minor Tractates, with Variant Readings and Commentaries and the Article Kutim from the Talmudic Encyclopedia. [In Hebrew.] Jerusalem: Yad Harav Herzog — Rabbi Herzog World Academy, Institute for the Complete Israeli Talmud, in cooperation with the Talmudic Encyclopedia Institute, 2010. Green, Leslie C. “A Critical Edition and Translation of the Samaritan Feast of Hag HaSuccoth with Special Reference to the Historical Development Involved.” Ph.D. diss., University of Leeds, 1958. Gulkowitsch, Lazar. “Der kleine Talmudtraktat über die Samaritaner.” Ἄγγελος. Archiv für neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte und Kulturkunde 1 (1925): 48-56. Halkin, Abraham S. “From Samaritan Exegesis: The Commentary of Abu-l-Ḥasan of Tyre on Deuteronomy 32.” [In Hebrew.] Leshonenu 32 (1967-68): 208-46. ———. “The Scholia to Numbers and Deuteronomy in the Samaritan-Arabic Pentateuch.” JQR 34 (1943-44): 41-59. Hanover, Siegmund. Das Festgesetz der Samaritaner nach Ibrâhîm ibn Ja‘ḳûb. Edition und Uebersetzung seines Kommentars zu Lev. 23 nebst Einleitung und Anmerkungen. Berlin:

H. Itzkowski, 1904. Heyd, Uriel. Ottoman Documents on Palestine, 1552-1616. Oxford: Clarendon, 1960. Higger, Michael, ed. and trans. Seven Minor Treatises: Sefer Torah; Mezuzah; Tefillin; Ẓiẓit; ʿAbadim; Kutim; Gerim, and Treatise Soferim II. New York: Bloch, 1930. Hildesheimer, Ezriel, ed. Sefer Halakhot Gedolot: Ad fidem codicum edidit, prolegomenis et notis instruxit. Vol. 1. [In Hebrew.] Jerusalem: Mikize Nirdamim, 1971. Hitti, Philip Khûri, trans. The Origins of the Islamic State, Being a Translation from the Arabic, Accompanied with Annotations, Geographic and Historic Notes of the Kitâb Futûḥ al-Buldân of al-Imâm abul-l ʿAbbâs Aḥmad ibn-Jâbir al-Balâdhuri. Vol. 1. Columbia University Studies in the Social Sciences, 163. New York: AMS Press, 1968 (orig. 1916). Holladay, Carl R. Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Volume I: Historians. SBL: Texts and Translations, 20; Pseudepigrapha, 10. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983. ———. Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Volume II: Poets. SBL: Texts and Translations, 30, Pseudepigrapha, 12. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1989. Horn, Cornelia B., and Robert R. Phenix Jr., eds. and trans. John Rufus: The Lives of Peter the Iberian, Theodosius of Jerusalem, and the Monk Romanus. Writings from the GrecoRoman World, 24. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008. Inscriptiones Graecae, Editio Minor. Vol. II, Part 2. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1935. Inscriptiones Graecae, Editio Minor. Vols. II and III, Part 3. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1940. Jacob ben Aaron. “The Book of Enlightenment [I].” BSac 70 (1913): 313-46. ———. “The Book of Enlightenment [II].” BSac 70 (1913): 457-85. ———. “The Book of Enlightenment [III].” BSac 70 (1913): 562-86. ———. “Circumcision Among the Samaritans.” BSac 65 (1908): 694-710. ———. “The History and Religion of the Samaritans.” BSac 63 (1906): 385-426. ———. “Mount Gerizim the One True Sanctuary.” BSac 64 (1907): 489-518. ———. “The Samaritan Sabbath.” BSac 65 (1908): 430-44. Juynboll, Theodorus Guilielmus Johannes. Chronicon Samaritanum, Arabice conscriptum, cui titulus est Liber Josuae. Ex unico codice Scaligeri nunc primum edidit, Latine vertit, annotatione instruxit, et dissertationem de codice, de chronico, et de quaestionibus, quae hoc libro illustrantur, praemisit Th. Guil. Juynboll. Lugduni Batavorum: S. & J. Luchtmans, 1848. Kirchheim, Raphael. Karme Shomron: Introductio in librum Talmudicum “de Samaritanis,” quae illius haeresis historiam, theologiam, ritus et literarum monumenta tractat. Addita est epistola clarissimi doctissimique S. D. Luzzatto, Prof. Collegii Rabb. Patavini, de scriptura Samaritana. [In Hebrew.] Francofurti ad Moenum: Impensis J. Kaufmanii bibliopolae, 1851. Klumel, Meir. Mischpâtîm. Ein samaritanisch-arabischer Commentar zu Ex. 21 – 22, 15 von

Ibrâhîm Ibn-Jakûb. Berlin: H. Itzkowski, 1902. Kohn, Samuel. “De pentateucho samaritano ejusque cum versionibus antiquis nexu.” Ph.D. diss., Universitas Viadrina. Lipsiae: Typis G. Kreysing, 1865. ———. Zur Sprache, Literatur und Dogmatik der Samaritaner. Drei Abhandlungen nebst zwei bisher unedierten samaritanischen Texten. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, 5.4. Nendeln, Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprints, 1966 (orig.: 1876). Kuenen, Abraham, ed. Libri exodi et levitici, secundum arabicam pentateuchi Samaritani versionem, ab Abu Saido conscriptam, quos ex tribus codicibus edidit A. Kuenen. Lugduni Batavorum: Apud Brill, 1854. ———. Specimen e literis Orientalibus exhibens librum Geneseos, secundum Arabicam Pentateuchi Samaritani versionem, ab Abū Sa’īdo conscriptam, quos, auspice viro clarissimo T. G. J. Juynboll, ex tribus codicibus edidit Abrahamus Kuenen. Tarjamat alTawrāh al-muqaddasah ilakh (Libri Exodi et Levitici). Lugduni Batavorum: Apud Brill, 1851. Le Jay, Guy-Michel, ed. Biblia Hebraica, Samaritana, Chaldaica, Graeca, Syriaca, Latina, Arabica, quibus textus originales totius Scripturae Sacrae, quorum pars in editione Complutensi deinde in Antuerpiensi regiis sumptibus extat, nunc integri, ex manuscriptis toto fere orbe quaesitis exemplaribus, exhibentur. 9 vols. Lutetiae Parisiorum: Excudebat Antonius Vitré, Regis, Reginae Regentis, & Cleri Gallicani typographus, 1645 [i.e. 16291645]. Le Strange, Guy. Palestine Under the Moslems. A Description of Syria and the Holy Land from A.D. 650 to 1500. Translated from the Works of the Medieval Arab Geographers. [London]: Published for the Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund by Alexander P. Watt, 1890. Levy-Rubin, Milka. The Continuatio of the Samaritan Chronicle of Abū l-Fatḥ al-Sāmirī alDanafī. Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam, 10. Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press, 2002. Lifshitz, Baruch. Donateurs et fondateurs dans les synagogues juives. Répertoire des dédicaces grecques relatives à la construction et à la réfection des synagogues. Cahiers de la Revue Biblique, 7. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1967. Linder, Amnon. The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, and Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1987. Macdonald, John. Memar Marqah: The Teaching of Marqah. 2 vols. BZAW, 83. Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1963. ———. The Samaritan Chronicle No. II (or: Sepher Ha-Yamim) From Joshua to Nebuchadnezzar. BZAW, 107. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1969. ———. “An Unpublished Palestinian Tradition About Muhammad.” AJBA 1 (1969): 3-12. Macdonald, John, and A. J. B. Higgins. “The Beginnings of Christianity According to the Samaritans: Introduction, Text, Translation, Notes, and Commentary.” NTS 18 (1971): 54-80.

Merx, Adalbert. Der Messias oder Ta’eb der Samaritaner, nach bisher unbekannten Quellen. Mit einem Gedächtniswort von Karl Marti. BZAW, 17. Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1909. Neubauer, Adolf. “Chronique samaritaine, suivie d’un appendice contenant de courtes notices sur quelques autres ouvrages samaritains.” JA 14 (1869): 385-470. Neusner, Jacob, trans. The Tosefta: Translated from the Hebrew With a New Introduction. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002. Noja, Sergio. Il Kitāb al-Kāfī dei Samaritani. Istituto Orientale di Napoli. Pubblicazioni del Seminario di Semitistica. Ricerche, 7. Napoli, 1970. Noy, David, and Hanswulf Bloedhorn, eds. Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis. Vol. 3: Syria and Cyprus. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism, 102. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Pérez Castro, Federico. Séfer Abišaʿ. Edición del fragmento antiguo del rollo sagrado del Pentateuco hebreo samaritano de Nablus. Estudio, transcripción, aparato crítico y facsímiles. Textos y estudios del Seminario Filológico Cardenal Cisneros, 2. Madrid: C.S.I.C., 1959. Pietersma, Albert, and Benjamin G. Wright, eds. A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included Under That Title. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Pohl, Heinz. Kitāb al-Mīrāt: Das Buch der Erbschaft des Samaritaners Abū Isḥāq Ibrāhīm. Kritische Edition mit Übersetzung und Kommentar. Studia Samaritana, 2. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1974. Porten, Bezalel, and Ada Yardeni. Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt: Newly Copied, Edited and Translated Into Hebrew and English. Vol. 1: Letters. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, 1986. Powels, Sylvia. “Samaritan Proverbs (1990).” AbrN 28 (1990): 76-95. ———. “Samaritan Proverbs.” In Proceedings of the First International Congress of the Société d’Études Samaritaines, Tel Aviv, April 11-13, 1988, edited by Abraham Tal and Moshe Florentine, pp. 249-60. Tel Aviv: Chaim Rosenberg School for Jewish Studies, Tel Aviv University, 1991. Pummer, Reinhard. Early Christian Authors on Samaritans and Samaritanism: Texts, Translations and Commentary. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism, 92. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. ———. Samaritan Marriage Contracts and Deeds of Divorce. 2 vols. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1993 and 1997. Rosen, Gladys Levine, ed. and trans. “The Joseph Cycle (Genesis 37–45) in the Samaritan Arabic Commentary of Meshalma ibn Murjan.” Ph.D. diss., New York: Columbia University, 1951. Schorch, Stefan. “Das Lernen der Tora bei den Samaritanern heute und drei samaritanische Erzählungen über das Lernen.” Wort und Dienst 26 (2001): 107-26.

Scott, Samuel P., trans. The Civil Law, Including the Twelve Tables, the Institutes of Gaius, the Rules of Ulpian, the Opinions of Paulus, the Enactments of Justinian, and the Constitutions of Leo: Translated from the Original Latin, Edited, and Compared with All Accessible Systems of Jurisprudence Ancient and Modern. Vol. XVII. Cincinnati: The Central Trust Company, 1932. Shahrastani, Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Karim. Livre des religions et des sectes. Traduction, avec introduction et notes, par Daniel Gimaret et Guy Monnot. 2 vols. Collection UNESCO d’oeuvres représentatives, série arabe, 1986-93. Sharon, Moshe. Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae. Vol. 4. Handbook of Oriental Studies. Section 1. The Near and Middle East, 30/4. Leiden; New York: Brill, 2008. Shehadeh, Haseeb. The Arabic Translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch: Edited from Manuscripts with an Introductory Volume. Volume One: Genesis–Exodus. Publications of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Section of Humanities. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1989. ———. The Arabic Translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch: Edited from Manuscripts with an Introductory Volume. Volume Two: Leviticus–Deuteronomy. Publications of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Section of Humanities. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 2002. Shunnar, Zuhair. “Kitāb sair al-qalb ilā maʿrifat ar-rabb (Die Reise des Herzens zur Erkenntnis des Herrn) von Ibrāhīm bin Yūsuf al-Qabāṣī. Kritische Edition und Übersetzung.” Ph.D. diss., Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin, 1969. Silvestre de Sacy, Antoine-Isaac. “Correspondance des Samaritains de Naplouse, pendant les années 1808 et suiv.” Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la bibliothèque du roi et autres bibliothèques 12 (1831): 1-235. Simon, Maurice, trans. Kuthim: On the Samaritans. In The Minor Tractates of the Talmud: Massektoth Ḳeṭannoth. Vol. 2, edited by A. Cohen, pp. 615-21. Translated into English with Introduction and Notes. London: Soncino, 1965. Stenhouse, Paul. “The Kitāb al-Tarīkh of Abu ʾl-Fatḥ.” 3 vols. Ph.D. diss., Sydney: University of Sydney, 1980. ———. The Kitāb al-Tarīkh of Abū ʾl-Fatḥ: Translated into English with Notes. Studies in Judaica, 1. Sydney: Mandelbaum Trust, University of Sydney, 1985. Stern, Menahem. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism: Edited with Introductions, Translations and Commentary. 3 vols. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1980, 1984, 1974. Tal, Abraham. The Samaritan Targum of the Pentateuch: A Critical Edition. 3 vols. Texts and Studies in the Hebrew Language and Related Subjects, 4-6. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1980-83. ———. Tībāt Mårqe. Berlin: De Gruyter, forthcoming. ———, ed. The Samaritan Pentateuch Edited According to MS 6 (C) of the Shekhem

Synagogue. [In Hebrew.] Texts and Studies in the Hebrew Language and Related Subjects, 8. Tel Aviv University: Chaim Rosenberg School of Jewish Studies, 1994. Tal, Abraham, and Moshe Florentin, eds. The Pentateuch: The Samaritan Version and the Masoretic Version. Tel Aviv: The Haim Rubin Tel Aviv University Press, 2010. Tcherikover, Victor A., Alexander Fuks, and Menahem Stern, eds. Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum. Vol. III. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964. Tsedaka, Benyamim, ed. and trans. The Israelite Samaritan Version of the Torah: First English Translation Compared with the Masoretic Version. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. Tsedaka, Israel. Samaritan Torah. [In Hebrew.] Ḥolon, 1998. Tsedaka, Ratson. Samaritan Legends: Twelve Legends from Oral Tradition. Edited by Dov Noy. [In Hebrew.] Haifa Municipality, Ethnological Museum and Folklore Archives, Israel Folktale Archives (IFA) Publication Series, 8. Haifa, 1965. Walton, Brian. Biblia Sacra Polyglotta Complectentia Textus Originales Hebraicum, cum Pentateucho Samaritano, Chaldaicum, Graecum. Versionumque antiquarum, Samaritanae, Graecae LXXII Interpr., Chaldaicae, Syriacae, Arabicae, Aethiopicae, Persicae, Vulg. Lat. Quicquid comparari poterat. Cum Textuum, & Versionum Orientalium Translationibus Latinis. Ex vetustissimis MSS. undique conquisitis, optimisque Exemplaribus impressis, summâ fide collatis. Quae in prioribus Editionibus deerant suppleta. Multa antehac inedita, de novo adjecta. Omnia eo ordine disposita, ut Textus cum Versionibus uno intuitu conferri possint. Cum Apparatu, Appendicibus, Tabulis, Variis Lectionibus, Annotationibus, Indicibus, &c. Opus totum in sex Tomos tributum. Londini: Imprimebat Thomas Roycroft, 1653-57. Wedel, Gerhard. “Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabbāḫ des Samaritaners Abū l-Ḥasan aṣ-Ṣūrī. Kritische Edition und kommentierte Übersetzung des ersten Teils.” Ph.D. diss., Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin, 1987. Wreschner, Leopold. Samaritanische Traditionen, mitgeteilt und nach ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung untersucht. Berlin: H. Itzkowski, 1888. 4. Secondary Literature

Aaron ben Ab-Ḥisda. The Good Samaritans: A Living People. Ḥolon, Israel: Institute of Samaritan Studies, 1987. A.B. Services [Benyamim Tsedaka]. “Appeal for Israeli-Palestinian Cooperation to Secure the Roads to Mount Gerizim.” A.B.–The Samaritan News 785-788 (6.4.2001): 187-88. ———. “Are the Samaritans in Need to [sic] a Second Synagogue in Mount Gerizim?” A.B.–The Samaritan News 1086-1087 (20.5.2011): 77-80. ———. “The Israelite Samaritans.” A.B.–The Samaritan News 820-821 (15.7.2002): 10203. ———. “The Neighbourhood on Mt. Gerizim Is Flourishing Following the Abandonment of the Samaritan Settlement in Nablus.” A.B.–The Samaritan News 820-821 (15.7.2002):

98-99. ———. “Radicals and Eccentric Hassids Are Waylaying Samaritans on the Road to Mt. Gerizim.” A.B.–The Samaritan News 820-821 (15.7.2002): 100-101. Aderet, Ofer. “Digitization of the Ancient Samaritan Manuscripts.” A.B.–The Samaritan News 1113-1114 (22.6.2012): 87-93. Albertz, Rainer. A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period. Volume 2: From the Exile to the Maccabees. The Old Testament Library. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1994. Albright, William Foxwell. From the Stone Age to Christianity: Monotheism and the Historical Process. 2nd ed. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1957. Alon, Gedalyahu. Jews, Judaism and the Classical World. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1977 (orig.: 1947). Amiran, Daniel H. K., E. Arieh, and T. Turcotte. “Earthquakes in Israel and Adjacent Areas: Macroseismic Observations Since 100 B.C.E.” IEJ 44 (1994): 260-305. Anderson, Robert T. “Craft and Function in Samaritan Hebrew Manuscript Decoration.” Hebrew Studies 33 (1992): 37-49. ———. “Samaritan History During the Renaissance.” In The Samaritans, edited by Alan D. Crown, pp. 95-112. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1989. ———. “Samaritan Studies and Early Christianity.” In New Samaritan Studies, edited by Alan D. Crown and Lucy Davey, pp. 121-31. Sydney: Mandelbaum, 1995. ———. Studies in Samaritan Manuscripts and Artifacts: The Chamberlain-Warren Collection. American Schools of Oriental Research, Monograph Series, 1. Cambridge, Mass.: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1978. Anderson, Robert T., and Terry Giles. The Samaritan Pentateuch: An Introduction to Its Origin, History and Significance for Biblical Studies. Resources for Biblical Study, 72. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012. Anonymous. Review of The Samaritans, The Earliest Jewish Sect: Their History, Theology, and Literature, by James Montgomery. Expository Times 18 (1907): 548. Anonymous. “The Samaritan-Israelites and Their Religion: Educational Guide.” Ḥolon, 2004. Ashkenazi, Dana. “Archaeometallurgical Characterization of Samaritan Rings and Amulets and Other Artifacts Made of Copper Alloys.” In Samaritan Cemeteries and Tombs in the Central Coastal Plain: Archaeology and History of the Samaritan Settlement Outside Samaria (ca. 300-700 CE). By Oren Tal and Itamar Taxel, pp. 229-49. Ägypten und Altes Testament 82. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2015. Avi-Yonah, Michael. “The Samaritan Revolts Against the Byzantine Empire.” [In Hebrew.] Eretz Israel 4 (1956): 127-32. Baillet, Maurice. “Quelques manuscrits samaritains.” Semitica 26 (1976): 143-66. ———. “Samaritains.” In DBSup 11 (1991): 773-1047.

Bar, Doron. “Was There a 3rd-c. Economic Crisis in Palestine?” In The Roman and Byzantine Near East. Vol. 3, edited by John H. Humphrey. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement, pp. 43-54. Portsmouth, RI, 2002. Barag, Dan. “Samaritan Writing and Writings.” In From Hellenism to Islam: Cultural and Linguistic Change in the Roman Near East, edited by Hannah M. Cotton, Robert G. Hoyland, Jonathan J. Price, and David J. Wasserstein, pp. 303-23. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. ———. “Shaalbim.” In NEAEHL 4 (1993): 1338. Bargès, Jean Joseph Léander. Les Samaritains de Naplouse, épisode d’un pèlerinage dans les lieux saints. Paris: Dondey-Dupré, 1855. Bar-Ilan, Meir. “Scribes and Books in the Late Second Commonwealth and Rabbinic Period.” In Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, edited by Martin Jan Mulder, pp. 21-38. Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1988. Barton, William E. “The Samaritan Messiah. Further Comments of the Samaritan High Priest.” Open Court 21 (1908): 528-38. Becking, Bob. The Fall of Samaria: An Historical and Archaeological Study. Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East, 2. Leiden; New York; Cologne: Brill, 1992. ———. “Is There a Samaritan Identity in the Earliest Documents?” In Die Samaritaner und die Bibel: Historische und literarische Wechselwirkungen zwischen biblischen und samaritanischen Traditionen = The Samaritans and the Bible: Historical and Literary Interactions between Biblical and Samaritan Traditions, edited by Jörg Frey, Ursula Schattner-Rieser, and Konrad Schmid, pp. 51-65. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012. Begg, Christopher T. “The Loss of the Ark According to Josephus.” Liber Annuus 46 (1996): 167-86. Ben-Dov, Jonathan. “Early Texts of the Torah.” Journal of Ancient Judaism 4, 2 (2013): 210-34. Ben-Ḥayyim, Ze’ev, with assistance from Abraham Tal. A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew Based on the Recitation of the Law in Comparison with the Tiberian and Other Jewish Traditions. A Revised Edition in English. Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000. ———. “Samaritan Hebrew — An Evaluation.” In The Samaritans, edited by Alan D. Crown, pp. 517-30. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1989. Benvenisti, Meron. The Crusaders in the Holy Land. Jerusalem: Israel Universities Press, 1970. Ben-Zvi, Itzhak. The Book of the Samaritans. [In Hebrew.] Revised ed. Edited by Shemaryahu Talmon. Jerusalem: Yad Itzhak Ben-Zvi, 1970. ———. “The Origin of the Samaritans and Their Tribal Division.” In Eric Mills, Census of Palestine 1931. Vol. 1, pp. 86-90. Alexandria: Printed for the Government of Palestine by

Whitehead Morris, 1933. ———. “Samaritan Arsuf.” BJPES 1.2 (1933): 24-26. Bohak, Gideon. Ancient Jewish Magic: A History. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Böhm, Martina. Samarien und die Samaritai bei Lukas. Eine Studie zum religionshistorischen und traditionsgeschichtlichen Hintergrund der lukanischen Samarientexte und zu deren topographischer Verhaftung. WUNT, 2. Reihe, 111. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. ———. “Wer gehörte in hellenistisch-römischer Zeit zu ‘Israel’? Historische Voraussetzungen für eine veränderte Perspektive auf neutestamentliche Texte.” In Die Samaritaner und die Bibel: Historische und literarische Wechselwirkungen zwischen biblischen und samaritanischen Traditionen = The Samaritans and the Bible: Historical and Literary Interactions between Biblical and Samaritan Traditions, edited by Jörg Frey, Ursula Schattner-Rieser, and Konrad Schmid, pp. 181-202. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012. Bóid, Iain Ruairidh Mac Mhanainn. “The Samaritan Halachah.” In The Samaritans, edited by Alan D. Crown, pp. 624-49. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1989. ———. “Use, Authority and Exegesis of Mikra in the Samaritan Tradition.” In Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, edited by Martin Jan Mulder, pp. 595-633. Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1988. Bonné, Batsheva. “The Samaritan Isolate.” In The Genetics of Migrant and Isolate Populations: Proceedings of a Conference on Human Population Genetics in Israel Held at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1961, edited by Elisabeth Goldschmidt, pp. 354-55. New York: William and Wilkins, 1963. Bonné-Tamir, B., et al. “Maternal and Paternal Lineages of the Samaritan Isolate: Mutation Rates and Time to Most Recent Common Male Ancestor.” Annals of Human Genetics 67 (2003): 153-64. ———. “Usher Syndrome in the Samaritans: Strengths and Limitations of Using Inbred Isolated Populations to Identify Genes Causing Recessive Disorders.” AJPA 104 (1997): 193-200. Bosworth, Clifford Edmund. “Christian and Jewish Religious Dignitaries in Mamlûk Egypt and Syria: Qalqashandî’s Information on Their Hierarchy, Titulature, and Appointment.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 3 (1972): 59-74, 199-216. Braun, Joachim. Music in Ancient Israel/Palestine: Archaeological, Written, and Comparative Sources. Translated by Douglas W. Stott. The Bible in Its World. Grand Rapids; Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2002. Bruneau, Philippe. “‘Les Israélites de Délos’ et la juiverie délienne.” Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 106 (1982): 466-504. Büchler, Adolf. “The Participation of the Samaritans in the Bar-Kokhva Revolt.” [In Hebrew.] In The Bar-Kokhva Revolt, edited by Aharon Oppenheimer, pp. 115-21. Issues

in Jewish History, 10. Jerusalem: The Historical Society of Israel; The Zalman Shazar Center for the Study of Jewish History, 1980. Bull, George, trans. The Pilgrim: The Travels of Pietro Della Valle. London: Hutchinson, 1990. Bull, Robert J. “The Altar of the Almighty Is Located in Tel Er Ras in [sic] Mount Gerizim.” A.B.–The Samaritan News 1075 (28.10.2010): 81-84. ———. “The Ancient Israelite Altar Found in Tel Elras [sic] on Mount Gerizim.” A.B.–The Samaritan News 1115-1116 (13.7.2012): 92-96. ———. “The Excavation of Tell-er Ras on Mt. Gerizim.” BA 31 (1968): 58-72, Figs. 11-18. ———. “Ras, Tell Er-.” In OEANE 4 (1997): 406-09. Charlesworth, James H. “What Is a Variant? Announcing a Dead Sea Scrolls Fragment of Deuteronomy.” Maarav 16 (2009): 201-12; Plates IX and X (pp. 273-74). Clermont-Ganneau, Charles Simon. “Note II: Expedition to Amwas (Emmaus-Nicopolis).” PEFQS 14 (1882): 22-37. Coggins, Richard J. Samaritans and Jews: The Origins of Samaritanism Reconsidered. Growing Points in Theology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1975. ———. “The Samaritans in Josephus.” In Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, edited by Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata, pp. 257-73. Leiden: Brill, 1987. Cohen, Amnon, and Bernard Lewis, eds. Population and Revenue in the Towns of Palestine in the 16th Century. Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press, 1978. Cohen, Shaye J. D. The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties. Hellenistic Culture and Society, 31. Berkeley; Los Angeles; London: University of California Press, 1999. Collins, John J. “The Epic of Theodotus and the Hellenism of the Hasmoneans.” In Harvard Theological Review 73 (1980): 93-104. Conder, Claude Reignier. “Samaritan Customs.” PEFQS Oct.-Dec. (1887): 233-36. Conder, Claude R., and Horatio Herbert Kitchener. The Survey of Western Palestine. Memoirs of the Topography, Orthography, Hydrography and Archaeology, vol. 2. Samaria. London: The Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund, 1882. Corinaldi, Michael. “The Personal Status of the Samaritans in Israel.” In Samaritan Researches. Vol. V, edited by Vittorio Morabito, Alan D. Crown, and Lucy Davey, pp. 2.85-96. Mandelbaum Studies in Judaica, 10. Sydney: Mandelbaum Publishing, 2000. ———. “The Problem of the Patrilineal or Matrilineal Descent and Inter-Marriage According to the Samaritan and Rabbinic Halakhah.” In Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of the Société d’Études Samaritaines, Helsinki, August 1-4, 2000, edited by Haseeb Shehadeh, Habib Tawa, and Reinhard Pummer, pp. 171-81. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 2005. Cross, Frank Moore. “Personal Names in the Samaria Papyri.” BASOR 344 (2006): 75-90.

———. “Samaria and Jerusalem in the Era of Restoration.” In From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel, edited by Frank Moore Cross, pp. 173-202. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998. Crown, Alan D. “Abisha Scroll.” In A Companion to Samaritan Studies, edited by Alan D. Crown, Reinhard Pummer, and Abraham Tal, pp. 4-6. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1993. ———. “The Abisha Scroll of the Samaritans.” BJRL 58 (1975-76): 36-65. ———. A Catalogue of the Samaritan Manuscripts in the British Library. London: British Library, 1998. ———. “Names.” In A Companion to Samaritan Studies, edited by Alan D. Crown, Reinhard Pummer, and Abraham Tal, pp. 165-66. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1993. ———. “Priesthood.” In A Companion to Samaritan Studies, edited by Alan D. Crown, Reinhard Pummer, and Abraham Tal, pp. 190-93. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1993. ———. “A Profile of Paper in Samaritan Manuscripts.” In Proceedings of the First International Congress of the Société d’Études Samaritaines, Tel Aviv, April 11-13, 1988, edited by Abraham Tal and Moshe Florentin, pp. 205-24. Tel Aviv: Chaim Rosenberg School for Jewish Studies, Tel Aviv University, 1991. ———. “The Samaritan Diaspora.” In The Samaritans, edited by Alan D. Crown, pp. 195217. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1989. ———. “The Samaritan Diaspora to the End of the Byzantine Era.” AJBA 2 (1974): 107-23. ———. “Samaritan Hellenistic Literature.” In Encyclopedia of Religious and Philosophical Writings in Late Antiquity: Pagan, Judaic, Christian, edited by Jacob Neusner and Alan J. Avery-Peck, pp. 374-75. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2007. ———. Samaritan Scribes and Manuscripts. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism, 80. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2001. ———. “The Samaritans in the Byzantine Orbit.” BJRL 69 (1986-87): 96-138. Dar, Shimon. “The Samaritans in Caesarea Maritima.” In Samaria, Samarians, Samaritans: Studies on Bible, History and Linguistics, edited by József Zsengellér, pp. 225-35. Studia Judaica, 66, Studia Samaritana, 6. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, 2011. Dar, Shimon, with contributions by Baruch Arensburg et al. Raqit: Marinus’ Estate on the Carmel, Israel. BAR International Series, 1300. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2004. Dauphin, Claudine. La Palestine byzantine: peuplement et populations. 3 vols. BAR International Series, 726. Oxford: Archaeopress, 1998. Delcor, Mathias. “La correspondance des savants européens, en quête de manuscrits, avec les Samaritains du XVIe au XIXe siècle.” In Études samaritaines. Pentateuque et Targum, exégèse et philologie, chroniques. Actes de la table ronde: “Les manuscrits samaritains. Problèmes et méthodes” (Paris, Institut de Recherche et d’Histoire des Textes, 7-9

octobre 1985), pp. 27-43. Collection de la Revue des Études Juives, 6. Louvain-Paris: E. Peeters, 1988. Della Valle, Pietro. Viaggio in Levante. Venezia: Baglioni, 1667. Delling, Gerhard. “ἀπαρχή.” In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. I, edited by Gerhard Kittel, pp. 484-86. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964. DeRose Evans, Jane. “From Mountain to Icon: Mount Gerizim on Roman Provincial Coins from Neapolis Samaria.” Near Eastern Archaeology 74 (2011): 170-82. Dessau, H. “Die Samaritaner bei den Scriptores Historiae Augustae.” In Janus: Arbeiten zur alten und byzantinischen Geschichte 1 = Festschrift Lehmann-Haupt zum sechzigsten Geburtstag, pp. 124-28. Vienna: Braunmüller, 1921. Dexinger, Ferdinand. “Das Garizimgebot im Dekalog der Samaritaner.” In Studien zum Pentateuch. Walter Kornfeld zum 60. Geburtstag, edited by Georg Braulik, pp. 111-33. Vienna: Herder, 1977. ———. “Moses.” In A Companion to Samaritan Studies, edited by Alan D. Crown, Reinhard Pummer, and Abraham Tal, pp. 160-62. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1993. ———. “Die Moses-Terminologie in Tibåt Mårqe: Einige Beobachtungen.” Frankfurter judaistische Beiträge 25 (1998): 51-62. ———. “Samaritan and Jewish Festivals: Comparative Considerations.” In New Samaritan Studies, edited by Alan D. Crown and Lucy Davey, pp. 57-78. Sydney: Mandelbaum, 1995. ———. “Samaritan Eschatology.” In The Samaritans, edited by Alan D. Crown, pp. 266-92. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1989. ———. “Samaritan Origins and the Qumran Texts.” In Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects, edited by Michael O. Wise, Norman Golb, John J. Collins, and Denis G. Pardee, pp. 231-46. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 722. New York: The New York Academy of Sciences, 1994. ———. “Die Samaritaner in der Kreuzzugszeit.” In Die Folgen der Kreuzzüge für die orientalische Religionsgemeinschaft: Internationales Kolloquium vom 16.-18.10.1996 in Halle/Saale, edited by Walter Beltz, pp. 94-115. Hallesche Beiträge zur Orientwissenschaft, 22. Halle: Institut für Orientalistik, 1997. ———. “Taheb.” In A Companion to Samaritan Studies. Edited by Alan D. Crown, Reinhard Pummer, and Abraham Tal, pp. 224-26. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1993. ———. Der Taheb. Ein “messianischer” Heilsbringer der Samaritaner. Kairos. Religionswissenschaftliche Studien, 3. Salzburg: Otto Müller, 1986. Diebner, Bernd Jørg. “Die antisamaritanische Polemik des TNK als konfessionelles Problem.” In The Bible in Cultural Context, edited by Helena Pavlinková and Dalibor

Papoušek, pp. 95-110. Brno: Czech Society for the Study of Religions, 1994. ———. “Das Buch Bereʾshith/Genesis als gemeinsamer kultureller Code für die großen jüdischen Konfessionen, die Garizim- und die Zions-Gemeinde, zur Zeit ihrer politisch erzwungenen Koexistenz (2. Jh. v.Chr.-1. Jh. n.Chr.).” In Gemeinsame kulturelle Codes in koexistierenden Religionsgemeinschaften: Leucorea-Kolloquium 2003, edited by Ute Pietruschka, pp. 127-43. Hallesche Beiträge zur Orientwissenschaft, 38. Halle: Institut für Orientalistik, 2004. ———. “Juda und Israel. Zur hermeneutischen Bedeutung der Spannung zwischen Judäa und Samarien für das Verständnis des TNK als Literatur.” In Landgabe: Festschrift für Jan Heller zum 70. Geburtstag, edited by M. Prudký, pp. 86-132. Praha: ISE, ed. Oikúmené, 1995; repr. with some updates in Bernd Jørg Diebner, Seit wann gibt es “jenes Israel”?: Gesammelte Studien zum TNK und zum antiken Judentum, edited by Veit Dinkelaker, Benedikt Hensel, and Frank Zeidler, pp. 33-84. Beiträge zum Verstehen der Bibel, 17. Berlin: Lit Verlag, 2011. ———. “Die Konzeption der hebräisch-aramäischen ‘Bibel’ (TNK) und die Definition der judäischen kulturellen Identität ‘Israel’ gegenüber der samaritanischen Kultgemeinde Israel seit dem 2. Jh. v.Chr.,” HBO 31 (2001): 147-165. ———. Seit wann gibt es “jenes Israel”?: Gesammelte Studien zum TNK und zum antiken Judentum. Edited by Veit Dinkelaker, Benedikt Hensel, and Frank Zeidler. Beiträge zum Verstehen der Bibel, 17. Berlin: Lit Verlag, 2011. Di Segni, Leah. “The Church of Mary Theotokos on Mount Gerizim: The Inscriptions.” In Christian Archaeology in the Holy Land: New Discoveries. Essays in Honour of Virgilio C. Corbo, edited by Giovanni Claudio Bottini, Leah Di Segni, and Eugenio Alliata, pp. 343-50. Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 36. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1990. ———. “The Samaritans in Roman-Byzantine Palestine: Some Misapprehensions.” In Religious and Ethnic Communities in Later Roman Palestine, edited by Hayim Lapin, pp. 51-66. Studies and Texts in Jewish History and Culture, 5. Potomac, MD: University Press of Maryland, 1998. ———. “Two Greek Inscriptions at Horvat Raqit.” In Raqit: Marinus’ Estate on the Carmel, Israel, edited by Shimon Dar, pp. 196-98. BAR International Series, 1300. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2004. Droeber, Julia. The Dynamics of Coexistence in the Middle East: Negotiating Boundaries Between Christians, Muslims, Jews and Samaritans. Library of Modern Middle East Studies, 135. London; New York: I. B. Tauris, 2014. Duchemin, Jean-Marie. “La question des sources de l’Asaṭīr: l’exemple des récits antédiluviens.” In Die Samaritaner und die Bibel: Historische und literarische Wechselwirkungen zwischen biblischen und samaritanischen Traditionen = The Samaritans and the Bible: Historical and Literary Interactions between Biblical and Samaritan Traditions, edited by Jörg Frey, Ursula Schattner-Rieser, and Konrad Schmid, pp. 323-38. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012.

Dušek, Jan. Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions from Mt. Gerizim and Samaria between Antiochus III and Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East, 54. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2012. ———. Les manuscrits araméens du Wadi Daliyeh et la Samarie vers 450-332 av. J.-C. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East, 30. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2007. ———. “Ruling of Inscriptions in Hellenistic Samaria.” Maarav 14 (2007): 43-65. Duval, Noël. “Le rappresentazioni architettoniche.” In Umm al-Rasas — Mayfaʿah I: Gli scavi del complesso di Santo Stefano, edited by Michele Piccirillo and Eugenio Alliata, pp. 165-230. Jerusalem: Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, 1994. Egger, Rita. Josephus Flavius und die Samaritaner. Eine terminologische Untersuchung zur Identitätsklärung der Samaritaner. Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus, 4. Freiburg, Switzerland: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. Eissfeldt, Otto. The Old Testament: An Introduction Including the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, and also the Works of Similar Type from Qumran: The History of the Formation of the Old Testament. Translated by Peter R. Ackroyd. Oxford [England]: B. Blackwell, 1965. Eshel, Hanan. “The Prayer of Joseph, a Papyrus from Masada and the Samaritan Temple on ΑΡΓΑΡΙΖΙΝ.” [In Hebrew.] Zion 56 (1990): 125-36. Feissel, Denis. Recueil des inscriptions chrétiennes de Macédoine du IIIe au VIe siècle. Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, Supplément 8. Athens: École française d’Athènes; Paris: diffusion de Boccard, 1983. Feldman, Louis H. “Josephus’ Attitude Toward the Samaritans: A Study in Ambivalence.” In Josephus, the Bible, and History, edited by Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata, pp. 330448. Leiden: Brill, 1989. Fine, Steven, ed. Sacred Realm: The Emergence of the Synagogue in the Ancient World. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press; Yeshiva University Museum, 1996. Finkelstein, Israel. The Forgotten Kingdom: The Archaeology and History of Northern Israel. Ancient Near East Monographs, 5. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013. Finn, James. Stirring Times or Records from Jerusalem Consular Chronicles of 1853 to 1856. By the late James Finn. Edited and compiled by his widow. 2 vols. London: C. Kegan Paul, 1878. Fleming, Daniel E. The Legacy of Israel in Judah’s Bible. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Florentin, Moshe. Late Samaritan Hebrew: A Linguistic Analysis of Its Different Types. Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics, 43. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2005. ———. “Some Thoughts About the Evaluation of the Samaritan Reading of the Pentateuch and the Hebrew Dialect Reflected in This Reading.” In Die Samaritaner und die Bibel: Historische und literarische Wechselwirkungen zwischen biblischen und samaritanischen Traditionen = The Samaritans and the Bible: Historical and Literary Interactions

between Biblical and Samaritan Traditions, edited by Jörg Frey, Ursula Schattner-Rieser, and Konrad Schmid, pp. 339-53. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012. Fraser, James Garfield. “Documents from a Samaritan Genizah in Damascus.” PEQ 103 (1971): 85-92. Frey, Jörg. “‘Gute’ Samaritaner? Das neutestamentliche Bild der Samaritaner zwischen Juden, Christen und Paganen.” In Die Samaritaner und die Bibel: Historische und literarische Wechselwirkungen zwischen biblischen und samaritanischen Traditionen = The Samaritans and the Bible: Historical and Literary Interactions between Biblical and Samaritan Traditions, edited by Jörg Frey, Ursula Schattner-Rieser, and Konrad Schmid, pp. 203-33. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012. Freyne, Seán. “Behind the Names: Galileans, Samaritans, Ioudaioi.” In Galilee Through the Centuries: Confluence of Cultures, edited by Eric M. Meyers, pp. 39-56. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999. ———. Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian, 323 B.C.E. to 135 C.E.: A Study of Second Temple Judaism. University of Notre Dame Center for the Study of Judaism and Christianity in Antiquity, 5. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 1980. Fried, Lisbeth S. “The ʿam hāʾāreṣ in Ezra 4:4 and Persian Imperial Administration.” In Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, edited by Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming, pp. 123-45. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Gafni, Yeshayahu. “The Relations Between the Jews and the Samaritans in the Period of the Mishnah and the Talmud.” [In Hebrew.] Master’s thesis, Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1969. ———. “The Samaritans and Their Dwelling Places.” [In Hebrew.] In Shomron: A Collection of Articles and Studies, edited by Shimon Dar and Yehuda Roth, pp. 166-81. Tel Aviv: Department for the Knowledge of Israel in the Kibbutz Movement, 1972. Gaster, Moses. “The Samaritan Literature.” In Encyclopaedia of Islām 4. Leiden: Brill, 1925. ———. The Samaritans: Their History, Doctrines and Literature. The Schweich Lectures 1923. London: Oxford University Press, 1925. ———. Studies and Texts in Folklore, Magic, Medieval Romance, Hebrew Apocrypha and Samaritan Archaeology. 3 vols. London: Maggs Bros., 1925-28. Geiger, Abraham. “Einleitung in die biblischen Schriften. 11. Der samaritanische Pentateuch.” In Abraham Geiger’s Nachgelassene Schriften. Vol. 4, edited by Ludwig Geiger, pp. 54-67. Berlin: L. Gerschel, 1876. ———. “Die gesetzlichen Differenzen zwischen Samaritanern und Juden.” ZDMG 20 (1866): 527-75. ———. Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bible in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der inneren Entwicklung des Judentums. 2nd ed. Frankfurt am Main: Madda, 1928. Gelbhaus, Sigmund. Eine absterbende Rebe am Weinstock Israels. Vienna: Löwit, n.d.

Gil, Moshe. A History of Palestine, 634-1099. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Ginat, Joseph. Women in Muslim Rural Society: Status and Role in Family and Community. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1982. Girón-Blanc, Luis Fernando. “Tašqīl.” In A Companion to Samaritan Studies, edited by Alan D. Crown, Reinhard Pummer, and Abraham Tal, pp. 228-29. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1993. Goitein, S. D. A Mediterranean Society: The Jewish Communities of the Arab World as Portrayed in the Documents of the Cairo Geniza. 6 vols. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press, 1967-93. Goldziher, Ignaz. “La Misāsa.” Revue Africaine 268 (1908): 23-28. Gottheil, Richard J. H. “An Eleventh Century Document Concerning a Cairo Synagogue.” JQR 19 (1907): 467-539. Grabbe, Lester L. “Josephus and the Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration.” JBL 106 (1987): 231-46. ———. Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian. 2 vols. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992. ———. “The Law of Moses in the Ezra Tradition: More Virtual Than Real?” In Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch, edited by James W. Watts, pp. 91-113. SBL Symposium Series, 17. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001. Grätz, Sebastian. “The Adversaries in Ezra/Nehemiah — Fictitious or Real?” In Between Cooperation and Hostility: Multiple Identities in Ancient Judaism and the Interaction with Foreign Powers, edited by Rainer Albertz and Jakob Wöhrle, pp. 73-87. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013. Gresh, Alain, and Dominique Vidal. The New A-Z of the Middle East. London: I. B. Tauris, 2004. Gruen, Erich S. “Hellenism, Hellenization.” In The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow, pp. 723-26. Grand Rapids; Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2010. Gudme, Anne Katrine de Hemmer. Before the God in This Place for Good Remembrance: A Comparative Analysis of the Aramaic Votive Inscriptions from Mount Gerizim. BZAW, 441. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2013. Gunneweg, Antonius H. J. Esra. Kommentar zum Alten Testament, 19.1. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1985. Haacker, Klaus. “Gottesdienst ohne Gotteserkenntnis: Joh. 4,22 vor dem Hintergrund der jüdisch-samaritanischen Auseinandersetzung.” In Wort und Wirklichkeit: Studien zur Afrikanistik und Orientalistik. Part I: Geschichte und Religionswissenschaft — Bibliographie. Eugen Ludwig Rapp zum 70. Geburtstag, edited by Brigitta Benzing, Otto Böcher, and Günter Mayer, pp. 110-26. Meisenheim am Glan: Anton Hain, 1976.

Hachili, Rachel. Ancient Synagogues in Israel: Third–Seventh Century C.E. Proceedings of Symposium, University of Hafia [i.e. Haifa], May 1987. BAR International Series, 499. Oxford: BAR, 1989. ———. The Menorah, the Ancient Seven-Armed Candelabrum: Origin, Form and Significance. JSJSup, 68. Leiden; Boston; Cologne: Brill, 2001. Hall, Bruce W. “Some Thoughts about Samaritanism and the Johannine Community.” In New Samaritan Studies, edited by Alan D. Crown and Lucy Davey, pp. 207-15. Sydney: Mandelbaum, 1995. Hallo, William W., and K. Lawson Younger, Jr., eds. The Context of Scripture. Vol. 2: Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Haralambakis, Maria. “A Survey of the Gaster Collection at the John Rylands Library, Manchester.” BJRL 89 (2012/2013): 107-30. Haudebert, Pierre. “Le Samaritain-Étranger (Lc 17,18) dans l’oeuvre de Luc.” In L’Étranger dans la Bible et ses lectures, edited by Jean Riaud, pp. 185-94. Paris: Cerf, 2007. Hawting, Gerald R. “Calf of Gold.” In Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān. Vol. 1, edited by Jane Dammen McAuliffe, pp. 273-76. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2001. Heiman, Leo. “Samaritans Are Doomed: They Can’t Marry Jewish Women.” The Zionist Record Annual [Johannesburg], September 1956, p. 85. Heller, Bernhard, and Andrew Rippin. “al-Sāmirī.” Encyclopaedia of Islam: New Edition 8 (1995): 1046. Heymann, Barak. Lone Samaritan. http://www.cultureunplugged.com/play/8048/LoneSamaritan, 2010. Hill, Brad Sabin. Carta Azzurra: Hebrew Printing on Blue Paper. An exhibition in the King’s Library, July–November 1995. London: The British Library, 1995. Hill, George Francis. Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Palestine (Galilee, Samaria, and Judaea). A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum, 27. Bologna: A. Forni, 1965 (orig.: 1914). Hjelm, Ingrid. Jerusalem’s Rise to Sovereignty: Zion and Gerizim in Competition. JSOTSup, 404 = Copenhagen International Seminar, 14. London; New York: T & T Clark International, 2004. ———. The Samaritans and Early Judaism: A Literary Analysis. JSOTSup, 303 = Copenhagen International Seminar, 7. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. ———. “Simon Magus in Patristic and Samaritan Sources: The Growth of a Tradition.” In Die Samaritaner und die Bibel: Historische und literarische Wechselwirkungen zwischen biblischen und samaritanischen Traditionen = The Samaritans and the Bible: Historical and Literary Interactions between Biblical and Samaritan Traditions, edited by Jörg Frey, Ursula Schattner-Rieser, and Konrad Schmid, pp. 263-84. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012. Hofman, Shlomo. “Samaritans. Musical Tradition.” In Encyclopaedia Judaica 17 (2007): 738-39.

Holum, Kenneth G. “Identity and the Late Antique City: The Case of Caesarea.” In Religious and Ethnic Communities in Later Roman Palestine, edited by Hayim Lapin, pp. 157-77. Studies and Texts in Jewish History and Culture, 5. Potomac, MD: University Press of Maryland, 1998. Horst, Pieter W. van der. “Anti-Samaritan Propaganda in Early Judaism.” In Persuasion and Dissuasion in Early Christianity, Ancient Judaism, and Hellenism, edited by Pieter W. van der Horst, Maarten J. J. Menken, Joop F. M. Smit, and Geert van Oyen, pp. 25-44. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology, 33. Leuven; Paris; Dudley, MA: Peeters, 2003. ———. “Greek in Jewish Palestine in Light of Jewish Epigraphy.” In Hellenism in the Land of Israel, edited by John J. Collins and G. E. Sterling, pp. 154-74. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001. ———. “The Samaritan Diaspora in Antiquity.” In Pieter W. van der Horst, Essays on the Jewish World of Early Christianity, pp. 136-47. NTOA, 14. Freiburg, Switzerland: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990. ———. “Samaritans and Hellenism.” Studia Philonica Annual 6 (1994): 28-36. ———. “Samaritans at Rome?” In Pieter W. van der Horst, Japheth in the Tents of Shem: Studies on Jewish Hellenism in Antiquity, pp. 251-60. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology, 32. Leuven, Paris, and Sterling, VA: Peeters, 2002. Humer, Monika. “Symbole samaritanischer Ethnizität. Ethnographische Fallstudie an einer levantinischen Minderheit.” Magisterarbeit, Universität Wien, 1993. Hurst, Lincoln Douglas. The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its Background of Thought. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series, 65. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Ilan, Zvi. Ancient Synagogues in Israel. [In Hebrew.] Tel Aviv: Ministry of Defence Israel, 1991. Ireton, Sean. “The Samaritans: Strategies for Survival of an Ethnoreligious Minority in the Twenty-First Century.” Master’s thesis, Canterbury: University of Kent at Canterbury, Department of Anthropology, 2003. Isser, Stanley Jerome. The Dositheans: A Samaritan Sect in Late Antiquity. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity, 17. Leiden: Brill, 1976. Jacob ben Uzzi (Jacob Ben-Ezzi Cohen) [Shafik]. The Samaritans: Their History, Customs, Religion. Nablus, 1965. ———. Who Are the Samaritans? [Nablus], 1968. Jamgotchian, Haroutyun S. “The Earliest Known Manuscripts of Samaritan Arabic Chronicles and Other Texts in the Russian National Library in St. Petersburg.” In Congress Volume Ljubljana 2007, edited by André Lemaire, pp. 147-51. VTSup, 133. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2010. Jamgotchian [Zhamkochian, Arutiun Sizefrovich], Haroutun Sizefrovich. “Самаритянский

рисунок РГБ: ошибка в датировке на тысячу лет?’ Вестник Еврейского Университета” [“The Samaritan Drawing from the Russian State Library: A ThousandYear Error in Dating?”]. Jewish University Papers 6, no. (24) (2001): 367-70. Jaussen, J.-A. Coutumes palestiniennes I. Naplouse et son district. Paris: Librairie orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1927. Jericke, Detlef. “Der Berg Garizim im Deuteronomium.” ZAW 124 (2012): 213-28. Joosten, Jan. “Septuagint and Samareitikon.” In From Author to Copyist: The Composition, Redaction and Transmission of the Hebrew Bible in Honor of Zipi Talshir, edited by Cana Werman, pp. 1-15. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015. Kahle, Paul. “Die Samaritaner im Jahre 1909 (A.H. 1327).” PJ 24 (1930): 89-103. ———. “Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Pentateuchtextes.” Theologische Studien und Kritiken 88 (1915): 399-439. Kaplan, Jacob. “A Samaritan Amulet from Corinth.” IEJ 30 (1980): 196-98, Pls. 21 A and B. Kartveit, Magnar. “The Origin of the Jews and Samaritans According to the Samaritan Chronicles.” In “Durch Dein Wort ward jegliches Ding!”: 2. Mandäistische und samaritanistische Tagung: Zum Gedenken an Rudolf Macuch (1919-1993) = “Through Thy Word All Things Were Made!”: 2nd International Conference of Mandaic and Samaritan Studies, pp. 283-97. Edited by Rainer Voigt. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2013. ———. The Origin of the Samaritans. VTSup, 128. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2009. Katz, Ruth. “The Reliability of Oral Transmission: The Case of Samaritan Music.” Yuval 3 (1974): 109-35. ———. “Samaritan Music.” In The Samaritans, edited by Alan D. Crown, pp. 743-70. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1989. Kedar, Benjamin Zeʾev. “The Frankish Period.” In The Samaritans, edited by Alan D. Crown, pp. 82-94. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1989. Kessler, John. “Persia’s Loyal Yahwists: Power Identity and Ethnicity in Achaemenid Yehud.” In Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, edited by Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming, pp. 91-121. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Kippenberg, Hans Gerhard. Garizim und Synagoge. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur samaritanischen Religion der aramäischen Periode. RVV, 30. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1971. Kirsh, Nurit. “Population Genetics in Israel in the 1950s: The Unconscious Internalization of Ideology,” Isis 94, 4 (December 2003): 631-55. Knoppers, Gary N. “Cutheans or Children of Jacob? The Issue of Samaritan Origins in 2 Kings 17.” In Reflection and Refraction: Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld, edited by Robert Rezetko, Timothy H. Lim, and W. Brian Aucker, pp. 223-39. VTSup, 113. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2007. ———. Jews and Samaritans: The Origins and History of Their Early Relations. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.

———. “Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Zion: A Study in the Early History of the Samaritans and Jews.” Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 34 (2005): 309-38. ———. “Revisiting the Samarian Question in the Persian Period.” In Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, edited by Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming, pp. 265-89. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006. ———. “Samaritan Conceptions of Jewish Origins and Jewish Conceptions of Samaritan Origins: Any Common Ground?” In Die Samaritaner und die Bibel: Historische und literarische Wechselwirkungen zwischen biblischen und samaritanischen Traditionen = The Samaritans and the Bible: Historical and Literary Interactions between Biblical and Samaritan Traditions, edited by Jörg Frey, Ursula Schattner-Rieser, and Konrad Schmid, pp. 81-118. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012. Knox, E. A. “The Samaritans and the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Churchman, New Series 41 (1927): 184-93. Kohn, Samuel. “De pentateucho samaritano ejusque cum versionibus antiquis nexu.” Ph.D. diss., Universitas Viadrina. Lipsiae: Typis G. Kreysing, 1865. Kratz, Reinhard G. “The Second Temple of Jeb and of Jerusalem.” In Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, edited by Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming, pp. 247-64. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Lapp, Nancy L. Shechem IV: The Persian-Hellenistic Pottery of Shechem/Tell Balâţah. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2008. ———. “The Stratum V Pottery from Balâṭah (Shechem).” BASOR 257 (1985): 19-43. Lehnardt, Andreas. “Das außerkanonische Talmud-Traktat Kutim (Samaritaner) in der innerrabinischen Überlieferung.” Frankfurter judaistische Beiträge 26 (1999): 111-38. ———. “Massekhet Kutim and the Resurrection of the Dead.” In Samaritans: Past and Present: Current Studies, edited by Menachem Mor and Friedrich V. Reiterer, pp. 175-92. Studia Judaica, 53, Studia Samaritana, 5. Berlin; New York: De Gruyter, 2010. ———. “The Samaritans (Kutim) in the Talmud Yerushalmi: Constructs of ‘Rabbinic Mind’ or Reflections of Social Reality?” In The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture. III, edited by Peter Schäfer, pp. 139-60. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism, 79. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. ———. “Die Taube auf dem Garizim: Zur antisamaritanischen Polemik in der rabbinischen Literatur.” In Die Samaritaner und die Bibel: Historische und literarische Wechselwirkungen zwischen biblischen und samaritanischen Traditionen = The Samaritans and the Bible: Historical and Literary Interactions between Biblical and Samaritan Traditions, edited by Jörg Frey, Ursula Schattner-Rieser, and Konrad Schmid, pp. 285-302. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012. Levin, Yigal. “Bi-Directional Forced Deportations in the Neo-Assyrian Empire and the Origins of the Samaritans: Colonialism and Hybridity.” Archaeological Review from Cambridge 28 (2013): 217-40. Levine, Lee I. The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years. New Haven and London:

Yale University Press, 2000. Levy-Rubin, Milka. “New Evidence Relating to the Process of Islamization in Palestine in the Early Muslim Period — The Case of Samaria.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 43 (2000): 257-76. Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott, and Henry Stuart Jones, comps. A Greek-English Lexicon. With Supplement 1968. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968. Lifshitz, Baruch, and J. Schiby. “Une synagogue samaritaine à Thessalonique.” RB 75 (1958): 368-78. Lightley, John William. Jewish Sects and Parties in the Time of Jesus. London: Epworth Press, 1925. Lipschits, Oded. “The Origin and Date of the Volute Capitals from the Levant.” In The Fire Signals of Lachish: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Israel in the Late Bronze Age, Iron Age, and Persian Period in Honor of David Ussishkin, edited by Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Naʾaman, pp. 203-25. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011. Macdonald, John. “The Discovery of Samaritan Religion.” Religion 2 (1972): 141-53. ———. The Theology of the Samaritans. New Testament Library. London: SCM Press, 1964. Macuch, Rudolf. Grammatik des samaritanischen Hebräisch. Studia Samaritana, 1. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1969. Magen, Yitzhak. “The Dating of the First Phase of the Samaritan Temple on Mount Gerizim in Light of the Archaeological Evidence.” In Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E., edited by Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Rainer Albertz, pp. 157211. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007. ———. Flavia Neapolis: Shechem in the Roman Period. 2 vols. Judea & Samaria Publications, 11. Jerusalem: Staff Officer of Archaeology — Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria; Israel Antiquities Authority, 2009. ———. Mount Gerizim Excavations. Vol. 2: A Temple City. Judea & Samaria Publications, 8. Jerusalem: Staff Officer of Archaeology — Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria; Israel Antiquities Authority, 2008. ———. “Qedumim — A Samaritan Site of the Roman-Byzantine Period.” In Early Christianity in Context: Monuments and Documents, edited by Frédéric Manns and Eugenio Alliata, pp. 167-80. Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 38. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1993. ———. “The Ritual Baths (Miqvaʾot) at Qedumim and the Observance of Ritual Purity Among the Samaritans.” In Early Christianity in Context: Monuments and Documents, edited by Frédéric Manns and Eugenio Alliata, pp. 181-92. Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 38. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1993. ———. “Samaritan Synagogues.” [In Hebrew.] Qadmoniot 25 (1992): 66-90. ———. “Samaritan Synagogues.” [In Hebrew.] In The Samaritans, edited by Ephraim Stern

and Hanan Eshel, pp. 382-443. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2002. ———. The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan. Judea & Samaria Publications, 7. Jerusalem: Staff Officer of Archaeology — Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria; Israel Antiquities Authority, 2008. Magen, Yitzhak, Haggai Misgav, and Levana Tsfania. Mount Gerizim Excavations. Volume 1: The Aramaic, Hebrew and Samaritan Inscriptions. Judea & Samaria Publications, 2. Jerusalem: Staff Officer of Archaeology — Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria; Israel Antiquities Authority, 2004. Margain, Jean. “Samaritain (Pentateuque).” DBSup 11 (1991): 762-73. Mason, Steve. Josephus, Judea, and Christian Origins: Methods and Categories. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010. Matassa, Lidia Domenica. “The Myth of the Synagogue on Delos.” In SOMA2004. Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology: Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Meeting of Postgraduate Researchers. School of Classics, Trinity College Dublin. 20-22 February 2004, pp. 105-14. Edited by Jo Day et al. BAR International Series, 1514. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2006. Mayer, Leo Ary. “A Sixteenth Century Samaritan Hanging.” BJPES 13 (1946-47): 169-70. McLean, Mark D. “The Use and Development of Palaeo-Hebrew in the Hellenistic and Roman Times.” Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1982. Meier, John P. “The Historical Jesus and the Historical Samaritans: What Can Be Said?” Biblica 81 (2000): 202-32. Meshorer, Yaʿakov. City-Coins of Eretz-Israel and the Decapolis in the Roman Period. Jerusalem: The Israel Museum, 1985. Milik, Józef Tadeusz. “Les modèles armaéens du livre d’Esther dans la Grotte 4 de Qumrân.” RevQ 15/59 (1992): 321-406. Mills, Eric. Census of Palestine 1931. 2 vols. Alexandria: Published for the Government of Palestine by Whitehead Morris, 1933. Mills, John. Three Months’ Residence at Nablus and an Account of the Modern Samaritans. London: John Murray, 1864. Mittwoch, Eugen. “Muslimische Fetwās über die Samaritaner.” OLZ 29 (1926): 845-849. Montgomery, James Alan. The Samaritans, The Earliest Jewish Sect: Their History, Theology and Literature. Philadelphia: The J. C. Winston Co., 1907. Mor, Menachem. From Samaria to Shechem: The Samaritan Community in Antiquity. [In Hebrew.] Jerusalem: The Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, 2003. ———. “The Samaritans and the Bar-Kokhbah Revolt.” In The Samaritans, edited by Alan D. Crown, pp. 19-31. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1989. Morabito, Vittorio. “Les Samaritains de Sicile.” In Études sémitiques et samaritaines offertes à Jean Margain. Edited by Christian-Bernard Amphoux, Albert Frey, and Ursula Schattner-Rieser, pp. 195-201. Histoire du Texte Biblique, 4. Lausanne: Zèbre, 1998.

———. “The Samaritans in Sicily and the Inscription in a Probable Synagogue in Syracuse.” In New Samaritan Studies, edited by Alan D. Crown and Lucy Davey, pp. 237-58. Sydney: Mandelbaum, 1995. Naʾaman, Nadav. “A Hidden Anti-Samaritan Polemic in the Story of Abimelech and Shechem (Judges 9).” Biblische Zeitschrift 55 (2011): 1-20. Nagar, Yossi. Who Are We? The Ancient Story of the Populations of Israel. [In Hebrew.] [Tel Aviv]: Raḳiaʿ, 2003. Naveh, Joseph. “Did Ancient Samaritan Inscriptions Belong to Synagogues?” In Ancient Synagogues in Israel: Third–Seventh Century C.E. Proceedings of Symposium, University of Hafia [i.e. Haifa], May 1987, edited by Rachel Hachlili, pp. 61-63. BAR International Series, 499. Oxford: B.A.R., 1989. ———. Early History of the Alphabet: An Introduction to West Semitic Epigraphy and Palaeography. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University; Leiden: Brill, 1982. ———. “A Greek Dedication in Samaritan Letters.” IEJ 31 (1981): 220-22. ———. “Lamp Inscriptions and Inverted Writing.” IEJ 38 (1988): 36-43, Pl. 8 E and G, Pl. 9. ———. “Script and Inscriptions in Ancient Samaria.” [In Hebrew.] In The Samaritans, edited by Ephraim Stern and Hanan Eshel, pp. 372-81. Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi, Israel Antiquities Authority, Staff Officer for Archaeology — Civil Administration for Judea and Samaria, 2002. ———. “Scripts and Inscriptions in Ancient Samaria.” IEJ 48 (1998): 91-100. Nicholls, George Frederic. A Grammar of the Samaritan Language with Extracts and Vocabulary. London: Samuel Bagster, 1858. Niessen, Friedrich. “A Judaeo-Arabic Fragment of a Samaritan Chronicle from the Cairo Geniza.” JSS 47 (2002): 215-36. ———. Eine samaritanische Version des Buches Yehošuaʿ und die Šoḇaḵ-Erzählung. Die Samaritanische Chronik Nr. II, Handschrift 2: JR(G) 1168 = Ryl. Sam. MS 259, Folio 8b - 53a. Texte und Studien zur Orientalistik, 12. Hildesheim; Zürich; New York: Georg Olms, 2000. Nieten, Ulrike-Rebekka. “Die Kantillation bei den Samaritanern.” In “Und das Leben ist siegreich!”: Mandäische und samaritanische Literatur. Im Gedenken an Rudolf Macuch (1919-1993) = “And Life Is Victorious”: Mandaean and Samaritan Literatures. In Memory of Rudolf Macuch (1919-1993). Edited by Rainer Voigt, pp. 227-36. Mandäiche Forschungen, 1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2008. Nihan, Christophe. “Garizim et Ébal dans le Pentateuque: quelques remarques en marge de la publication d’un nouveau fragment du Deutéronome.” Semitica 54 (2012): 185-210. Nodet, Etienne. “Israelites, Samaritans, Temples, Jews.” In Samaria, Samarians, Samaritans: Studies on Bible, History and Linguistics, edited by József Zsengellér, pp.

121-71. Studia Judaica, 66, Studia Samaritana, 6. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, 2011. ———. Samaritains, Juifs, Temples. Cahiers de la Revue Biblique, 74. Paris: J. Gabalda, 2010. ———. A Search for the Origins of Judaism: From Joshua to the Mishnah. JSOTSup, 248. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Noja, Sergio. “Le Coran, le Sāmirī et Simon le mage.” In Studi sul Vicino Oriente antico dedicati alla memoria di Luigi Cagni. Vol. 4, edited by Simonetta Graziani, Maria C. Casaburi, and Giancarlo Lacerenza, pp. 1925-35. Istituto universitario orientale, Dipartimento di studi asiatici, Series Minor, 61. Napoli: Istituto Universitario Orientale, 2000. Nutt, John W. Fragments of a Samaritan Targum: Edited from a Bodleian Ms., with an Introduction, Containing a Sketch of Samaritan History, Dogma and Literature. London: Trübner, 1874. Ofaz, Ohad. The Wandering Samaritan. http://www.snagfilms.com/films/title/the_wandering_samaritan. 2005 [Hebrew and Arabic, with English subtitles]. Otto, Eckart, trans. Deuteronomium 1-11: Zweiter Teilband: 4,44-11,32. Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg: Herder, 2012. ———. Jakob in Sichem. Überlieferungsgeschichtliche, archäologische und territorialgeschichtliche Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte Israels. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament, 110. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1979. Ovadiah, Asher. “Gaza.” NEAEH 2 (1993): 464-67. ———. “The Greek Inscription from Tell Qasile Re-Examined.” IEJ 37 (1987): 36-39. Pamment, Margaret. “Is There Convincing Evidence of Samaritan Influence on the Fourth Gospel?” ZNW 73 (1982): 221-30. Patience, Martin. “Ancient Community Seeks Brides Abroad.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/6333475.stm, 2007 (6 February 2007). Patrich, Joseph. Studies in the Archaeology and History of Caesarea Maritima: Caput Judaeae, Metropolis Palaestinae. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Peleg, Yuval, and Uzi Greenfeld. “Ritual Baths in Samaritan Settlements in Samaria.” [In Hebrew.] Judea and Samaria Research Studies 16 (2007): 291-98. Pérez Castro, Federico. “Das Kryptogramm des ‘Sefer Abischaʿ’.” VTSup, 7 (1960): 52-60. Petermann, Julius Heinrich. Brevis linguae Samaritanae grammatica, litteratura, chrestomathia cum glossario. Porta Linguarum Orientalium, 3. Carolsruhae et Lipsiae: H. Reuther, 1873. ———. Reisen im Orient. 2 vols. Leipzig: Veit & Comp., 1860-61. Petersen, Andrew. The Towns of Palestine Under Muslim Rule: AD 600-1600. BAR International Series, 1381. Oxford, England: Archaeopress, 2005.

Piccirillo, Michele. “Le iscrizioni di Um Er-Rasas — Kastron Mefaa in Giordania I (19861987).” Liber Annuus 37 (1987): 177-239. Popper, William. The Censorship of Hebrew Books. Burt Franklin Research & Source Works Series, 222, Burt Franklin Judaica Series, 6. New York: Burt Franklin, 1968 (orig.: 1899). Porton, Gary G. Goyim: Gentiles and Israelites in Mishnah-Tosefta. Brown Judaic Studies, 155. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1988. Powels, Sylvia. “Calendar of the Samaritans.” In A Companion to Samaritan Studies, edited by Alan D. Crown, Reinhard Pummer, and Abraham Tal, pp. 46-49. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1993. ———. Der Kalender der Samaritaner anhand des Kitāb ḥisāb as-sinīn und anderer Handschriften. Studia Samaritana, 3. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1977. ———. “The Samaritan Calendar and the Roots of Samaritan Chronology.” In The Samaritans, edited by Alan D. Crown, pp. 691-742. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1989. Poznański, Samuel. “Ibn Ḥazm über jüdische Sekten.” JQR 16 (1904): 765-71. Pringle, Denys. The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: A Corpus. Volume II: L-Z (Excluding Tyre). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Pummer, Reinhard. “Alexander und die Samaritaner nach Josephus und nach samaritanischen Quellen.” In Die Samaritaner und die Bibel: Historische und literarische Wechselwirkungen zwischen biblischen und samaritanischen Traditionen = The Samaritans and the Bible: Historical and Literary Interactions between Biblical and Samaritan Traditions, edited by Jörg Frey, Ursula Schattner-Rieser, and Konrad Schmid, pp. 157-79. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012. ———. “Amulets.” In A Companion to Samaritan Studies, edited by Alan D. Crown, Reinhard Pummer, and Abraham Tal, p. 14. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1993. ———. “ΑΡΓΑΡΙΖΙΝ: A Criterion for Samaritan Provenance?” JSJ 18 (1987-88): 18-25. ———. “Bronze Pendants, Rings and Bracelets with Samaritan Writing from the Byzantine Period: Amulets or Religious Jewelry?” In The Samaritans: History, Texts and Traditions, edited by Stefan Schorch. Studia Judaica, 75, Studia Samaritana, 8. Berlin: De Gruyter, forthcoming. ———. “Demography.” In A Companion to Samaritan Studies, edited by Alan D. Crown, Reinhard Pummer, and Abraham Tal, pp. 70-72. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1993. ———. “Foot-Soldiers of the Byzantines or Spies for the Muslims? The Role of the Samaritans in the Muslim Conquest of Palestine.” In Biblical and Near Eastern Essays: Studies in Honour of Kevin J. Cathcart, pp. 280-96. JSOTSup, 375. London; New York: T & T Clark International, 2004. ———. “The Greek Bible and the Samaritans.” REJ 157 (1998): 269-358.

———. “How to Tell a Samaritan Synagogue from a Jewish Synagogue.” BAR 24, no. 3 (May/June 1998): 24-35. ———. “The Mosaic Tabernacle as the Only Legitimate Sanctuary: The Biblical Tabernacle in Samaritanism.” In The Temple of Jerusalem: From Moses to the Messiah: Studies in Honor of Professor Louis H. Feldman, edited by Steven Fine. pp. 125-50. Brill Reference Library of Judaism, 29. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2011. ———. “Religions in Contact and Conflict: The Samaritans of Caesarea Among ‘Pagans,’ Jews and Christians.” In Samaritan Researches. Vol. V, edited by Vittorio Morabito, Alan D. Crown, and Lucy Davey, pp. 3.29-53. Mandelbaum Studies in Judaica, 10. Sydney: Mandelbaum Publishing, 2000. ———. “Samaritan Amulets from the Roman-Byzantine Period and Their Wearers.” RB 94 (1987): 251-63. ———. “The Samaritan Pentateuch and the New Testament.” NTS 23 (1975-76): 441-43. ———. “Samaritan Rituals and Customs.” In The Samaritans, edited by Alan D. Crown, pp. 650-90. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1989. ———. “Samaritan Synagogues and Jewish Synagogues: Similarities and Differences.” In Jews, Christians, and Polytheists in the Ancient Synagogue: Cultural Interaction During the Greco-Roman Period, edited by Steven Fine, pp. 118-60. Baltimore Studies in the History of Judaism. London; New York: Routledge, 1999. ———. “Samaritan Tabernacle Drawings.” Numen 45 (1998): 30-68. ———. “Samaritanism: A Jewish Sect or an Independent Form of Yahwism?” In Samaritans: Past and Present: Current Studies, edited by Menachem Mor and Friedrich V. Reiterer, pp. 1-24. Studia Judaica, 53, Studia Samaritana, 5. Berlin; New York: De Gruyter, 2010. ———. “Samaritanism in Caesarea Maritima.” In Religious Rivalries and the Struggle for Success in Caesarea Maritima, edited by Terence L. Donaldson, pp. 181-202. Studies in Christianity and Judaism/Études sur le christianisme et le judaïsme, 8. Waterloo, Ontario: Published for the Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion/Corporation Canadienne des Sciences Religieuses, 2000. ———. The Samaritans. Iconography of Religions, 23.5. Leiden: Brill, 1987. ———. “The Samaritans and Their Pentateuch.” In Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance, edited by Gary N. Knoppers and Bernard M. Levinson, pp. 237-69. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007. ———. “The Samaritans in Damascus.” In Samaritan, Hebrew and Aramaic Studies Presented to Professor Abraham Tal, edited by Moshe Bar-Asher and Moshe Florentin, pp. 53*-76*. Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute, 2005. ———. “The Samaritans in Egypt.” In Études sémitiques et samaritaines offertes à Jean Margin, edited by Christian-Bernard Amphoux, Albert Frey, and Ursula Schattner-Rieser, pp. 213-32. Lausanne: Éditions du Zèbre, 1998.

———. The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism, 129. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. ———. “Was There an Altar or a Temple in the Sacred Precinct on Mt. Gerizim?” JSJ (forthcoming). Purvis, James D. The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin of the Samaritan Sect. Harvard Semitic Monographs, 2. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968. ———. “The Samaritan Problem: A Case Study in Jewish Sectarianism in the Roman Era.” In Traditions in Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith, edited by Baruch Halpern and Jon D. Levenson, pp. 323-50. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981. ———. “The Samaritans.” In The Cambridge History of Judaism, 2: The Hellenistic Age, edited by W. D. Davies and Louis Finkelstein, pp. 591-613. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. ———. “The Sanctuary and Holy Vessels in Samaritan Art.” In Samaritan Researches. Vol. V, edited by Vittorio Morabito, Alan D. Crown, and Lucy Davey, pp. 4.27-38. Mandelbaum Studies in Judaica, 10. Sydney: Mandelbaum Publishing, 2000. Rappaport, Uriel. “Reflections on the Origins of the Samaritans.” In Studies in Geography and History in Honour of Yehoshua Ben-Arieh, edited by Yossi Ben-Artzi, Israel Bartal, and Elchanan Reiner, pp. 9*-19*. Jerusalem: Magnes Press; Hebrew University: The Israel Exploration Society, 1999. Ravina, Menashe. Organum and the Samaritans. Trans. from Hebrew by Alan Marbé. Tel Aviv: Israel Music Institute, 1963. Reeg, Gottfried. Die antiken Synagogen in Israel, Part 2. Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B (Geisteswissenschaften) Nr. 12/ 2. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert, 1977. Reich, Ronny. “The Plan of the Samaritan Synagogue at Shaʿalvim.” IEJ 44 (1994): 228-33. ———. “Samaritan Amulets from the Late Roman and Byzantine Periods.” [In Hebrew.] In The Samaritans, edited by Ephraim Stern and Hanan Eshel, pp. 289-309. Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi, Israel Antiquities Authority, Staff Officer for Archaeology — Civil Administration for Judea and Samaria, 2002. Richard, Earl. “Acts 7: An Investigation of Samaritan Evidence.” CBQ 39 (1977): 190-208. Richter-Bernburg, Lutz. “St. John of Acre-Nablus-Damascus: The Samaritan Minority Under Crusaders and Muslims.” In Die Folgen der Kreuzzüge für die orientalische Religionsgemeinschaft: Internationales Kolloquium vom 16.-18. 10. 1996 in Halle/Saale, edited by Walter Beltz, pp. 117-30. Hallesche Beiträge zur Orientwissenschaft, 22. Halle: Institut für Orientalistik, 1997. Ridolfo, Jim, William Hart-Davidson, and Michel McLeod. “Rhetoric and the Digital Humanities: Imagining The Michigan State University Israelite Samaritan Scroll Collection as the Foundation for a Thriving Social Network.” The Journal of Community Informatics 7, no. 3 (2011); http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/article/view/754.

Ringel, Joseph. Césarée de Palestine: étude historique et archéologique. Paris: Éditions Ophrys, 1975. Robert, Philippe de. “La naissance des études samaritaines en Europe aux XVIe et XVIIe siècles.” In Études samaritaines: Pentateuque et Targum, exégèse et philologie, chroniques. Communications présentées à la table ronde internationale “Les manuscrits samaritains. Problèmes et méthodes” (Paris 7-9 Octobre 1985), edited by Jean-Pierre Rothschild and Guy Dominique Sixdenier, pp. 15-26. Louvain-Paris: E. Peeters, 1988. Robertson, Edward. Catalogue of the Samaritan Manuscripts in the John Rylands Library, II. Manchester: John Rylands Library, 1962. ———. “Ibrahim Al-ʿAyyah: A Samaritan Scholar of the Eighteenth Century.” In Essays in Honour of the Very Rev. Dr. J. H. Hertz, Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the British Empire, on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, September 25, 1942 (5703), edited by Isidore Epstein, Ephraim Levine, and Cecil Roth, pp. 341-50. London: Edward Goldston, 1943. ———. “Notes and Extracts from the Semitic MSS in the John Rylands Library. IV. Zainab Aṣ-Ṣafawiyah, a Samaritan Poetess.” BJRL 21 (1937): 425-44. Robinson, Edward. Biblical Researches in Palestine, Mount Sinai, and Arabia Petraea: A Journal of Travels in the Year 1838, by Edward Robinson, and E. Smith; Undertaken in Reference to Biblical Geography; Drawn up from the Original Diaries, with Historical Illustrations by Edward Robinson. 3 vols. London: J. Murray, 1841. Rogers, Edward Thomas. Notices of the Modern Samaritans, Illustrated by Incidents in the Life of Jacob esh Shelaby, Gathered from Him and Translated. London: Sampson Low and Son, 1855. Rogers, Mary Eliza. Domestic Life in Palestine. 2nd ed., rev. and enlarged. London: Bell and Daldy, 1863. Roll, Israel, and Etan Ayalon, eds. Apollonia and Southern Sharon: Model of a Coastal City and Its Hinterland. [In Hebrew.] Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad; Israel Exploration Society, 1989. Rosenberg, Isaac. Lehrbuch der samaritanischen Sprache und Literatur. Mit Facsimile eines samaritanischen Briefes vom gegenwärtigen Hohenpriester der Samaritaner zu Nablus. Die Kunst der Polyglottie, 71. Vienna, Pest and Leipzig: A. Hartleben, 1901. Ross, Dan. Acts of Faith: A Journey to the Fringes of Jewish Identity. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1982. Rothschild, Jean-Pierre. Catalogue des manuscrits samaritains. Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, 1985. ———. “État et perspectives de la recherche sur la halakha samaritaine.” In Samaritan, Hebrew and Aramaic Studies Presented to Professor Abraham Tal, pp. 77x-104x. Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute, 2005. ———. “Samaritan Manuscripts.” In The Samaritans, edited by Alan D. Crown, pp. 771-94.

Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1989. Rubin, Zeʾev. “Christianity in Byzantine Palestine — Missionary Activity and Religious Coercion.” The Jerusalem Cathedra 3 (1983): 97-113. Runesson, Anders, Donald D. Binder, and Birger Olsson. The Ancient Synagogue from Its Origins to 200 C.E.: A Source Book. Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, 72. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2008. Sanderson, Judith E. An Exodus Scroll from Qumran: 4QpaleoExodm and the Samaritan Tradition. Harvard Semitic Studies, 30. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1986. Sassoni, Osher. “A Samaritan 16th Century Curtain.” In The Samaritan Update 5, 1 at http://www.thesamaritanupdate.com (August 2005). Schäfer, Peter. Geschichte der Juden in der Antike. Die Juden Palästinas von Alexander dem Großen bis zur arabischen Eroberung. 2. durchgesehene Auflage. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. ———. History of the Jews in the Greco-Roman World. London: Routledge, 2003. Schenker, Adrian. “Nach dem Exil wurden im Land Israel zwei Tempel errichtet. Ist der Bericht 1 Esdr 5:49 vom Tempelbau der Völker des Landes die älteste literarische Erwähnung des Tempels in Samarien?” In Textual Criticism and Dead Sea Scroll Studies in Honour of Julio Trebolle Barrera: Florilegium Complutense, edited by Andrés Piquer Otero and Pablo A. Torijano Morales, pp. 303-16. JSJSup, 157. Leiden: Brill, 2012. ———. “Le Seigneur choisir-t-il le lieu de son nom ou l’a-t-il choisi? L’apport de la Bible Grecque ancienne à l’histoire du texte samaritain et massorétique.” In Scripture in Tradition: Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo, edited by Anssi Voitila and Jutta Jokiranta, pp. 339-51. JSJSup, 126. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2008. ———. “Textgeschichtliches zum Samaritanischen Pentateuch und Samareitikon.” In Samaritans: Past and Present: Current Studies, edited by Menachem Mor and Friedrich V. Reiterer, pp. 105-21. Studia Judaica, 53, Studia Samaritana, 5. Berlin; New York: De Gruyter, 2010. Schiffman, Lawrence H. “The Samaritans in Amoraic Halakhah.” In Shoshannat Yaakov: Jewish and Iranian Studies in Honor of Yaakov Elman, edited by Shai Secunda and Steven Fine, pp. 371-89. The Brill Reference Library of Judaism, 35. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2012. ———. “The Samaritans in Tannaitic Halakhah.” JQR 75 (1984-85): 323-50. Schneider, A. M. “Römische und byzantinische Bauten auf dem Garizim.” ZDPV 68 (1951): 211-34. Schorch, Stefan. “The Construction of Samari(t)an Identity from the Inside and from the Outside.” In Between Cooperation and Hostility: Multiple Identities in Ancient Judaism and the Interaction with Foreign Powers, edited by Rainer Albertz and Jakob Wöhrle, pp. 135-50. Journal of Ancient Judaism, Supp. 11. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,

2013. ———. “A Critical editio maior of the Samaritan Pentateuch: State of Research, Principles, and Problems.” Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 2 (2013): 100-20. ———. “In aeternum et ultra: Die Vorstellung eines Zeitenendes nach Gen 8,22 und Ex 15,18.” In Nichts Neues unter der Sonne? Zeitvorstellungen im Alten Testament: Festschrift für Ernst-Joachim Waschke zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Jens KotjakoReeb, Stefan Schorch, Johannes Thon, and Benjamin Ziemer, pp. 371-83. BZAW, 450. Berlin; Boston, 2014. ———. “Der Pentateuch der Samaritaner: Seine Erforschung und seine Bedeutung für das Verständnis des alttestamentlichen Bibeltextes.” In Die Samaritaner und die Bibel: Historische und literarische Wechselwirkungen zwischen biblischen und samaritanischen Traditionen = The Samaritans and the Bible: Historical and Literary Interactions between Biblical and Samaritan Traditions, edited by Jörg Frey, Ursula Schattner-Rieser, and Konrad Schmid, pp. 5-29. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012. ———. “Spoken Hebrew of the Late Second Temple Period According to the Oral and the Written Samaritan Tradition.” In Conservatism and Innovation in the Hebrew Language of the Hellenistic Period: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls & Ben Sira, edited by Jan Joosten and Jean-Sebastien Rey, pp. 175-90. STDJ, 73. Leiden: Brill, 2008. ———. Die Vokale des Gesetzes. Die samaritanische Lesetradition als Textzeugin der Tora. 1. Das Buch Genesis. BZAW, 339. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2004. Schreiber, Monika. The Comfort of Kin: Samaritan Community, Kinship, and Marriage. Brill’s Series in Jewish Studies, 51. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2014. Schreiber-Humer, Monika. “The Comfort of Kin: Samaritan Community, Kinship, and Marriage.” Ph.D. diss., Universität Wien, 2009. Schuller, Eileen. “4Q372 1: A Text About Joseph.” RevQ 14 (1990): 349-76. Schur, Nathan. “ʿAbd as-Sāmīri.” In A Companion to Samaritan Studies, edited by Alan D. Crown, Reinhard Pummer, and Abraham Tal, p. 2. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1993. ———. History of the Samaritans. 2nd Revised and Enlarged Edition. Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testamentes und des antiken Judentums, 18. Frankfurt am Main; Bern; New York; Paris: Peter Lang, 1992. ———. “The New Dispersal of the Samaritans of Nablus in the Twentieth Century.” In Samaritan Researches. Vol. V, edited by Vittorio Morabito, Alan D. Crown, and Lucy Davey, pp. 3.60-63. Mandelbaum Studies in Judaica, 10. Sydney: Mandelbaum Publishing, 2000. ———. “The Samaritans in the Ottoman Period (1516-1918).” In Proceedings of the First International Congress of the Société d’Études Samaritaines, Tel Aviv, April 11-13, 1988, edited by Abraham Tal and Moshe Florentin, pp. 147-52. Tel Aviv: Chaim Rosenberg School for Jewish Studies, Tel Aviv University, 1991.

———. “The Tsedaka Family: Its History and Importance in Recent Samaritan Annals.” In Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of the Société d’Études Samaritaines, edited by Haseeb Shehadeh, Habib Tawa, and Reinhard Pummer, pp. 83-86. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 2005. Schwartz, Daniel R. 2 Maccabees. Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature (CEJL). Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2008. Schwartz, Seth. “John Hyrcanus I’s Destruction of the Gerizim Temple and JudaeanSamaritan Relations.” Jewish History 7 (1993): 9-25. Schwarzbaum, Haim. Biblical and Extra-Biblical Legends in Islamic Folk-Literature. Beiträge zur Sprach- und Kulturgeschichte des Orients, 30. Waldorf-Hessen: H. Vorndran, 1982. Scobie, Charles H. H. “The Origins and Developments of Samaritan Christianity.” NTS 19 (1972-73): 390-414. Scolnic, Benjamin Edidin. “Mattathias and the Jewish Man of Modein.” JBL 129 (2010): 463-83. Scott, James C. Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990. Segal, Michael. “The Text of the Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Materia Giudaica 12 (2007): 5-20. Seidel, Hans. “Kritische Anmerkungen zur sogenannten Instrumentalmusik der Samaritaner.” leqach 1 (2001): 151-58. Shafer, Grant R. “Further Samaritan Motifs in Stephen’s Speech (Acts 7:2-53).” In Samaritan Researches. Vol. V, edited by Vittorio Morabito, Alan D. Crown, and Lucy Davey, pp. 2.03-12. Mandelbaum Studies in Judaica, 10. Sydney: Mandelbaum Publishing, 2000. Shavit, Yaacov, Yaacov Goldstein, and Haim Beʾer, eds. Personalities in Eretz-Israel 17991948: A Biographical Dictionary. [In Hebrew.] Tel-Aviv: Am Oved Publishers, 1983. Shehadeh, Haseeb. “Abraham b. Marḥib b. Ṣadaqa Aṣṣafrī (1852-1928).” In A Companion to Samaritan Studies, edited by Alan D. Crown, Reinhard Pummer, and Abraham Tal, p. 6. Tübingen: J. C. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1993. ———. “Ab Sakwa (Murğān) b. Asʿad.” In A Companion to Samaritan Studies, edited by Alan D. Crown, Reinhard Pummer, and Abraham Tal, pp. 3-4. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1993. ———. “The Arabic Translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch.” In The Samaritans, edited by Alan D. Crown, pp. 481-516. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1989. ———. “Arabic Versions of the Pentateuch.” In A Companion to Samaritan Studies, edited by Alan D. Crown, Reinhard Pummer, and Abraham Tal, pp. 22-24. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1993. ———. “Commentaries on the Torah.” In A Companion to Samaritan Studies, edited by

Alan D. Crown, Reinhard Pummer, and Abraham Tal, pp. 59-61. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1993. ———. “On the Manuscript of Kitab al-Chulf by the Priest Phinhas b. Iytzhaq the Haftawi.” A.B.–The Samaritan News 1084-1085 (17.4.2011): 108-10 (Engl. introduction); 87-108 (Arabic text). ———. “The Samaritan Arabic Liturgy.” In Samaritan Researches. Vol. V, edited by Vittorio Morabito, Alan D. Crown, and Lucy Davey, pp. 2.47-84. Mandelbaum Studies in Judaica, 10. Sydney: Mandelbaum Publishing, 2000. ———. “The Samaritan High Priest ʿImrān Ben Salāma and His Poem Against Mubārak alMufarrağī Who Became a Convert to Islam in 1841.” In Samaria, Samarians, Samaritans: Studies on Bible, History and Linguistics, edited by József Zsengellér, pp. 293-309. Studia Judaica, 66, Studia Samaritana, 6. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, 2011. Shen, Peidong, et al. “Reconstruction of Patrilineages and Matrilineages of Samaritans and Other Israeli Populations from Y-Chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA Sequence Variation.” Human Mutation 24 (2004): 248-60. Sherwood, Herriet. “How Ukrainian Women Saved the Samaritans of Mount Gerizim.” The Guardian, 11 February 2013 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/11/ukrainianwomen-samaritans-mount-gerizim). Silvestre de Sacy, Antoine-Isaac. Chrestomathie arabe, ou, Extraits de divers écrivains arabes, tant en prose qu’en vers, avec une traduction française et des notes, à l’usage des élèves de l’École royale et spéciale des langues orientales vivantes. 2e ed. corr. et augmentée. 3 vols. Paris: Imprimerie royale, 1826-27. Simon, Marcel. Jewish Sects and Parties in the Time of Jesus. Translated by James H. Farley. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967. Sivan, Hagith. Palestine in Late Antiquity. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Smith, Morton. Palestinian Parties and Politics That Shaped the Old Testament. New York and London: Columbia University, 1971. Sobernheim, Moritz. “Samaritanische Inschriften aus Damascus.” MNDPV 8 (1902): 70-80. Sonne, Isaiah. “The Use of Rabbinical Literature as Historical Sources II. The Final Break Between Jews and Samaritans.” JQR 36 (1945): 147-69. Spigel, Chad S. Ancient Synagogue Seating Capacities: Methodology, Analysis and Limits. Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum, 149. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Spiro, Abram. “Stephen’s Samaritan Background.” In The Acts of the Apostles, edited by Johannes Munck and rev. by William F. Albright and C. S. Mann, pp. 285-300. The Anchor Bible, 31. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1967. Stemberger, Günter. Jews and Christians in the Holy Land: Palestine in the Fourth Century. Translated by Ruth Tuschling. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000. Stenhouse, Paul. “ʿAqbon.” In A Companion to Samaritan Studies, edited by Alan D.

Crown, Reinhard Pummer, and Abraham Tal, pp. 20-21. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1993. ———. “Baba Rabba: Historical or Legendary Figure? Some Observations.” In New Samaritan Studies, edited by Alan D. Crown and Lucy Davey, pp. 327-32. Sydney: Mandelbaum, 1995. ———. “The Chronicle of Abū ʾl-Fatḥ and Samaritan Origins: 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah Viewed Through the Prism of Samaritan Tradition.” In Die Samaritaner und die Bibel: Historische und literarische Wechselwirkungen zwischen biblischen und samaritanischen Traditionen = The Samaritans and the Bible: Historical and Literary Interactions between Biblical and Samaritan Traditions, edited by Jörg Frey, Ursula Schattner-Rieser, and Konrad Schmid, pp. 303-21. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012. ———. “Further Reflections on the Falasha and Samaritan Versions of the Legend of Susanna.” In Between Africa and Zion: Proceedings of the First International Congress of the Society for the Study of Ethiopian Jewry, edited by Steven Kaplan, Tudor Parfitt, and Emanuela Trevisan Semi, pp. 94-112. Jerusalem: Yad Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, 1995. ———. “Reflections on Samaritan Belief in an After-life: Text-proofs for ‘The Appointed day’ in Sam Ms BL Or 10370.” In Samaria, Samarians, Samaritans: Studies on Bible, History and Linguistics, edited by József Zsengellér, pp. 245-60. Studia Judaica, 66, Studia Samaritana, 6. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, 2011. Sterling, Gregory E. Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Stern, Ephraim. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible. Volume II: The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Periods, 732-332 B.C.E. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 2001. Stern, Ephraim, and Yitzhak Magen. “Archaeological Evidence for the First Stage of the Samaritan Temple on Mount Gerizim.” IEJ 52 (2002): 49-57. Stern, Sacha. Jewish Identity in Early Rabbinic Writings. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums, 23. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Stevenson, William Barron. The Crusaders in the East: A Brief History of the Wars of Islam with the Latins in Syria During the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries. Cambridge: University Press, 1907. Strack, Hermann L., and Paul Billerbeck. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. Erster (Doppel-) Band: Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1922. Sussman, Varda. “The Binding of Isaac as Depicted on a Samaritan Lamp.” IEJ 48 (1998): 183-89. ———. “Samaritan Oil-Lamps.” In Samaritan Researches. Vol. V, edited by Vittorio Morabito, Alan D. Crown, and Lucy Davey, pp. 4.14-26. Mandelbaum Studies in Judaica, 10. Sydney: Mandelbaum Publishing, 2000. ———. “Samaritan Oil-Lamps.” [In Hebrew.] In The Samaritans, edited by Ephraim Stern

and Hanan Eshel, pp. 339-71. Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi, Israel Antiquities Authority, Staff Officer for Archaeology — Civil Administration for Judea and Samaria, 2002. ———. “The Samaritan Oil Lamps from Apollonia-Arsuf.” Tel Aviv 10 (1983): 71-96, Pls. 2-12. Taglicht, Israel. Die Kuthäer als Beobachter des Gesetzes nach talmudischen Quellen nebst Berücksichtigung der samaritanischen Correspondenz und Liturgie. Berlin: Julius Feiertag, 1888. Tal, Abraham. “Divergent Traditions of the Samaritan Pentateuch as Reflected by Its Aramaic Targum.” Journal for the Aramaic Bible 1 (1999): 297-314. ———. “The First Samaritanologist: Wilhelm Gesenius.” In Biblische Exegese und hebräische Lexikographie: das “Hebräisch-deutsche Handwörterbuch” von Wilhelm Gesenius als Spiegel und Quelle alttestamentlicher und hebräischer Forschung, 200 Jahre nach seiner ersten Auflage, edited by Stefan Schorch and Ernst-Joachim Waschke, pp. 139-51. BZAW, 427. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013. ———. “Grammarians and Grammatical Treatises.” In A Companion to Samaritan Studies, edited by Alan D. Crown, Reinhard Pummer, and Abraham Tal, pp. 105-07. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1993. ———. “Hebrew and Holy Language in Judea and Samaria.” [In Hebrew.] Language Studies 11-12 (2008): 121-32. ———. “In Search of Late Samaritan Aramaic.” Aramaic Studies 7 (2009): 163-88. ———. “Observations on the Orthography of the Samaritan Pentateuch.” In Samaritan Researches. Vol. V, edited by Vittorio Morabito, Alan D. Crown, and Lucy Davey, pp. 1.26-35. Mandelbaum Studies in Judaica, 10. Sydney: Mandelbaum Publishing, 2000. ———. “Le Pentateuque samaritain.” In L’enfance de la Bible hébraïque: L’histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament à la lumière des recherches récentes, edited by Adrian Schenker and Philippe Hugo, pp. 77-104. Le Monde de la Bible, 52. Genève: Labor et Fides, 2005. ———. “Samaritan Aramaic.” In The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook, edited by Stefan Weninger et al., pp. 619-28. Handbooks on Linguistics and Communication Science, 36. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2011. ———. Samaritan Aramaic. Lehrbücher orientalischer Sprachen III/2. Münster: UgaritVerlag, 2013. ———. “Samaritan Literature.” In The Samaritans, edited by Alan D. Crown, pp. 413-67. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1989. ———. “The Samaritan Targum of the Pentateuch.” In Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, edited by Martin Jan Mulder, pp. 189-216. Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1988. Tal, Oren. “A Bilingual Greek-Samaritan Inscription from Apollonia-Arsuf/Sozousa: Yet More Evidence of the Use of the ΕΙΣ ΘΕΟΣ ΜΟΝΟΣ Inscriptions of Palestine.”

Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 194 (2015): 169-75. ———. “A Winepress at Apollonia-Arsuf: More Evidence on the Samaritan Presence in Roman-Byzantine Southern Sharon.” Liber Annuus 59 (2009): 319-42. Tal, Oren, and Itamar Taxel. Samaritan Cemeteries and Tombs in the Central Coastal Plain: Archaeology and History of the Samaritan Settlement Outside Samaria (ca. 300-700 CE). Ägypten und Altes Testament, 82. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2015. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “The Emergence of Jewish Sectarianism in the Early Second Temple Period.” In King, Cult and Calendar in Ancient Israel: Collected Studies, edited by Shemaryahu Talmon, pp. 165-201. Jerusalem: Magnes Press; Hebrew University, 1986. ———. “The ‘Good Samaritan’ — A ‘Good Israelite’.” In “Wer ist wie du, Herr, unter den Göttern?” Studien zur Theologie und Religionsgeschichte Israels, für Otto Kaiser zum 70. Geburtstag, edited by Ingo Kottsieper et al., pp. 472-85. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994. ———. “A Masada Fragment of Samaritan Origin.” IEJ 47 (1997): 220-32. ———. “A Papyrus Fragment Inscribed in Palaeo-Hebrew Script.” In Masada: Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963-1965: Final Reports, pp. 138-49. The Masada Reports, 6. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society; Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1999. Taylor, W. R. “Samaritan Inscription from Gaza.” JPOS 16 (1936): 131-37. Thames, John Tracy, Jr. “A New Discussion of the Meaning of the Phrase ʿam hāʾareṣ in the Hebrew Bible.” JBL 130 (2011): 109-25. Thiessen, Matthew. “4Q372 1 and the Continuation of Joseph’s Exile.” DSD 15 (2008): 38095. Thompson, Thomas L. Biblical Narrative and Palestine’s History: Changing Perspectives. Vol. 2. Copenhagen International Seminar. Sheffield: Equinox, 2013. Thyen, Hartwig. “Joh 8,48f: Die ʾΙουδαῖοι werfen Jesus vor, er sei ein dämonisch besessener Samaritaner: Indiz für eine besondere Nähe unseres Evangelisten zu samaritanischer Theologie?” In Hartwig Thyen, Studien zum Corpus Iohanneum, pp. 554-60. WUNT, 214. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. ———. Das Johannesevangelium. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, 6. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Tov, Emanuel. “A New Edition of the Samaritan Pentateuch.” In Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, Septuagint: Collected Essays, Volume 3. By Emanuel Tov, pp. 250-57. VTSup, 167. Leiden: Brill, 2015. ———. “The Socio-Religious Background of the Paleo-Hebrew Biblical Texts Found at Qumran.” In Geschichte, Tradition, Reflexion: Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag. Vol. 1, edited by Hubert Cancik, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Peter Schäfer, pp. 353-74. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1996. ———. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible: Third Edition, Revised and Expanded. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012.

Tropper, Josef. “Die samaritanischen Inschriften des Pergamonmuseums.” ZDPV 111 (1995): 118-34, Pls. 1-10. Trotter, Robert J. F. Did the Samaritans of the Fourth Century Know the Epistle to the Hebrews? LUOS, Monograph Series, 1, 1961. Trümper, Monika. “The Oldest Original Synagogue Building in the Diaspora: The Delos Synagogue Reconsidered.” Hesperia 73 (2004): 513-98. Tsedaka, Benyamim. “Calculation of the Israelite Samaritan Calendar.” A.B.–The Samaritan News 1125 (14.10.2012): 94-95. ———. “The Current Genetic Situation.” A.B.–The Samaritan News 1128-1129 (1.2.2013): 62-64. ———. “The High Priesthood and the Israelite Samaritan Priests.” A.B.–The Samaritan News 1107-1108 (13.4.2012): 67-74. ———. “The Samaritan Households.” A.B.–The Samaritan News 1111-1112 (1.6.2012): 8892. ———. “Samaritan Israelite Families and Households That Disappeared.” In Samaritans: Past and Present: Current Studies, edited by Menachem Mor and Friedrich V. Reiterer, pp. 221-37. Studia Judaica, 53, Studia Samaritana, 5. Berlin; New York: De Gruyter, 2010. ———. Summary of the History of the Israelite-Samaritans. [In Hebrew.] Ḥolon, Israel: A.B. Institute of Samaritan Studies Press, 2001. Tsedaka, Yitzhak. “When It Is Hot It Is Hard to Make Decisions.” A.B.–The Samaritan News 1092-1093 (29.7.2011): 54-59. Ulrich, Eugene Charles. “4QJoshuaa and Joshua’s First Altar in the Promised Land.” In New Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Paris 1992, edited by George J. Brooke and Florentino García Martínez, pp. 89-104. STDJ, 15. Leiden; New York; Cologne: Brill, 1994. ———. “The Old Latin, Mount Gerizim, and 4QJOSHa.” In Textual Criticism and Dead Sea Scrolls Studies in Honour of Julio Trebolle Barrera: Florilegium complutense, edited by Andres Piquer Otero and Pablo A. Torijano Morales, pp. 361-75. JSJSup, 157. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2012. Urien, Fanny. “Frontières, mémoire et médiation dans la communauté samaritaine, séparée entre Israël et les territoires palestiniens.” Master’s thesis, Paris: Écoles des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, 2011. ———. “Rendre visible ses origines et attester son authenticité. Organisation sociale, transmission et construction identitaire dans la communauté samaritaine, située entre Ḥolon (Israël) et Kiryat Luza (Cisjordanie).” Ph.D. diss., Paris: École des Hautes Études de Sciences Sociales, in preparation. Urien-Lefranc, Fanny. “Construction d’un discours prophétique pendant la Pâque samaritaine: Annonce d’une paix future entre Israéliens et Palestiniens sur le mont

Garizim.” In Penser la fin du monde, edited by Emma Aubin-Boltanski and Claudine Gauthier, pp. 363-390. Paris: CNRS Éditions, 2014. VanderKam, James C. From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests After the Exile. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2004. Waltke, Bruce Kenneth. “Prolegomena to the Samaritan Pentateuch.” Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1965. ———. “The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Text of the Old Testament.” In New Perspectives on the Old Testament, edited by J. Barton Payne, pp. 212-39. Symposium Series [Evangelical Theological Society], 3. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1970. Wardle, Timothy. The Jerusalem Temple and Early Christian Identity. WUNT, 2. Reihe, 291. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Wasserstrom, Steven Mark. “Species of Misbelief: A History of Muslim Heresiography of the Jews.” Ph.D. diss., Toronto: University of Toronto, 1985. Watad, Ali. “The 14th Century Lexicon of Pinḥas Hakohen ben Joseph Harrabban.” In Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of the Société d’Études samaritaines, Helsinki, August 1-4, 1988, edited by Haseeb Shehadeh, Habib Tawa, and Reinhard Pummer, pp. 149-57. Paris: Librairie orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 2005. Wechsler, M. G. “Two Para-Biblical Novellae from Qumran Cave 4: A Reevaluation of 4Q550.” DSD 7 (2000): 130-72. Wedel, Gerhard. “Gebrauch von muʿtazilitischer Terminologie in der samaritanischen Theologie — Eine Neubewertung des Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabbāḫ von Abū l-Ḥasan aṣ-Ṣūrī.” In “Durch Dein Wort ward jegliches Ding!”: 2. Mandäistische und samaritanistische Tagung: Zum Gedenken an Rudolf Macuch (1919-1993) = “Through Thy Word All Things Were Made!”: 2nd International Conference of Mandaic and Samaritan Studies, edited by Rainer Voigt, pp. 313-41. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2013. ———. “Muʿtazilitische Tendenzen im Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabbāḫ des Samaritaners Abu l-Ḥasan aṣṢūrī.” In A Common Rationality: Muʿtazilism in Islam and Judaism, edited by Camilla Adang, Sabine Schmidtke, and David Sklare, pp. 349-75. Istanbuler Texte und Studien, 15. Würzburg: Egon Verlag in Kommission, 2007. ———. “The Question of the Samaritan Responsa and the Transmission of Knowledge Around the Mediterranean in Classical Antiquity and Medieval Times.” In Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of the Société d’Études Samaritaines, edited by Haseeb Shehadeh, Habib Tawa, and Reinhard Pummer, pp. 55-76. Paris: Geuthner, 2005. ———. “Transfer of Knowledge and the Biographies of Samaritan Scholars: Careers of Samaritan Physicians Under Muslim Patronage.” In Samaritan Researches. Vol. V, edited by Vittorio Morabito, Alan D. Crown, and Lucy Davey, pp. 3.75-83. Mandelbaum Studies in Judaica, 10. Sydney: Mandelbaum Publishing, 2000. Weigelt, Frank. “Die exegetische Literatur der Samaritaner.” In “Durch Dein Wort ward jegliches Ding!”: 2. Mandäistische und samaritanistische Tagung: Zum Gedenken an Rudolf Macuch (1919-1993) = “Through Thy Word All Things Were Made!”: 2nd

International Conference of Mandaic and Samaritan Studies, edited by Rainer Voigt, pp. 343-90. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2013. Weissenrieder, Annette. Images of Illness in the Gospel of Luke: Insights of Ancient Medical Texts. WUNT, 2. Reihe, 164. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Williamson, H. G. M. Review of Tradition Kept: The Literature of the Samaritans by Robert T. Anderson and Terry Giles. Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies 3 (2007): 162-64. Williamson, H. G. M., and Craig A. Evans. “Samaritans.” In Dictionary of New Testament Background, edited by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter, pp. 1056-61. Downers Grove, IL; Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 2000. Yaniv, Bracha. “The Samaritan Torah Case.” In Samaritan Researches. Vol. V, edited by Vittorio Morabito, Alan D. Crown, and Lucy Davey, pp. 4.03-13. Mandelbaum Studies in Judaica, 10. Sydney: Mandelbaum Publishing, 2000. ———. The Torah Case: Its History and Design. [In Hebrew.] Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press; Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute, 1997. Younger, K. Lawson, Jr. “The Deportations of the Israelites.” JBL 117 (1998): 201-27. ———. “The Fall of Samaria in Light of Recent Research.” CBQ 61 (1999): 461-82. ———. “The Repopulation of Samaria (2 Kings 17:24, 27-31) in Light of Recent Study.” In The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions. The Proceedings of a Symposium, August 12-14, 2001, at Trinity International University, edited by James K. Hoffmeier and Alan Millard, pp. 254-80. Grand Rapids; Cambridge, U. K.: Eerdmans, 2004. Zahn, Molly M. Rethinking Rewritten Scripture: Composition and Exegesis in the 4QReworked Pentateuch Manuscripts. STDJ, 95. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2011. Zangenberg, Jürgen. “Δύναμις τοῦ θεοῦ. Das religionsgeschichtliche Profil des Simon Magus aus Sebaste.” In Religionsgeschichte des Neuen Testaments. Festschrift für Klaus Berger zum 60. Geburtstag, edited by Axel von Dobbeler, Kurt Erlemann, and Roman Heiligenthal, pp. 519-40. Tübingen und Basel: Francke, 2000. ———. Frühes Christentum in Samarien. Topographische und traditionsgeschichtliche Studien zu den Samarientexten im Johannesevangelium. Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter, 27. Tübingen: Francke, 1998. ———. “The Sanctuary on Mount Gerizim: Observations on the Results of 20 Years of Excavation.” In Temple Building and Temple Cult: Architecture and Cultic Paraphernalia of Temples in the Levant (2.-1. Mill. B.C.E.): Proceedings of a Conference on the Occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the Institute of Biblical Archaeology at the University of Tübingen (28-30 May 2010), edited by Jens Kamlah and Henrike Michelau. Abhandlungen des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, 41, pp. 399-418. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012. Zenger, Erich, ed. Einleitung in das Alte Testament. 5th ed. Kohlhammer Studienbücher

Theologie, 1,1. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2004. Zenger, Erich, and Christian Frevel, eds. Einleitung in das Alte Testament. 8th rev. ed. Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie, 1,1. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2012. Zertal, Adam. “The Pahwah of Samaria (Northern Israel) During the Persian Period. Types of Settlement, Economy, History and New Discoveries.” Transeuphratène 3 (1990): 9-30. ———. “The Province of Samaria (Assyrian Samerina) in the Late Iron Age (Iron Age III).” In Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period, edited by Oded Lipschits and Joseph Blenkinsopp, pp. 377-412. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003. Zewi, Tamar. The Samaritan Version of Saadya Gaon’s Translation of the Pentateuch: Critical Edition and Study of MS London BL OR7562 and Related MSS. Biblia Arabica. Texts and Studies, 3. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2015. Zsengellér, József. “The Day of Atonement of the Samaritans.” In The Day of Atonement: Its Interpretation in Early Jewish and Christian Traditions, edited by Thomas Nieke and Tobias Nicklas, pp. 139-61. Themes in Biblical Narrative: Jewish and Christian Traditions, 15. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2012. ———. Gerizim as Israel: Northern Tradition of the Old Testament and the Early History of the Samaritans/Gerizim als Israel. Noordelijke Traditie van het Oude Testament en de Vroege Geschiedenis van de Samaritanen (met een samenvatting in het Nederlands). Utrechtse Theologische Reeks, 38. Utrecht: Faculteit der Godgeleerdheid, Universiteit Utrecht, 1998.

Index of Sources I. Bible 1. Old Testament Genesis Ge 1:1–46:28; 237 Ge 1:2–50:4; 225 Ge 3:1-8; 225 Ge 4:25; 267 Ge 6:14; 224 Ge 8:20; 267 Ge 12:6; 90, 206 Ge 12:6-8; 206 Ge 17:14; 270 Ge 22:2; 90 Ge 22:8; 267 Ge 22:9; 267 Ge 28:19; 166 Ge 33:18-20; 101 Ge 35:6; 166 Ge 37:34; 101 Ge 37–45; 227 Ge 41:45; 191 Ge 49:26; 90

Exodus Ex 2:3; 224 Ex 2:18; 290n.3 Ex 3:18; 290n.3 Ex 4:27-28; 267 Ex 6:18; 166 Ex 12; 260 Ex 12:2; 259 Ex 12:3-4; 261 Ex 13:11; 205 Ex 13:11-16; 271 Ex 15; 225 Ex 15:1; 283 Ex 15:3; 115, 283 Ex 15:18; 98 Ex 15:26; 115 Ex 16:32-33; 287

Ex 19–20; 225 Ex 20; 293 Ex 20:3; 205 Ex 20:4; 92, 113, 215, 284 Ex 20:8-11; 290 Ex 20:17; 205 Ex 20:24; 202, 206 Ex 21 – 22:15; 227 Ex 21:1-3; 227n.37 Ex 22:26; 235 Ex 22:27; 235 Ex 23:14-17; 263 Ex 23:17; 267 Ex 24:12; 230 Ex 24:18; 230 Ex 25:10-22; 287 Ex 25:23-30; 287 Ex 25:31-40; 287 Ex 27:1-8; 287 Ex 27:3; 287 Ex 28:1-43; 287 Ex 28:4; 287 Ex 28:33-35; 84 Ex 28:39; 287 Ex 30:1; 287 Ex 30:11-16; 266, 271 Ex 30:17-21; 287 Ex 30:18; 287 Ex 30:27; 287 Ex 31:1-11; 10 Ex 31:12-17; 290 Ex 31:18; 230 Ex 32; 144 Ex 33:11; 230 Ex 34:18-23; 263 Ex 34:20; 271 Ex 34:23; 267 Ex 35:3; 290 Ex 37:10-16; 287 Ex 38:1-7; 287 Ex 38:3; 287 Ex 38:8; 115, 287 Ex 38:30; 287 Ex 39:38; 287

Ex 39:39; 287

Leviticus Le 2:13; 11n.8 Le 5:2-3; 116 Le 9:21; 287 Le 9:22; 287 Le 11–17; 116 Le 12; 278 Le 12:3; 270n.24 Le 13:49; 40 Le 14:2-32; 40 Le 14:8-9; 116 Le 15:1-18; 292 Le 15:16-17; 278, 292 Le 15:19-24; 278, 290 Le 16; 264 Le 16:23-28; 116 Le 18:6-30; 235 Le 19:18; 39 Le 21:10; 166 Le 22:6; 116 Le 23; 227 Le 23:1-32; 227n.37 Le 23:15-16; 263 Le 23:24; 257 Le 23:27-32; 264 Le 23:40; 265 Le 24:10-11; 191n.98 Le 26:3-46; 226

Numbers Nu 1:18; 191n.98 Nu 3:19; 166 Nu 4:9; 287 Nu 4:14; 287 Nu 6:22-27; 95 Nu 10:1-10; 287 Nu 10:33; 290n.3 Nu 10:35; 96, 115, 184 Nu 12:1; 191 Nu 14:14; 115 Nu 15:38; 281 Nu 17; 287

Nu 18:15-16; 271 Nu 19; 116 Nu 19:11; 39 Nu 20:22-29; 267 Nu 23–24; 159 Nu 25; 159 Nu 25:6-13; 166 Nu 25:13; 166 Nu 29:1; 257 Nu 31; 243 Nu 31:19-20; 116

Deuteronomy De 1:1; 230 De 1:3-5; 230 De 2:8; 234 De 4:15-18; 92 De 4:15-19; 113 De 4:29-31a; 177 De 5:7; 205 De 5:8; 92, 215 De 5:12-15; 290 De 6:4; 115 De 6:4-9; 280 De 6:8-9; 280 De 7:26; 115 De 11:13-21; 280 De 11:29; 34, 76, 205, 205, 206 De 11:29-30; 34 De 11:30; 34, 76, 77, 205, 206 De 12; 206 De 12:5-6; 203 De 14:3-21; 116 De 16:1; 259 De 16:16; 263, 267 De 18:3; 159 De 18:15; 63, 125, 126, 127, 293 De 18:18; 293 De 23:10-11; 278, 292 De 23:10-15; 116 De 23:20; 234 De 24:1; 273 De 24:3; 273n.33 De 24:8; 116

De 26:14; 116 De 27; 206 De 27:1-26; 34 De 27:2-3; 204, 205 De 27:3; 205n.41 De 27:4; 34, 54, 76, 90, 202, 203, 204, 205, 267 De 27:4-6; 204, 206 De 27:5-7; 203, 205 De 27:9-26; 225 De 29:1; 257 De 29:23; 115 De 31; 277 De 31:8; 177 De 31:9; 230 De 31:18; 10n.6 De 31:24; 277 De 32; 225, 277 De 32–34; 277 De 32:1-43; 225 De 32:3-4; 227 De 32:35; 295 De 32:52; 63 De 33; 272 De 33:15; 89, 267 De 33:26; 115 De 34; 272 De 34:4; 63 De 34:12; 198

Joshua Jos 4:20; 90, 267 Jos 4:20-24; 34 Jos 8:33; 76 Jos 9:6; 204 Jos 18:1; 9, 11 Jos 18:13; 166n.155

Judges Jdg 3–9; 20 Jdg 9:7; 76 Jdg 9:37; 76

2 Samuel 2Sa 24:18-25; 203

1 Kings 1Ki 2:27; 13

2 Kings 2Ki 15:29; 27 2Ki 17; 13, 23, 28, 29, 30, 37, 41, 56, 57, 60, 298 2Ki 17:1-6; 29 2Ki 17:4; 27 2Ki 17:5-6; 28 2Ki 17:7-23; 29 2Ki 17:24; 28, 32, 56, 66 2Ki 17:24-31; 14 2Ki 17:24-34a; 29 2Ki 17:24-41; 16, 20, 26, 29, 30, 32, 56 2Ki 17:29; 5, 26, 28 2Ki 17:33-34; 28 2Ki 17:34; 28 2Ki 17:34b-40; 29 2Ki 17:41; 28 2Ki 23:15-20; 30n.11

1 Chronicles 1Ch 5:26; 27n.3 1Ch 21:18-28; 203 1Ch 22; 203 1Ch 23:12; 166

2 Chronicles 2Ch 7:12; 83 2Ch 11:13-17; 31 2Ch 13; 31 2Ch 13:3-18; 31 2Ch 15:9; 31 2Ch 15:9-15; 31 2Ch 28:8-15; 31 2Ch 30:1; 32 2Ch 31:1; 32 2Ch 34:6; 32 2Ch 34:33; 32

Ezra Ezr 3:3; 87 Ezr 4; 32, 33 Ezr 4:1; 57

Ezr 4:1-5; 32 Ezr 4:2; 14 Ezr 4:6-23; 32

Nehemiah Ne 1:9; 202 Ne 4:1; 57, 58 Ne 8:15; 265 Ne 13:28; 59, 81

Psalms Ps 54:16; 142 Ps 72:16; 73

Jeremiah Je 7:12; 13 Je 7:14; 14 Je 26:6; 13 Je 26:9; 13

Ezekiel Eze 40:10-16; 81 Eze 46:1-3; 81

Ben Sira Sir 50:25-26; 47, 48, 52

1 Maccabees 1Ma 1:52-53; 61 1Ma 1:62-64; 61 1Ma 4:36-59; 260

2 Maccabees 2Ma 1:10–2:18; 260 2Ma 2:4-8; 63 2Ma 5:22-23; 47, 49, 50 2Ma 5:23; 76, 86 2Ma 6:1-2; 47, 50, 51 2Ma 6:2; 76, 78, 86

1 Esdras 1Es 5:48; 87 1Es 5:49; 87 1Es 5:50-52; 87

1Es 5:63; 87 1Es 5:63-70; 57, 87 1Es 5:66; 57

2 Esdras 2Es 14:7; 58

2. New Testament Matthew Mt 10:5-6; 6, 25, 37 Mt 10:5-42; 37 Mt 10:7; 37

Luke Lu 9:51-53; 6, 25, 38 Lu 9:51–19:44; 25, 38 Lu 9:53; 64 Lu 10:25-37; 1, 6, 39 Lu 17:11-19; 6, 39 Lu 17:18; 40

John Jn 4; 43, 45, 63 Jn 4:4-42; 6, 25, 42, 195 Jn 4:9; 42 Jn 4:25; 224 Jn 4:40; 39 Jn 4:41; 42 Jn 8:33-47; 43 Jn 8:48; 6, 25, 43

Acts Ac 6:1-6; 41 Ac 7; 44, 45 Ac 7:2-53; 44 Ac 7:44; 44 Ac 7:4; 44n.29 Ac 7:5; 44n.29 Ac 7:32; 44n.29 Ac 7:37; 44n.29 Ac 7:48; 44 Ac 8; 41 Ac 8:4-25; 36, 40 Ac 8:5; 41

Ac 8:25; 41

II. Dead Sea Scrolls Copper Scroll (3Q15); 52 4QExod-Levf (4Q17); 201 4QNumb (4Q27); 201 4QJosha (4Q47); 204, 205 4QpaleoExodm (4Q22); 201 4Q371 1 (4QapocrJosepha); 52 4Q372 2 (4QapocrJosephb); 52 4Q550c (4QPrEstherd ar); 54

III. Josephus War 1:62; 86 1:62-63; 24, 88 1:63; 85 2:232; 63 2:232-246; 24, 38, 62, 63 2:233; 64 2:235; 63 2:237; 63 2:238; 63 2:245; 64 3:141-339; 65 3:289-306; 65 3:307-315; 24, 62, 64, 65 16:62-63; 61

Antiquities 9:278; 56 9:288; 56 9:288-291; 56, 58 9:291; 60 10:183-184; 56 10:184; 58 11; 57 11:19; 32 11:19-20; 32, 64 11:61; 58 11:84; 32, 58 11:84-88; 32, 57

11:89; 58 11:97; 58 11:114; 58 11:114-119; 57, 58 11:174-175; 57, 58 11:297-347; 57, 59 11:302; 59 11:302-303; 59 11:304; 85 11:306-312; 59 11:310; 81n.21 11:310-311; 85 11:321-324; 85 11:321-325; 60 11:323; 60 11:340; 48, 49, 56 11:340-345; 60 11:345; 182 12:7; 177 12:7-10; 61, 182 12:257; 56, 60, 61 12:255-256; 61 12:257; 61 12:257-264; 60 12:261; 51, 56 13:74-79; 61, 182 13:254; 86 13:254-256; 24, 61, 88 13:255-256; 61, 85 13:256; 81n.21 18:29-30; 24, 62 18:85-89; 24, 43, 62, 65n.32 18:86; 63 20:118; 38, 63, 64 20:118-136; 24, 38, 62, 63 20:119; 57, 64 20:124; 63 20:127; 64

IV. Rabbinic Writings m. Nedarim 5:5; 224

m. Yadayim

4:5; 215n.80

t. Terumot 4:12; 68 4:14; 68

t. Miqvaʾot 6:1; 117

t. Sanhedrin 4:7; 215n.80

y. Demai 22c; 175n.13

y. Pesaḥim 31b; 224

y. Megillah 71b-c; 215n.80

y. ʿAbodah Zarah 39c; 175n.16 44d; 69, 117, 131

b. Megillah 9a; 215n.80

b. Sanhedrin 21b; 215, 216n.85 90b; 71, 73

b. Ḥullin 6a; 69

V. Samaritan Sources Tībåt Mårqe 210, 223-25, 239, 293n.12

Tūlīda 10, 101n.91, 121, 132, 143, 151, 159n.123, 161, 179, 243-44, 247

Kitāb al-Tarīkh 10, 71, 77n.8, 120n.2, 121n.4, n.6, 127, 132, 133-34, 139n.45, 144, 151n.96, 166n.157, 168n.162, 177, 196, 198,

222n.15, 238n.77, 245-47, 251n.136, 270n.26

Continuatio 122, 123nn.7-9, 143, 144, 146, 147, 148n.73, 149, 178, 178n.29, 209, 210n.56, 246-47

Chronicle Adler 10n.4, 78n.8, 101n.91, 120n.2, 132, 144, 151n.95, 152, 159n.123, 159n.124, 160, 168n.162, 221, 247, 251n.136

Chronicle II 222, 248-49, 266

Kitāb al-Kafī 145n.65, 190n.93, 232, 234-35, 239, 274n.34, 290n.3

Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabbāḫ 233-34

Malef 25n.58, 186, 229-31

Hillukh 237-38, 275n.37

VI. Roman and Byzantine Laws Codex Theodosianus 16.8.16; 135 16.8.28; 136

Theodosii Novellae 3; 136

Codex Justinianus 1.5.12; 137 1.5.13; 136, 137 1.5.17; 137 1.5.21; 138 1.10.2; 137

Justiniani Novellae 45; 138 129; 138, 140 131; 138 144; 141

VII. Qurʾan 7:148-157; 144, 158 20:85; 144, 145 20:85-97; 145, 158 20:87; 144 20:89; 145 20:96; 145 20:97; 145

Index of Modern Authors Aaron ben Ab-Ḥisda, 2 ʿAbd al-ʿAl, Dorreya Mohammed, 146, 232, 234-35 A.B. Services (Benyamim Tsedaka), 112, 166, 292, 298, 299 Ackroyd, Peter R., 31 Adang, Camilla, 233 Aderet, Ofer, 223 Adler, Elkan Nathan, 10, 78, 101, 120, 121, 144, 151, 152, 153, 159, 160, 168, 179, 188, 247, 251 Adler, Marcus Nathan, 150 Albertz, Rainer, 35, 49, 80 Albright, William Foxwell, 44, 213 Alī, Abdullah Yūsuf, 145 Alliata, Eugenio, 79, 117, 135 Alon, Gedalyahu, 67 Amiran, Daniel H. K., 111, 156 Amphoux, Christian-Bernard, 96, 153, 180 Anderson, Robert T., ix, 46, 185, 213, 253, 288 Anonymous (1907), ix Anonymous (2004), 17, 196, 294 Arensburg, Baruch, 100 Arieh, E., 111, 156 Arnold, Werner, 251 Ashkenazi, Dana, 114 Aubin-Boltanski, Emma, 260 Aucker, W. Brian, 29 Avery-Peck, Alan J., 219 Avi-Yonah, Michael, 188 Ayalon, Etal, 172 Baguley, Edward C., 229 Baillet, Maurice, 66, 128, 167, 222, 236, 253 Bar, Doron, 172 Barag, Dan, 98, 115, 213, 215 Bar-Asher, Moshe, 185 Bargès, Jean Joseph Léander, 167 Bar-Ilan, Meir, 216 Bartal, Israel, 16 Barton, William E., 238, 239, 252, 294 Becking, Bob, 27, 35 Beʾer, Haim, 161, 163, 165, 235, 247, 254 Begg, Christopher T., 11 Beltz, Walter, 151 Ben-Artzi, Yossi, 16

Ben-Dov, Jonathan, 201 Ben-Ḥayyim, Zeʾev, 149, 159, 183, 196, 213, 218, 220, 224, 226, 240, 243, 248, 249, 250 Ben-Horin, Meir, 252 Benvenisti, Meron, 150 Benzing, Brigitta, 49 Ben-Zvi, Itzhak, 109, 171, 172, 296, 301 Billerbeck, Paul, 67 Binder, Donald D., 91 Blenkinsopp, Joseph, 30 Bloedhorn, Hanswulf, 100 Böcher, Otto, 49 Bohak, Gideon, 114 Böhm, Martina, 36, 40, 44, 174, 188 Bóid, Iain Ruairidh Mac Mhanainn, 183, 223, 232-33, 237, 238, 244, 290 Bonnard, Christophe, 243 Bonné-Tamir, Batsheva, 256, 297 Bosworth, Clifford Edmund, 145, 146 Bottini, Giovanni Claudio, 135 Bowman, John, 227, 229, 238 Braulik, Georg, 205 Braun, Joachim, 282 Brooke, George J., 204 Bruneau, Philippe, 92 Büchler, Adolf, 130 Bull, George, 186 Bull, Robert J., 78 Cancik, Hubert, 216 Casaburi, Maria C., 145 Castell, Edmund, 198, 199 Charlesworth, James H., 76, 204 Chiesa, Bruno, 124 Clermont-Ganneau, Charles Simon, 213 Coggins, Richard J., 35, 50, 55, 260 Cohen, Amnon, 70, 155, 156 Cohen, Jeffrey M., 248, 266 Cohen, Shaye J. D., 16, 191 Cohn, Naphtali, 234 Coleman-Norton, P. R., 136, 137 Collins, John J., 53, 211, 220 Conder, Claude Reignier, 114, 189 Corancez, Louis Alexandre Olivier de, 254 Corinaldi, Michael, 191, 296 Cotton, Hannah M., 115, 213 Cowley, Arthur E., 10, 196, 279

Crane, Oliver Turnbull, 11, 12, 222, 244 Cross, Frank Moore, 16-17 Crown, Alan D., 8, 45, 46, 55, 96, 101, 114, 130, 132, 150, 162, 165, 168, 170, 174, 178, 179, 180, 181, 185, 188, 196, 198, 199, 209, 219, 221, 222, 223, 232, 236, 239, 240, 242, 245, 247-48, 249, 250, 253, 257, 258, 275, 282, 285, 288, 293, 294, 296 Dar, Shimon, 100, 108, 171, 174 Dauphin, Claudine, 188 Davey, Lucy, 45, 46, 96, 132, 174, 179, 199, 236, 240, 257, 285, 288, 296 Davies, W. D., 220 Day, Jo, 95 Delcor, Mathias, 252 Della Valle, Pietro, 186 Delling, Gerhard, 93 DeRose Evans, Jane, 77 Dessau, H., 183 Dexinger, Ferdinand, 53, 151, 159, 205, 206, 226, 229, 257, 293, 294, 295 Diebner, Bernd Jørg, 18-19, 22, 30, 242 Dinkelaker, Veit, 19, 30 Di Segni, Leah, 100, 134, 135, 139 Donaldson, Terence L., 174 Drabkin, Abraham, 236 Droeber, Julia, 4, 299-301 Duchemin, Jean-Marie, 243 Dušek, Jan, 23, 24, 82, 83, 85, 93, 214 Duval, Noël, 79 Egger, Rita, 37, 55 Eissfeldt, Otto, 31 Epstein, Isidore, 159 Erlemann, Kurt, 41 Eshel, Hanan, 53, 91, 112, 176, 216 Evans, Craig A., ix Fabry, Heinz-Josef, 31 Farley, James H., 15 Feissel, Denis, 95 Feldman, Louis H., 53, 55 Fine, Steven, 68, 89, 91, 100, 261 Finkelstein, Israel, 20-21, 22, 75-76, 89 Finkelstein, Louis, 220 Finn, James, 161, 162, 163 Fleming, Daniel E., 20, 22, 207 Florentin, Moshe, 10, 121, 143, 155, 159, 161, 179, 185, 199, 200-201, 209, 212, 221, 222, 243-44, 245, 246, 248, 250, 252, 253 Fraser, James Garfield, 185

Freedman, Harry, 73 Frevel, Christian, 31 Frey, Jörg, 9, 12, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 68, 89, 174, 212, 242, 243, 250 Freyne, Seán, 39, 50 Frez, Albert, 96 Fried, Lisbeth S., 33 Gafni, Yeshayahu, 127, 171 Gall, August von, 211, 212 Gaster, Moses, 18, 114, 185, 221, 226, 237, 238, 243, 245, 247, 251, 252-53, 255, 284, 298, 299, 302 Gaster, Theodor Herzl, 252 Gauthier, Claudine, 260 Geiger, Abraham, 67, 200, 201 Geiger, Ludwig, 200 Gelbhaus, Sigmund, 189 Gesenius, Wilhem, 200, 212 Gil, Moshe, 146, 149 Giles, Terry, ix, 46, 213 Ginat, Joseph, 165, 190 Girón-Blanc, Luis Fernando, 196 Goitein, S. D., 279 Golb, Norman, 53 Goldschmidt, Elisabeth, 256 Goldstein, Yaacov, 161, 163, 165, 235, 247, 254 Goldstein, Yitzhak, 70 Goldziher, Ignaz, 146 Gottheil, Richard J. H., 146 Grabbe, Lester L., 59, 60, 207 Grätz, Sebastian, 33-34 Graziani, Simonetta, 145 Green, Leslie C., 280 Greenfeld, Uzi, 117 Grégoire, Henri, 161, 254 Gresh, Alain, 102 Gruen, Erich S., 220 Gudme, Anne Katrine de Hemmer, 81 Gulkowitsch, Lazar, 67 Haacker, Klaus, 48 Hachili, Rachel, 96, 178 Halkin, Abraham S., 225, 226 Hall, Bruce W., 45 Hallo, William W., 27 Halpern, Baruch, 16 Hanover, Siegmund, 227, 257

Haralambakis, Maria, 255, 284 Harlow, Daniel C., 220 Hart-Davidson, William, 222 Hata, Gohei, 53, 55 Haudebert, Pierre, 40 Hawting, Gerald R., 145 Heiligenthal, Roman, 41 Heiman, Leo, 190 Heller, Bernhard, 145 Hensel, Benedikt, 19, 30 Heyd, Uriel, 156, 158 Heymann, Barak, 192 Higger, Michael, 67, 70 Higgins, A. J. B., 248 Hildesheimer, Ezriel, 126 Hill, Brad Sabin, 288 Hill, George Francis, 77 Hitti, Philip Khûri, 123, 147 Hjelm, Ingrid, 22, 41 Hoffmeier, James K., 27 Hofman, Shlomo, 282 Holladay, Carl R., 219 Holum, Kenneth G., 139, 175 Horn, Cornelia B., 78 Horst, Pieter W. van der, 49-50, 182, 211, 220 Hottinger, Johann Heinrich, 212 Hoyland, Robert G., 115, 213 Hugo, Philippe, 211 Humer, Monika, 3, 291 Humphrey, John H., 172 Huntington, Robert, 253-53 Hurst, Lincoln Douglas, 45 Ilan, Zvi, 100 Ireton, Sean, 3, 293 Isser, Stanley Jerome, 72, 119, 127 Jacob ben Aaron, 114, 168, 238, 239, 245, 247, 252, 255, 277, 294 Jacob ben Uzzi (Jacob Ben-Ezzi Cohen) [Shafik], 196, 293 Jamgotchian [Zhamkochian, Arutiun Sizefrovich], Haroutun Sizefrovich, 244, 288 Jaussen, J.-A., 101, 160 Jericke, Detlef, 207 Jokiranta, Jutta, 202 Jones, Henry Stuart, 93 Joosten, Jan, 210, 250

Juynboll, Theodorus Guilielmus Johannes, 11, 12, 77, 222, 244-45 Kahle, Paul, 161, 200 Kamlah, Jens, 76, 80 Kaplan, Jacob, 184 Kaplan, Steven, 252 Kartveit, Magnar, 10, 21-22, 47, 51, 56, 88, 196, 213, 216 Katz, Ruth, 282, 284 Katzman, Tuvia, 70 Kedar, Benjamin Zeʾev, 150, 151 Kessler, John, 33 Kippenberg, Hans Gerhard, 10, 16, 166, 177, 183, 188 Kirchheim, Raphael, 67, 200 Kirsh, Nurit, 256 Kitchener, Horatio Herbert, 189 Kittel, Gerhard, 93 Klumel, Meir, 227 Knoppers, Gary N., 5, 12, 21-22, 24, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 37, 80, 88, 89, 198, 203, 206, 207 Knox, E. A., 45 Kohn, Samuel, 144, 200, 218 Kotjako-Reeb, Jens, 98 Kottsieper, Ingo, 39 Kratz, Reinhard G., 33 Kuenen, Abraham, 225-26 Lacerenza, Giancarlo, 145 Lapin, Hayim, 139 Lapp, Nancy L., 86 Lehnardt, Andreas, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 127 Le Jay, Guy-Michel, 199 Lemaire, André, 244 Le Strange, Guy, 150, 152 Levenson, Jon D., 16 Levin, Yigal, 22, 28 Levine, Ephraim, 159 Levine, Lee I., 91, 92, 99, 279 Levinson, Bernard M., 198 Levy-Rubin, Milka, 123, 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 178, 210, 246 Lewis, Bernard, 155, 156 Lichtenberger, Hermann, 216 Liddell, Henry George, 93 Lifshitz, Baruch, 95, 99, 184 Lightfoot, John, 198 Lightley, John William, 15 Lim, Timothy H., 29

Linder, Amnon, 131, 135, 136, 137, 138 Lipschits, Oded, 30, 33, 75, 76, 80 Lockwood, Wilfrid, 124 Ludolf, Job, 254 Macdonald, John, 18, 45, 224, 248, 253, 292, 295 Macuch, Rudolf, 214, 218 Magen, Yitzhak, 24, 49, 74, 75, 77, 78-85, 88, 90, 91, 96, 100, 104, 112-13, 115, 116, 117, 129, 130, 131, 135, 171, 172, 174, 176, 210, 214, 275, 276, 284, 285 Mann, C. S., 44 Manns, Frédéric, 117 Marbé, Alan, 282 Margain, Jean, 200 Marshall, Thomas, 254 Martinez, Florentino García, 204 Mason, Steve, 55-56 Matassa, Lidia Domenica, 95 Mayer, Günter, 49 Mayer, Leo Ary, 287 McAuliffe, Jane Dammen, 145 McLean, Mark D., 214 McLeod, Michel, 222 Meier, John P., 36, 37 Menken, Maarten J. J., 50 Merx, Adalbert, 226 Meshorer, Yaʿakov, 77 Meyers, Eric M., 39 Michelau, Henrike, 76, 80 Milik, Józef Tadeusz, 54 Millard, Alan, 27 Mills, Eric, 189, 301 Mills, John, 160, 163, 189, 260, 271 Misgav, Haggai, 24, 79, 80, 82 Mittwoch, Eugen, 158, 159 Montgomery, James Alan, ix, 15, 70, 102, 168, 292 Mor, Menachem, 25, 67, 127, 130, 171, 203 Morabito, Vittorio, 46, 96, 174, 179, 199, 236, 240, 285, 288, 296 Morin, Jean, 199, 209, 212 Mulder, Martin Jan, 183, 208 Munck, Johannes, 44 Naʾaman, Nadav, 34, 76 Nagar, Yossi, 256 Naveh, Joseph, 96, 99, 114, 178, 213, 215, 216 Neubauer, Adolf, 161, 243

Neusner, Jacob, 69, 219 Nicholls, George Frederic, 218 Nicklas, Tobias, 264 Nieke, Thomas, 264 Niessen, Friedrich, 242, 248-49 Nieten, Ulrike-Rebekka, 282, 283, 284 Nihan, Christophe, 208 Nodet, Étienne, 19-20, 22, 207, 242 Noja, Sergio, 145, 190, 232, 234, 235, 290 Noy, David, 99 Noy, Dov, 251 Nutt, John W., 70 Oeming, Manfred, 30, 33 Ofaz, Ohad, 303 Olsson, Birger, 91 Oppenheimer, Aharon, 130 Otero, Andrés Piquer, 87, 204 Otto, Eckart, 34, 75 Ovadiah, Asher, 98, 177 Pamment, Margaret, 45 Papoušek, Dalibor, 242 Pardee, Denis G., 53 Parfitt, Tudor, 252 Patience, Martin, 192 Patrich, Joseph, 175, 176 Pavlinková, Helena, 242 Peleg, Yuval, 117 Pérez Castro, Federico, 198 Petermann, Julius Heinrich, 190, 218 Petersen, Andrew, 155, 156 Phenix, Robert R., Jr., 78 Piccirillo, Michele, 79 Pietersma, Albert, 48 Pietruschka, Ute, 19 Pohl, Heinz, 186, 187, 236-37 Popper, William, 67 Porten, Bezalel, 84 Porter, Stanley E., ix Porton, Gary G., 68 Powels, Sylvia, 252, 258 Poznański, Samuel, 181 Price, Jonathan J., 114, 213 Pringle, Denys, 110

Prudky, M., 19 Pummer, Reinhard, 3, 8, 23, 25, 41, 44, 49, 51, 52, 54, 55, 65, 71, 72, 78, 79, 80, 81, 88, 89, 91, 95, 96, 99, 101, 110, 112, 114, 124, 131, 133, 135, 140, 142, 143, 153, 159, 160, 162, 164, 165, 167, 168, 170, 174, 175, 176, 178, 180, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 188, 189, 195, 196, 198, 209, 210, 211, 216, 218, 221, 222, 223, 238, 242, 248, 250, 258, 259, 261, 265, 270, 273, 274, 279, 287, 288, 293, 298 Purvis, James D., 15-16, 214, 220, 288 Rappoport, Uriel, 16 Ravina, Menashe, 282-84 Reeg, Gottfried, 91, 101, 109, 177 Reich, Rony, 98, 112, 176 Reichmann, Ronen, 251 Reiner, Elchanan, 16 Reiterer, Friedrich V., 25, 67, 127, 171, 203 Rey, Jean-Sebastien, 250 Rezetko, Robert, 29 Riaud, Jean, 41 Richard, Earl, 44 Richter-Bernburg, Lutz, 151 Ridolfo, Jim, 171, 222 Ringel, Joseph, 175 Rippin, Andrew, 145 Robert, Philippe de, 253 Robertson, Edward, 159, 229, 238, 241, 252 Robinson, Edward, 189 Rogers, Edward Thomas, 161, 162, 163 Rogers, Mary Eliza, 163, 164 Roll, Israel, 172 Rosen, Gladys Levine, 227, 228 Rosenberg, Isaac, 218, 255 Ross, Dan, 291 Roth, Cecil, 159 Roth, Yehuda, 171 Rothschild, Jean-Pierre, 211, 222, 227, 229, 232, 253, 288 Rubin, Zeʾev, 135 Runesson, Anders, 91 Sanderson, Judith E., 201 Sassoni, Osher, 287 Scaliger, Joseph, 253 Schäfer, Peter, 68, 135, 216 Schattner-Rieser, Ursula, 9, 12, 35, 36, 38, 41, 68, 89, 96, 153, 174, 180, 212, 242, 243, 250 Schenker, Adrian, 87, 88, 202-3, 211 Schiby, J., 95, 184 Schiffman, Lawrence H., 68, 69 Schmid, Konrad, 9, 12, 35, 36, 38, 41, 68, 89, 174, 212, 242, 243, 250

Schmidtke, Sabine, 233 Schneider, A. M., 79 Schorch, Stefan, 49, 90, 98, 113, 167, 176, 199, 200, 212, 250, 251, 271 Schreiber, Monika, 165, 167, 169, 179, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 241, 273, 275, 291, 296, 297, 298 Schreiber-Humer, Monika, 3-4 Schuller, Eileen, 52 Schur, Nathan, 152, 155, 156, 162, 163-64, 165, 166, 179, 187, 189, 190, 298 Schwartz, Daniel R., 51 Schwartz, Seth, 53 Schwarzbaum, Haim, 145 Scobie, Charles H. H., 45 Scolnic, Benjamin Edidin, 51 Scott, James C., 299 Scott, Robert, 93 Scott, Samuel P., 138, 141 Secunda, Shai, 68 Segal, Michael, 201 Seidel, Hans, 282 Séligsohn, Max, 10, 78, 101, 120, 121, 144, 151, 152, 159, 160, 168, 179, 247, 251 Semi, Emanuela Trevisan, 252 Shafer, Grant R., 46 Shahrastani, Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Karim, 124 Sharon, Moshe, 179 Shavit, Yaacov, 161, 163, 165, 235, 247, 254 Shehadeh, Haseeb, 133, 163, 165, 191, 209, 221, 223, 237, 238, 240, 241, 250, 298 Shen, Peidong, 256 Sherwood, Herriet, 192 Shunnar, Zuhair, 227 Silvestre de Sacy, Antoine-Isaac, 120, 127, 161, 167, 253, 255 Simon, Marcel, 15 Simon, Maurice, 70, 71 Simon, Richard, 253 Sivan, Hagith, 266 Sixdenier, Guy Dominique, 253 Sklare, David, 233 Smit, Joop F. M., 50 Smith, Morton, 50 Sobernheim, Moritz, 187 Sonne, Isaiah, 67 Spector, Johanna, 282 Spigel, Chad S., 99, 103, 104 Spiro, Abram, 44 Stemberger, Günter, 132, 134, 135 Stenhouse, Paul, 9, 12, 71, 73, 77, 101, 117, 120, 121, 127, 132, 133, 134, 143, 144, 151, 166, 177, 198, 222, 238,

245, 246, 251, 252, 270 Sterling, G. E., 211, 220 Stern, Ephraim, 30, 75, 91, 112, 176, 216 Stern, Menahem, 183 Stern, Sacha, 67, 69 Stevenson, William Barron, 151 Stott, Douglas W., 282 Strack, Hermann L., 67 Sussman, Varda, 172, 285 Taglicht, Israel, 67 Tal, Abraham, 8, 101, 114, 155, 162, 165, 168, 170, 185, 196, 198, 199, 200-201, 208, 209, 211, 212, 221, 223, 224, 239, 248, 249, 252, 258, 293 Tal, Oren, 98, 100, 114, 171, 172, 275, 276 Talmon, Shemaryahu, 16, 39, 53, 109, 171, 296 Tawa, Habib, 133, 191, 238, 250, 298 Taxel, Itamar, 98, 114, 171, 275, 276 Taylor, W. R., 178 Thames, John Tracy, Jr., 33 Thiessen, Matthew, 53 Thompson, Thomas L., 208 Thyen, Hartwig, 42, 45 Torijano Morales, Pablo A., 87, 204 Tov, Emanuel, 198, 200, 201, 202, 216 Tropper, Josef, 186 Trotter, Robert J. F., 45 Trümper, Monika, 95 Tsedaka, Benyamim, 9, 10, 98, 167, 171, 179, 191, 199, 213, 242, 251, 259, 265, 270, 275, 277, 281, 282, 295, 297, 298 Tsedaka, Israel, 199 Tsedaka, Rachel, 240-41 Tsedaka, Ratson, 251 Tsedaka, Yitzhak, 169 Tsfania, Levana, 24, 79, 80, 82 Turcotte, T., 111, 156 Tuschling, Ruth, 132 Ulrich, Eugene Charles, 204 Urien, Fanny, 4 Urien-Lefranc, Fanny, 260 VanderKam, James C., 59 van Oyen, Geert, 50 Vidal, Dominique, 102 Voigt, Rainer, 10, 47, 88, 223, 233, 282 Voitila, Anssi, 202

von Dobbeler, Axel, 41 Waltke, Bruce, 200 Walton, Brian, 198 Wardle, Timothy, 88 Waschke, Ernst-Joachim, 200 Wasserstein, David J., 115, 213 Wasserstrom, Steven Mark, 124, 146, 154 Watad, Ali, 250 Watts, James W., 207 Wechsler, M. G., 54 Wedel, Gerhard, 133, 233-34, 236, 238, 239 Weigelt, Frank, 223, 225 Weinryb, Bernard D., 252 Weissenrieder, Annette, 40 Weninger, Stefan, 208 Werman, Cana, 210 Williamson, H. G. M., ix Wise, Michael O., 53 Wöhrle, Jakob, 49 Wreschner, Leopold, 236 Wright, Benjamin G., 48 Yaniv, Bracha, 285 Yardeni, Ada, 84 Younger, K. Lawson, Jr., 27, 29 Zahn, Molly M., 201, 202 Zangenberg, Jürgen, 37, 41, 43, 44, 76, 80, 81, 84 Zeidler, Frank, 19, 30 Zeitlin, Solomon, 252 Zenger, Erich, 31 Zertal, Adam, 30 Zewi, Tamar, 209 Zsengellér, József, 19, 22, 73, 128, 163, 175, 207, 264

Index of Subjects Note: Page numbers in italic represent illustrations and photographs. Aaron b. Manir, 186 Abbahu, Rabbi, 131 ʿAbbasids, 122-23, 146-48, 246 ʿAbd al-Samiri, 162 ʿAbd al-Wahhab b. Ibrahim, 146 ʿAbdel b. Asher b. Maṣliaḥ, 167, 298 Ab Gillūga, 101, 240 Ab Ḥisda of Tyre. See Abu l-Ḥasan al-Ṣuri Abisha (great grandson of Aaron), 159, 196, 245 Abisha Scroll, 166, 196-98, 197, 264 Abraham ha-Qabaṣi, 186 Ab Sakwa (Murjan) b. Asʿad b. Ismaʿil al-Danfi, 247 Abu Ḥarb al-Mubarqaʿ al-Yamani, 123 Abu Isḥaq Ibrahim, 236, 249 Abu Jaʿfar ʿAbd Allah al-Manṣur, 146 Abu l-Barakat (Abi Barakata) b. Saʿid al-Buṣri al-Suryani, 235-36 Abu l-Fatḥ al-Samiri al-Danfi (Abu l-Fatḥ b. Abu l-Ḥasan). See Continuatio of the Samaritan Chronicle of Abū lFatḥ al-Sāmirī al-Danafī; Kitāb al-Tarīkh of Abu l-Fatḥ Abu l-Ḥasan al-Ṣuri (Ab Ḥisda of Tyre, Abu l-Ḥasan of Tyre), 225, 233-34, 236, 240 Abu l-Ḥasan of Tyre. See Abu l-Ḥasan al-Ṣuri Abu l-Ḥasan ʿAli al-Harawi (ʿAli of Herat), 150 Abu Muḥammad ʿAli b. Aḥmad b. Ḥazm al-Andalusi, 181; Book of Religions and Sects, 181 Abu Muḥammad Musa al-Hadi b. al-Mahdi, 146-47 Abu Saʿid b. Abi l-Ḥasab b. Abi Saʿid, 225 Abu ʿUbaidah b. al-Jarraḥ, 143 Acts. See Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts Alexander Jannaeus, 116 Alexander Polyhistor, 219 Alexander Severus, Emperor, 132, 244 Alexander the Great, 49, 54, 59-62, 81, 84-86, 120 Amoraic period, 69 ʿAmram b. Itamar, 152 ʿAmram b. Salama, 163, 244 ʿAmram b. Ṭabia, 251 ʿAmram Dare (Ḍarir), 133, 195-96, 239 Amulets, 112-15; contemporary making and selling of, 167, 301, 301; inscriptions, 114-15, 176, 215; material evidence of Caesarea settlements in third and fourth centuries, 176 Anastasius I, Emperor, 139 Antiochus III the Great, 130 Antiochus IV Epiphanes, 49, 50, 60-61, 86-87, 130

Antiochus VII Sidetes, 86 Antoninus Pius, 77, 131 Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Writings (Samaritans in), 47-51; Ben Sira (50:25-26), 47-50; 2 Maccabees (5:2223 and 6:1-2), 50-51; mentions of Mt. Gerizim and temple, 49-51, 86-87; possible anti-Samaritan sentiments, 51; on Samaritans in the Hellenistic and early Roman period, 129 ʿAqbun (high priest), 101, 121-22 ʿAqbun b. Elʿazar, 178 Arcadius, Emperor, 135 Archaeological excavations, 2, 6, 74-118; amulets and oil lamps, 112-15; diaspora synagogues, 92-96; Mt. Gerizim, 6, 74-91, 129-30; ritual baths (miqvaʾot), 104, 105, 109, 115-18, 116, 117, 277-78; synagogues in the land of Israel, 96-112 Ark of the Covenant, 11-12 Art, 284-88; manuscript decorations, 215, 288; oil lamps, 215, 285; pictorial art and mosaics, 104-7, 105, 108-9, 109, 284-85; representations of the Tabernacle in Mt. Gerazim synagogue, 287-88; Torah scroll cases, 285-88, 286 Asasabi (Samaritan leader), 123 Asaṭir, 243 Assyrian empire, 13, 22-23, 27-29, 32-33 Baba Rabba, 131-34, 168, 177, 266; fatwas, 238; legends of, 131-34; and medieval Samaritan miqvaʾot, 117; nephew Levi, 133-34, 266; and Samaritan sects, 121; in the Samaritan chronicles, 131-34, 244, 248, 266 Babylonian Chronicle, 29 Babylonian Talmud, 68-69, 71, 215 al-Baladhuri (Abu-l ʿAbbas Aḥmad b. Yaḥya b. Jabir al-Baladhuri), 123-24, 142-43, 147; Futuḥ al-buldan (Conquests of the Countries), 123, 142-43 Barberini Triglot, 186 Bar-Kokhba revolt, 130-31, 174 Barṣauma of Nisibis, 135 Bazwash of Damascus, 151 Benjamin of Tudela, 150, 176, 186, 188, 211; Itinerary of, 150, 188, 211 Ben Sira, 47-50 Ben-Zvi, Yitzhak, 165, 270, 296 al-Biruni (Abu Rayḥan al-Biruni), 146 Book of Commandments (Kitab al-Faraʾiḍ), 237 Book of Enlightenment, 168, 239, 252 Book of Inheritance (Kitāb al-Mīrāt), 236-37, 249 Book of Insight (Kitab al-Ṭabbakh), 225, 233-34 Book of Joshua (Samaritan), 10-11, 12, 132, 155, 196, 221, 244-45, 255 Book of Questions on the Differences (Kitab Masaʾil al-Ḫilaf), 236 Book of the Sufficient (Kitāb al-Kāfī), 232, 234-35, 239, 274 British Mandate period (Palestine), 163, 191-92 Byzantine period. See Late Roman and Byzantine periods (Samaritans in) Byzantine-Sassanid War, 135 Cairo Geniza, 161 Calendar, Samaritan, 258-60 Cambyses, King, 58

Caracalla, Emperor, 132 Center for the Study of the Samaritans (Nablus), 193 Chronicle Adler. See New Chronicle (Chronicle Adler or Chronicle of Ab Sakwa) Chronicle Neubauer. See Tūlīda (Chronicle Neubauer) Chronicles, Samaritan, 241-49; Asaṭir, 243; authors and compilers, 241-42; Baba Rabba in, 131-34, 244, 248, 266; the Continuatio of Abu l-Fatḥ, 122-23, 143-44, 146, 147-49, 177, 209, 246-47; on the early Muslim period conquests, 143-44, 146-49; Kitāb al-Tarīkh of Abu l-Fatḥ, 10, 119-21, 132, 143-44, 151, 155, 177, 19697, 209, 222, 238, 245-47; on the late Roman and Byzantine periods, 132, 133-34; New Chronicle (Chronicle Adler), 119-20, 121, 132, 143-44, 152, 160, 221-22, 247, 251; on the Ottoman period, 159-60; the Samaritan Book of Joshua, 10-11, 132, 155, 196, 221-22, 244-45, 255; on Samaritan sects, 119-23; Sepher Ha-Yamim or Chronicle II, 222, 248-49, 266; Shalshala (Chain of High Priests), 247; Tūlīda, 10, 121, 143, 151, 161, 179, 243-44; view of Samaritan identity and the Jewish-Samaritan split in the time of Eli, 9-13, 17-18 Chronicon Paschale, 139 Chronicum miscellaneum ad annum domini 724 pertinens, 178 Church of Mary the Mother of God (Theotokos) at Mt. Gerizim, 79, 100, 139 Church of St. Stephen in Umm er-Rasas, 79 Circumcision, 131, 270-71 Clement I, 125 Clementine Recognitions, 125 Codex Justinanus, 136-38 Codex Theodosianus, 135-36 Commentary on Deuteronomy 32:3-4 (Kitab Šarḥ al-fatiḥa), 227 Commentary on Genesis 1:2–50:4, 225 Commentary on Genesis and Exodus by Meshalma (Muslim) b. Murjan and Ibrahim b. Yaʿqub b. Murjan alDanfi (Ibrahim al- ʿAyya), 227-28 Commentary on Leviticus 26:3-46 (Šarḥ am baqquti), 226 Commentary on the Pericope of Forbidden Marriages (Šarḥ Surat al-Irbot), 235-36 Commentary on the Ten Commandments (Kitab fi Šuruḥ al-ʿašr kalimat), 225 Commodus, Emperor, 222 Completion of the reading of the Torah (Ḥatimat Torah), 271-72, 303 Constantine I, Emperor, 134 Constantius II, Emperor, 135 Contemporary world (Samaritans today), 1-2, 7-8, 164-69, 289-301, 302-4; demographics, 2, 193-94, 297; economics and occupations, 301; and First Intifada, 165-66; genetic research and counseling, 193, 255-56, 297; high priesthood, 166-69; Ḥolon community, 79, 165, 193-94; issue of outside marriages, 169, 190-93, 297; Kiryat Luza settlement at Mt. Gerizim, 111-12, 111, 166; laymen and community leadership roles, 168-69; making and selling of amulets, 167, 301, 301; Nablus community, 165-66, 193-94, 298-301; new challenges, 302-4; relations with Christians and Arab/Palestinian Muslims, 298-301; self-identification as “Israelite Samaritans,” 2; and the state of Israel, 165-66, 295-96, 300; tribes and “households,” 297-98; youth, 302-4 Continuatio of the Samaritan Chronicle of Abū l-Fatḥ al-Sāmirī al-Danafī, 122-23, 143-44, 146-49, 178, 209, 246-47; on Samaritan sects, 122-23 Corancez, Louis Alexandre Olivier de, 254 Cosmas Indicopleustes, 71-72 Crusades, 150-51; diaspora, 150-51, 186; Samaritans under Frankish rule, 150-51 Cuthean (Kutim): in Dead Sea Scrolls, 54; in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, 28-29, 32; Josephus’ use of, 29, 32, 56-57, 58, 59-60; in Mamluk period (Cuthim), 153; in the Minor Talmudic tractate Kutim, 67, 70-71; in rabbinic literature, 13, 66, 67, 70-71 Cyril of Jerusalem, 71-73

Damascius, 78 Danfi family, 161-62, 298 Darius, King, 58-60 Darius II, King, 85 Darius III, King, 85 Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), 258, 259, 264 Day of Vengeance and Recompense, 295 Dead Sea Scrolls (Qumran texts), 52-54, 201-2, 204, 212 Defter (prayer book), 240, 280 Della Valle, Pietro, 186, 211 Delos, Greek island of, 92-95, 93, 94; inscriptions, 50, 92-95, 93, 94, 129-30, 184, 220 Demography and Samaritan population estimates, 170, 187-94; British Mandate period, 191-92; distribution between Nablus and Ḥolon communities, 193-94; early Middle Ages, 188; early nineteenth century, 189; Hellenistic-Roman period, 188; Ottoman period decline, 155-56, 159, 163-64, 187; and outside marriages, 19093; predictions of demise, 189-90; today, 2, 193-94, 297. See also Diaspora, Samaritan Deuteronomic formula (“will choose/has chosen”), 202-5 Dhimmis. See Protected people Diaspora, Samaritan, 7, 180-87; Carthage, 185; community in Baalbek in Lebanon, 187; Crusader period, 150, 186; Damascus (Middle Ages/Crusader period), 150, 185-87; diaspora synagogues, 92-96; Egypt (Cairo), 159, 182-84; Greece, 92-96, 184; Mamluk period, 153; in Nablus (Crusader period), 150-51; Ottoman period decline, 155-56, 159, 163-64, 187; Rome, 96, 184-85; Sicily, 96, 184 Al-Dimashqi (Shams al-Din al-Ansari al-Dimashqi), 150, 152, 188 Diocletian, Emperor, 131 Dositheus and Dosithean sect, 72, 119-27; clashes with Abbasid Muslims, 122-23; Muslim and Karaite sources on, 123-24; Patristic sources on, 124-27; Samaritan sources on, 72, 119-23 Dustan sect, 119-21, 123-24, 154 Eighth Day of Tabernacles (Shemini Aṣeret), 259-60, 266 Eleazar (son of Aaron), 11, 159-60, 167, 244 Eleazar ben ʿAmram, 244 Eli (priest), 9-13, 128 El-Khirbe synagogue, 106, 107-9, 108, 109, 117-18 Ephraim, tribe of, 297-98 Epiphanius of Salamis, 71-72, 78, 125, 127, 216 Eponym Chronicle, 29 Esarhaddon (Assyrian king), 32 Eschatology, 63, 295. See also Resurrection of the dead (non-belief in); Taheb Eternal Hill (Mt. Gerizim), 89-91, 267, 269 Eulogius, 72, 126, 127 Eusebius of Caesarea, 125, 131, 145, 177, 216, 219 Exegesis (Torah commentaries), 223-31; Commentary on Deuteronomy 32:3-4 (Kitab Šarḥ al-fatiḥa), 227; Commentary on Genesis 1:2–50:4, 225; Commentary on Genesis and Exodus by Meshalma (Muslim) b. Murjan and Ibrahim b. Yaʿqub b. Murjan al-Danfi (Ibrahim al-ʿAyya), 227-28; Commentary on Leviticus 26:346 (Šarḥ am baqquti), 226; Commentary on the Ten Commandments (Kitab fi Šuruḥ al-ʿašr kalimat), 225; Malef, 229-31; Marginal Notes on the Arabic Translation of the Pentateuch (Kitab al-ḥawaši), 225-26; Ten Proofs of the Second Kingdom (Ṯubut al-daula al-taniya), 226; Tībåt Mårqe, 210, 223-25, 239 Ezra-Nehemiah, 23, 24, 26, 31, 32-33

Fallscheer, Christian, 114, 187 Family groups (“households”), 297-98 Fatwas (Samaritan legal decisions), 238-39; Book of Enlightenment, 168, 239, 252 Feast of Weeks (Shavuot), 259, 263 Films, documentary. See Lone Samaritan; The Wandering Samaritan Finn, James, 163 First day of the seventh month, 258, 264 First Intifada, 165-66 Flavius Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator, 184 Folktales, Samaritan, 251-52 Four fundamentals of faith, 292-95 Funerals and burial of the dead, 275-77, 276; mourning periods, 277; at Mt. Gerizim, 275-77, 276; tombs/sarcophagi, 275. See also Resurrection of the dead (non-belief in) Gagin, Haim Abraham, 13-14 Gallus Revolt, 135 Genetic research and counseling, 193, 255-56, 297 Geographical distribution of Samaritans, 7, 170-94; Caesarea settlements in Byzantine period, 174-75; Caesarea settlements in third and fourth centuries, 175; diaspora, 7, 180-87; distribution map of settlements in antiquity, 173; distribution map of synagogues in the land of Israel, 97; early twentieth-century Palestinian cities, 179, 189; Gaza settlements in Roman-Byzantine period, 177-79; Palestine, 171-79, 173; population estimates, 170, 187-94; today, 2, 193-94, 297. See also Demography and Samaritan population estimates; Diaspora, Samaritan Ghazal (Ṭabia) al-Duwaik, 226 Ghazal b. Abi al-Ṣurur al-Maṭari al-Yusufi al-Gazzi, 237 Golden Calf, Qurʾanic story of “al-Samiri” and, 144-46, 158 Good Samaritan, parable of, 1, 39 Gospel of John, 42-45; and belief in the Taheb, 43, 224; the Jews’ accusations against Jesus (as being a Samaritan and possessed by a demon), 43-44; a possible Samaritan background to, 44-45; story of Jesus’ meeting with the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s Well near Sychar, 42-43, 174 Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts, 37-41, 44; Jewish/Samaritan hostility, 38-39; the mission to Samaria (Acts 8:4-25), 40-41; parable of the Good Samaritan, 1, 39; parable of the Ten Lepers, 39-40; Stephen’s speech (Acts 7:2-53), 44 Gospel of Matthew, 37 Grégoire, Henri, 161, 254 Gregory the Great, Pope, 96, 184 Hadrian, Emperor, 77, 130-31, 182, 222 Halakhah (Samaritan), 231-39; Book of Commandments (Kitab al-Faraʾiḍ), 237; Book of Inheritance (Kitāb alMīrāt), 236-37, 249; Book of Insight (Kitab al-Ṭabbakh), 225, 233-34; Book of Questions on the Differences (Kitab Masaʾil al-Ḫilaf), 236; Book of the Sufficient (Kitāb al-Kāfī), 232, 234-35, 239, 274; Commentary on the Pericope of Forbidden Marriages (Šarḥ Surat al-Irbot), 235-36; Fatwas (legal decisions), 238-39; Book of Enlightenment, 168, 239, 252; Hillukh (Kitab al-Ḫulf) (Book of Difference), 237-38; Uncoverer of Obscurities (Kashif al-Ghayahib), 237 Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, Samaritans in, 5, 18, 26-35; accounts of fall of Samaria, 29-30; anti-Samaritan passages, 30-32, 34-35; Assyrian empire, 27-29, 32-33; Deuteronomy (11:29-30), 34, 76-77, 206; EzraNehemiah, 23, 24, 26, 31, 32-33; first mention? (2 Kings 17:29), 5, 26-30; and Masoretic Text (Pentateuch), 198-207, 212; on the origins of Samaritans, 26-27; pejorative designation (Cutheans), 28-29, 32; the “people of the land,” 32-33, 87-88; polemics in the Book of Chronicles, 30-32. See also Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Writings (Samaritans in)

Hebrews, Letter to the, 45 Hegesippus, 124-25 Hellenistic and early Roman periods (Samaritans in), 24-25, 128-31; apocryphal/deuterocanonical writings on, 129; and archaeological excavations of Mt. Gerizim, 24, 80-86, 129; Bar-Kokhba revolt, 130-31, 174; and the Delos inscriptions, 50, 92-95, 93, 94, 129-30, 184, 220; Josephus on, 62-65, 129-30; New Testament on, 129; population estimates, 188; rabbinic literature on, 129 Heraclius, Emperor, 141, 185 Herod, 130, 175, 176 Hezekiah, King, 31-32 Hillukh (Kitab al-Ḫulf) (Book of Difference), 237-38 Historia Augusta, 182 Honorius, Emperor, 135 Hoshea, the last king of Israel, 27 Huntington, Robert, 253-54 Ibn Firasa, 147-48 Ibn Qayyim (Shams al-Din Abu Bakr Muḥammad Abi Bakr al-Zarʿi b. Qayyim al-Jauziyya), 153-55 Ibn Ṭulun (Aḥmad b. Ṭulun), 149 Ibrahim al-ʿAyya (Ibrahim b. Yaʿqub b. Murjan al-Danfi), 159-60, 227-28, 237, 249-50, 257 Ibrahim al-Muʿtaṣim, 123 Ibrahim b. Yusuf al-Qabbaṣi, 227; Kitāb sair al-qalb ilā maʿrifat ar-rabb, 227 Identity of the Samaritans, 9-25, 128; contemporary self-identification as “Israelite Samaritans,” 2; four fundamentals of faith, 292-95; four principles identifying someone as member of the community, 289-92; Jewish view (traditional/contemporary orthodox), 13-14, 162; modern scholarly views, 5-6, 15-25; Samaritan chronicles on origins, 9-13, 17-18; Samaritanism as a Jewish sect, 5-6, 15-17; Samaritanism as ancient Yahwism (and theories of the breach between Samarian Yahwists and Judean Yahwists), 5-6, 17-25; the split between Samaritans and Jews in the time of Eli, 9-13, 128. See also Samaritans in history Idumeans, 49 Introduction to the Grammar of the Hebrew Language (Kitab al-Tauṭi ʾa fi naḥw al-Luġa al-ʿIbraniyya), 249 Isaac ben Joseph b. Chelo, 153 Isaac’s Altar (Mt. Gerizim), 90-91, 267, 269 Israel, Samaritan synagogues in the land of, 96-112, 97 Israel, state of, 165-66, 295-96, 300; and British Mandate Palestine, 163, 191-92; and First Palestinian Intifada, 165-66; and Right of Return, 296; split Samaritan communities (Nablus and Ḥolon), 165 Israel b. Machir, 177 Jacob b. Aaron b. Salama, 114, 168, 238, 239, 245, 247, 252, 255, 277, 294 Jacob b. Ishmael, 244 Jacob esh-Shelaby, 161-63, 164 Jerome, 125-26, 131, 216-17 Jerusalem/Palestinian Talmud, 68-69, 71 Jerusalem Targum, 208-9 Jewish views of Samaritan identity, 13-14, 162; as branch of the children of Israel (in nineteenth-century testimony of the Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem), 13-14, 162; current position of the Chief Rabbinate, 14; in Jewish writings of antiquity, 6, 47-73; traditional/contempory orthodox Jewish view, 13-14. See also Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Writings (Samaritans in); Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, Samaritans in Jewish writings of antiquity, Samaritans in, 6, 47-73; apocryphal/deuterocanonical writings, 47-51; Dead Sea Scrolls (Qumran texts), 52-54, 201-2, 204, 212; Josephus, 54-66; Rabbinic literature, 66-73, 117, 126-27, 129.

See also Josephus, Flavius Jizya. See Poll-tax John Hyrcanus I and destruction of the Gerizim temple, 22, 24-25, 35, 41, 61-62, 88, 116, 129-30, 207 John of Damascus, 71-72 John of Nikiu, 141 Joseph: Dead Sea Scrolls and tribe of, 52-53; Samaritans’ special reverence for, 52-53, 228 Joseph b. Shelaby, 161-62 Joseph b. Uzzi (high priest), 152, 287, 288 Josephus, Flavius, 5, 24-25, 54-66, 85-86, 177, 204, 270; account of Alexander the Great’s visit to Palestine and question of a “mixed” marriage, 59-60; aims and purposes in writing, 54-56, 129; on clashes between Jews and Samaritans (and negative remarks about Samaritans), 24-25, 32, 33, 38, 56-58, 60-66, 172; on Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Gerizim temple, 49, 57-62, 65, 74, 80-81, 85-86, 130; on the Samaritan diaspora, 182; on Samaritans in the Hellenistic/Roman period, 62-65, 129-30; on Samaritans in the Persian period, 57-58; on siege and defeat of Jotapata (Yodfat), 65-66; two accounts of origin of the Samaritans, 56-59; use of designation Cutheans, 29, 32, 56-57, 58, 59-60 Judah, 19-22, 31-34, 203, 228 Justin I, Emperor, 137 Justin II, Emperor, 141 Justinian I, Emperor, 79, 137-38, 139-40, 185 Kharaj. See Land tax Khirbet Samara synagogue, 103-4, 103, 104, 107, 275; miqveh, 104, 105; pictorial art (mosaics), 104, 105, 107, 284-85; tombs/sarcophagi, 275 Khirbet Seilun, 9 Kiryat Luza (Samaritan settlement on Mt. Gerizim), 111-12, 111, 166 Kitāb al-Kāfī (Book of the Sufficient), 232, 234-35, 239, 274 Kitāb al-Tarīkh of Abu l-Fatḥ, 10, 119-21, 132-34, 143-44, 177, 196-97, 209, 222, 238, 245-47; and Abbasid caliph al-Radi, 246; account of the split between Samaritans and Jews, 10, 12; on Frankish rule, 151; and Muḥammad, 246; on Samaritans during the early Muslim period, 143-44; on Samaritan sects, 119-21, 127; on Samaritans in the late Roman and Byzantine periods, 132, 133-34; sources, 246; writing of, 155, 245-46. See also Continuatio of the Samaritan Chronicle of Abū l-Fatḥ al-Sāmirī al-Danafī Kitab Hameliṣ (Pinḥas b. Josef), 250 Kutim (Minor Talmudic tractate), 67, 70-71 Land tax, 143, 147 Late Roman and Byzantine periods (Samaritans in), 131-41, 279; Byzantine emperors’ oppressive laws against non-Christians, 135-38, 141, 149; Caesarea settlements, 174-75; Gaza settlements, 176-79; legends of Baba Rabba, 131-34; legends of Levi, 133-34, 266; persecution, 132-33; Samaritan converts to Christianity, 141; struggles with Christians in Caesarea, 138-41, 175-76; uprisings/revolts, 138-41 Levi (Baba Rabba’s nephew), 133-34, 266 Levi (Dusis martyr), 121-22 Levi, Jacob, 254 Levi, tribe of, 167, 297-98 Levi b. Abisha b. Pinḥas, 190 Liturgical poetry, 239-41 London Polyglot Bible, 198-99, 211, 254 Lone Samaritan (documentary film), 192 Ludolf, Job, 254

2 Maccabees, 50-51, 86-87 Maimonides, 25, 186 Malalas, John, 79, 100, 139-41 Malef, 229-31 Mamluk period (Samaritans in), 152-55; diaspora, 153; discussions of whether the Samaritans qualified as “protected people” (dhimmis) and must pay poll-tax (jizya), 153-55; Nablus synagogue, 102 Manasseh, tribe of, 297-98 Marginal Notes on the Arabic Translation of the Pentateuch (Kitab al-ḥawaši), 225-26 Marinus of Neapolis, 78 Marqe, 90, 223-25, 239 Marriage customs, 3-4, 272-75; betrothals and weddings, 3-4, 272-75; cousin marriages, 193, 297; issue of outside marriages, 169, 190-93, 297; the marriage contract, 273, 274, 284, 288; during nineteenth century, 164 Marshall, Thomas, 254 Masada, 53-54 al-Masʿudi (Abu al-Ḥasan ʿAli b. al-Ḥusain b. ʿAli Masʿudi), 123-24; Muruj adh-dhahab wa maʿadin al-jawhar (The Meadows of Gold and Quarries of Jewels), 123 Maurice, Emperor, 141 Mawdud of Mosul, 151 Maximus the Confessor, 141, 185 Meḥmet IV, Sultan, 159 Meir, Rabbi, 73 Menahem, Israelite king, 27 Meshalma b. Murjan. See Muslim b. Murjan al-Danfi Meshullam of Volterra, 153, 178, 183 Mezuzot, 280-81, 281 Miqvaʾot. See Ritual baths (miqvaʾot) Morgenstern, Christian, 113 Moses, prophetic status of, 293 Mt. Ebal, 34, 75-76, 90, 103, 202-6, 276 Mt. Gerizim, 74-91, 75, 76; the Church of Mary the Mother of God (Theotokos), 79, 100, 139; contemporary social frictions, 298; and the Deuteronomic formula (“will choose/has chosen”), 202-5; the Eternal Hill, 89-91, 267, 269; funerals and burial of the dead, 275-77, 276; in the Hebrew Bible, 76-77; holy sites, 89-91, 267, 269; Isaac’s Altar, 90-91, 267, 269; in Jewish Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Writings, 49-51, 86-88; Josephus on, 49, 65, 80-81; Kiryat Luza (today’s settlement), 111-12, 111, 166; location, 75-77; Passover and Maṣot at, 26063, 261, 262, 289-90; in patristic writings, 78-79; Persian period, 75, 80-81; pilgrimages to, 260, 263, 267-69, 268, 269; pre-Israelite significance, 75-76; in the Samaritan Pentateuch, 202-6, 207; sanctity of, 88-91, 202-6, 207, 293; synagogue (first), 79, 100; synagogue (present), 111-12, 112, 287-88; Tell er-Ras, 75, 76; Torah scroll case and artistic representations of the Tabernacle, 287-88; Twelve Stones of Joshua, 90, 267. See also Mt. Gerizim (archaeological excavations); Mt. Gerizim temple Mt. Gerizim (archaeological excavations), 6, 74-91, 129-30; the Church of Mary the Mother of God (Theotokos), 79, 100; the Hellenistic period city, 24, 84-86, 129-30; inscriptions in palaeo-Hebrew script, 82-84, 83; inscriptions in Samaritan script, 82, 214; limestone capitals, 75-76; ritual baths, 116, 117; Roman Neapolis coin depictions, 77, 77-78, 100; the Roman temple, 77-79 Mt. Gerizim temple: in apocryphal/deuterocanonical writings, 50-51, 86-88; construction of, 21, 24; contemporary Samaritans’ denial of existence of legitimate temple, 80, 88-89, 181; date of destruction, 86-88; destruction by John Hyrcanus, 22, 24-25, 35, 41, 61-62, 88, 116, 129-30, 207; Hellenistic period, 24, 80-86, 129-30; Josephus on, 57-62, 74, 81, 85-86, 88, 130; ritual baths, 116, 117; Roman, 77-79 Muhaḏḏab al-Din Yusuf b. Abi Saʿid b. Khalaf al-Samiri, 187

Muḥammad al-Amin, 122 Muḥammad al-Mahdi, 146-47 Muḥammad al-Maʾmun, 122 Munajja b. Ṣadaqa, 225, 236 Music, 282-84, 283 Muslim b. Murjan al-Danfi, 227-28, 237 Muslim period, early (Samaritans in), 142-49; forced conversions, 147-49; Muḥammad and the Samaritans, 14344; Muslim conquests of Syria-Palestine, 142-49; persecution by the ʿAbbasids caliphs, 122-23, 146-48, 246; Qurʾan on “al-Samiri” and story of the Golden Calf, 144-46, 158; the Samaritan chronicles on, 143-44, 146-49; the siege of Caesarea, 142-43; spies and informants for Muslims, 143; the Umayyad caliphs, 143, 146. See also Crusades; Mamluk period (Samaritans in); Ottoman period (Samaritans in) al-Mutawakkil (Jaʿfar al-Mutawakkil) (Abbasid caliph), 123, 147, 148 Nafis ad-Din Abu l-Faraj b. Isḥaq b. Kaththar, 226, 237 Naǧi b. Ḫaḍr (Abisha b. Pinḥas) b. Isḥaq b. Salama, 235, 237 New Chronicle (Chronicle Adler or Chronicle of Ab Sakwa), 119-20, 121, 132, 143-44, 152, 160, 221-22, 247, 251 New Testament, 5, 6, 25, 36-46, 129; the Christian mission to Samaria (Acts 8:4-25), 40-41; Gospel of John, 4245, 174, 224; Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts, 37-41, 44; Gospel of Matthew, 37; Jewish/Samaritan differences and hostility, 38-39, 42-44; Letter to the Hebrews, 45; parable of the Good Samaritan, 1, 39; parable of the Ten Lepers, 39-40; and Samaritans in the Hellenistic-Roman period, 24-25, 129; scholarly theories on Samaritan influences on, 44-46; Stephen’s speech in Acts (7:2-53), 44; story of Jesus’ meeting with the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s Well, 42-43, 174; and the Taheb, 41, 43, 224 Ninna, son of Marqe, 240 Obadiah of Bertinoro, 153, 183, 188 Oil lamps, 115, 176, 215, 285 Old Testament. See Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, Samaritans in Origen, 71-73, 125, 131, 145, 175, 195 Orosius, 131 Ottoman period (Samaritans in), 155-64; decline of the diaspora, 155-56, 159, 163-64, 187; employment as government officials (and records of Muslim complaints about Samaritans in firmans), 156-57; fatwas addressing Samaritans, 158; Muslim complaints head covers, 157-58; Muslim scholars’ correction of misconceptions about Samaritans, 158-59; Samaritan chronicles on, 159-60 Palestine, 171-79, 173; archaeological excavations, 112-13, 171-73, 177; British Mandate period, 163, 191-92; Caesarea settlements in Byzantine period, 174-75; Caesarea settlements in third and fourth centuries, 175; contemporary Samaritans’ relationships with Muslims of, 298-301; Crusader period, 150; distribution map of Samaritan settlements in antiquity, 173; early twentieth-century cities, 179, 189; First Intifada, 165-66; Gaza settlements of Roman-Byzantine period, 176-79; history of settlements, 171-74; Nablus community, 165-66, 298-301; Right of Return, 296 Palestinian Talmud, 68-69, 71 Palladius, 95 Papyrus Giessen, 76, 204 “Parcel of Land”/Ḥuzn Yaʿqub in Nablus, 101, 152 Paris Polyglot Bible, 198-99, 211 Passover and Maṣot (Feast of Unleavened Bread), 260-63, 261, 262, 289-90 Patrilineality and patrilineal descent, 3, 180, 191, 192, 289 Patristic writings: on the Dosithean and Samaritan sects, 124-27; Mt. Gerizim in, 78-79; and synagogues in the land of Israel, 110

“Peoples of the land,” 32-33, 87-88 Philaster, 71-72 Philistines, 49 Phinehas/Pinḥas (son of Eleazar, grandson of Aaron), line of, 11, 159-60, 166-67, 196 Photius, 72, 78, 126-27 Pilgrimage to Mt. Gerizim, 260, 263, 267-69, 268, 269; the Eternal Hill, 267, 269; Isaac’s Altar, 90, 267, 269 Pilgrim of Bordeaux, 77 Pinḥas b. Isaac, 229 Pinḥas b. Joseph Harabban (Finas Arrabban), 240, 245, 250 Poets, Samaritan, 239-41 Poll-tax, 148, 153, 154, 155, 158 Pontius Pilate, 62, 130 Postel, Guillaume, 211 Prayer, 277-81, 278; Islamic influences on synagogues and, 278-79; prayer book (Defter), 240, 280; qeṭafim, 27980; in synagogues, 277-79, 278 Priesthood, high, 166-69; and laymen, 168-69; tribe of Levi, 167, 298 Procopius of Caesarea, 79, 100, 139-40, 185 Procopius of Gaza, 78, 178 “Protected people” (dhimmis), 153-55 Pseudo-Clementine writings, 41 Pseudo-Philo, 204 Pseudo-Tertullian, 72, 125 Ptolemy I Soter, 177, 182 Ptolemy VI Philometor, 182 Purim, 7, 260 Purity laws, 289-92; men and, 291-92; women, 278, 290-92. See also Ritual baths (miqvaʾot) al-Qalqashandi (Abu l-ʿAbbas Aḥmad al-Qalqashandi), 146 al-Qirqisani (Abu Yusuf Yaʿqub al-Qirqisani), 124 Qumran texts (Dead Sea Scrolls), 52-54, 201-2, 204, 212 Qurʾan, 144-46, 158, 162 Rabbinic literature (views of Samaritans in), 66-73, 117, 126-27, 129; Babylonian Talmud, 68-69, 71, 215; complicating elements (redaction and textual corruptions), 66-67; Jerusalem/Palestinian Talmud, 68-69, 71; the Minor Talmudic tractate Kutim, 67, 70-71; pejorative designation Kutim (Cuthean), 13, 66-67, 70-71; and Samaritan non-belief in resurrection of the dead, 71-73; on Samaritan sects, 126-27; Tannaitic sources of the Mishna and Tosefta, 68 al-Raḍi (Abbasid caliph), 122, 246 al-Rashid (Harun al-Rashid) (Abbasid caliph), 122, 146-47 er-Ras, Tell, 75, 76, 77, 100 Redemption of the first born, 271 Resurrection of the dead (non-belief in), 71-73, 125, 127, 158, 224, 295; Patristic sources on Samaritan sects and, 127; rabbinic literature on, 71-73; and Sadducees, 72 Ritual baths (miqvaʾot), 102, 105, 109, 115-18, 117, 277-78; and olive presses in Qedumim, 117, 118; and ritual purity, 115-18, 277-78; at synagogues in the land of Israel, 105, 109, 115-18, 117 Rituals and customs, Samaritan, 7, 257-88; art, 284-88; the calendar, 258-60; circumcision, 131, 270-71; completion of the reading of the Torah (Ḥatimat Torah), 271-72, 303; Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), 258,

259, 264; Feast of Weeks (Shavuot), 259, 263; First day of the seventh month, 258, 264; funerals and burial of the dead, 275-77, 276; marriage betrothal and weddings, 3-4, 272-75; music, 282-84, 283; Passover and Maṣot, 260-63, 261, 262, 289-90; pilgrimage to Mt. Gerizim, 260, 263, 267-69, 268, 269; prayer, 277-81, 278; redemption of the first born, 271; Ṣimmut Pesaḥ and Ṣimmut Sukkot, 259-60, 266-67; Tabernacles (Sukkot), 259, 264-66, 265 Roman period. See Hellenistic and early Roman periods (Samaritans in); Late Roman and Byzantine periods (Samaritans in) Rufus, John, 78 Sabbath, 289-90 Ṣadaqa b. Munajja b. Ṣadaqa al-Samiri al-Dimašqi, 225 Sadducees, 72 Ṣalaḥ ad-Din al-Ayyubi (Saladin), 151, 186 Salama b. Pinḥas, 166, 178-79 Salama b. Ṭabia, 161, 167, 254-55 Samaritan identity. See Identity of the Samaritans “Samaritan Legend Organization,” 300-301 Samaritan literature, 7, 219-56; Arabic language, 221, 240, 244-45; Aramaic language, 221, 239-40, 243; chronicles, 241-49; exegesis (Torah commentaries), 223-31; folktales, 251-52; Halakhah, 231-39; Hebrew language, 220-22, 240, 245, 247, 248; Hellenistic (Greek) language, 219-20; interactions and correspondence with European scholars, 252-56; languages, 219-21; linguistic writings, 249-50; liturgical poetry, 239-41 Samaritan Pentateuch, 7, 17, 195-218, 292-93; Abisha Scroll, 166, 196-98, 197, 264; Arabic translations, 209-10; Aramaic translations, 208-9; and Dead Sea Scrolls (pre-Samaritan texts of Qumran), 201-2, 204, 212; Deuteronomic formula (“will choose/has chosen”), 202-5; differences from Masoretic Text, 198-207, 212; emphasizing the sanctity of Mt. Gerizim, 202-6, 207; first English translation, 212-13; Greek translations, 21011, 220; “harmonistic texts” and Qumran, 201-2; Jerusalem Targum, 208-9; linguistic redaction, 250; nature of, 18, 195-207; palaeo-Hebrew, 213-18; Samaritan scripts, 213-18, 217; Samaritan Targum, 208-9; in Western scholarship, 198-99, 211-13, 250 “Samaritans,” as term, 5 Samaritan sects, 6-7, 119-27; Abu l-Fatḥ’s Continuatio, 122-23; Dosithean sect, 72, 119-27; Dustan sect, 119-21, 123-24, 154; Kitāb al-Tarīkh of Abu l-Fatḥ, 119-21, 127; Kushan and Dustan groups, 123-24, 154; Muslim and Karaite sources, 123-24; Patristic sources, 124-27; and question of whether the Samaritans believed in resurrection of the body, 127; rabbinic sources, 126-27; Samaritan sources, 119-23 Samaritan Singers (choir), 284 Samaritans in history, 7, 128-69; converts to Christianity, 141; Crusader period (under Frankish rule), 150-51; early Muslim period and Muslim conquests of Syria-Palestine, 142-49; forced conversions, 147-49, 162; Hellenistic and early Roman periods, 24-25, 128-31; Jacob esh-Shelaby and Nablus community, 161-63; late Roman and Byzantine periods, 131-41, 279; Mamluk period, 102, 152-55; modern period, 164-69; nineteenth century, 161-64; Ottoman period, 155-64; persecutions by the ʿAbbasid caliphs, 122-23, 146-48, 246; subordination during the eighteenth century, 160-61; Tsedaka family’s moves to Jaffa and Ḥolon, 164-65; uprisings/revolts, 138-41. See also Chronicles, Samaritan; Diaspora, Samaritan Samaritan Targum, 208-9 Sargon II (Assyrian king), 27, 29 Šarḥ al-Asaṭir (Pitron), 243 Scaliger, Joseph, 253 Sebuaeans, 125, 126-27 Second Jewish War, 213, 214 Sepher Ha-Yamim or Chronicle II, 222, 248-49, 266; two versions, 248-49 Septimus Severus, 131

Sergius of Caesarea, Bishop, 138 Sextus Cerealis Vettulenus, 65 al-Shahrastani (Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Karim al-Shahrastani), 124 Shalmaneser V (Assyrian king), 23, 27, 29 Shalshala (Chain of High Priests), 247 Shechemites, 20, 49-50, 60, 85-86 Shiloh, 9-13, 17 Shofar, 115, 257-58, 264 Silvestre de Sacy, Antoine-Isaac, 253, 255 Simeon b. Gamaliel, Rabban, 68-69 Ṣimmut Pesaḥ and Ṣimmut Sukkot, 259-60, 266-67 Simon the Magician (Simon Magus), 41, 121, 122, 125, 126 Société d’Études Samaritaines, 2 Suleiman II, Sultan, 159 Synagogues, 91-112; absence of depictions of living beings, 92; absence of images of lulav and ethrog, 92, 99; archaeological excavations, 91-112; in Beth Shean (ancient Scythopolis), 99; criteria for comparing Jewish and Samaritan, 91-92, 96-98; diaspora synagogues, 92-96; distribution map, 97; early Mt. Gerizim (indirect evidence), 79, 100; El-Khirbe, 106, 107-9, 108, 109, 117-18; by the Eretz Israel Museum in Ramat Aviv at Tell Qasile, 98; fifth- and sixth-century Tarsus, 95; general orientation, 91-92, 99, 102, 103-4; Ḥolon (today), 11112, 113; in Horvat Raqit (Ruqtiyya) on Mount Carmel, 100; inscriptions at Greek island of Delos, 50, 92-95, 93, 94, 129-30, 184, 220; in Kefar Faḥma, 101; Khirbet Samara, 103-4, 105, 107, 275, 284-85; at Kiryat Luza on Mt. Gerizim, 110-12; in the land of Israel, 96-112, 97; Mamluk period Nablus, 102; miqvaʾot, 102, 105, 108, 109, 117-18, 117; Nablus (today), 111; the “Parcel of Land”/Ḥuzn Yaʿqub in Nablus by the al-Ḫaḍra mosque, 101, 152; and patristic writings, 110; pictorial art (mosaics), 105, 107, 108-9, 110, 284-85; in Shaʿalvim (on the Jerusalem-Ramla road), 98; south of Beth Shean, 99; Thessalonica inscription (bilingual Greek and Samaritan), 95-96; tombs/sarcophagi, 275; in Ẓur Natan at Ḥorbat Migdal, 102, 117 Syncellus, George, 211 Tabernacles (Sukkot), 259, 264-66, 265; Eighth Day of Tabernacles (Shemini Aṣeret), 259-60, 266 Ṭabia b. Darta, 149, 240, 249; The Rules of Ibn Darta Regarding the Reading, 149, 249 Ṭabia b. Pinḥas b. Isaac, 248 Taheb, 63, 292-94; and the Asaṭir, 243; belief in, 43, 292-94, 295; in Josephus, 63; in the New Testament, 41, 43, 224; and the Tībåt Mårqe, 224 Tefillin, 280-81 Ten Commandments, 205-6, 225, 263, 280 Ten Lepers, parable of, 39-40 Ten Proofs of the Second Kingdom (Ṯubut al-daula al-taniya), 226 Tenth Commandment (Samaritan), 205-6 Theodoric the Great (Ostrogothic King), 96, 184 Theodosius II, Emperor, 136-37 Theodotus, 219-20 Theophanes Confessor, 135, 137 Tībåt Mårqe, 210, 223-25, 239 Tiglath-Pileser III, 27 Torah commentaries. See Exegesis (Torah commentaries) Torah scroll cases, 285-88, 286 Tsedaka, Gadi, 179, 303-4

Tsedaka Haṣṣafri, Abraham b. Marḥiv, 164-65, 295 Tsedaka, Hillel, 303-4 Tsedaka, Ratson, 251 Tsedaka, Sophie, 192 Tsedaka, Yefet b. Abraham, 165 Tūlīda (Chronicle Neubauer), 10, 121, 143, 151, 161, 179, 243-44 Twelve Stones of Joshua (Mt. Gerizim), 90, 267 Ummidius Quadratus, 64 Uncoverer of Obscurities (Kashif al-Ghayahib), 237 Uzzi, 10-12, 63, 152 Uzziel ben Kohat, 159, 166, 167 Valentinian III, Emperor, 136 Ventidius Cumanus, 38, 63-64 Vespasian, Emperor, 65 Wadi Daliyeh papyri, 17, 23 The Wandering Samaritan (documentary film), 179, 303 Women: betrothal and weddings, 164, 190-93, 272-75; conversions, 191; and decline of the diaspora in the nineteenth century, 164; Gospel story of Jesus’ meeting with the woman at Jacob’s Well near Sychar, 42-43, 174; menstruation and childbirth, 290-92; outside marriages, 190-93; participation in Ḥatimat Torah, 271-72; prayer, 278; purity, 278, 290-92; seventeenth-century poet Zainab aṣ-Ṣafawiyah, 240-41 Yitzhak b. ʿAmram, 193 Yusuf b. Salama b. Yusuf al-ʿAskari, 234 Zainab aṣ-Ṣafawiyah, 240-41 Zeno, Emperor, 79, 100, 139