Ingrid Hjelm The Samaritans and Early Judaism A Literary Analysis JSOT Supplement Series 2000 PDF

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
SUPPLEMENT SERIES
303
Editors
David J.A. Clines
Philip R. Davies
Executive Editor
John Jarick
COPENHAGEN INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR
7
General Editors
Thomas L. Thompson
Niels Peter Lemche
Associate Editors
Frederick H. Cryer
Mogens Miiller
Hakan Ulfgard
Sheffield Academic Press
This page intentionally left blank
The Samaritans and
Early Judaism
A Literary Analysis
Ingrid Hjelm
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

Supplement Series 303
Copenhagen International Seminar 7
To Thomas
Copyright 2000 Sheffield Academic Press

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

and
Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain
by Biddies Ltd
Guildford, Surrey
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available
from the British Library
ISBN 1-84127-072-5
CONTENTS
Preface
Abbreviations
Introduction
7
8
11
Chapter 1
THE TWO-EPISODE PARADIGM:

SAMARITAN RESEARCH FROM MONTGOMERY TO COGGINS
The Earliest Jewish Sect: The Position of J.A. Montgomery
The Original Israelites: The Position of M. Gaster
A Postexilic Political Schism: The Position of A. Alt
Decisive Elements in the Formation of a Distinct
Samaritan Community in the Hasmonaean Period:
The Positions of H.H. Rowley, G. Holscher,
W.F. Albright and M. Smith
Taking up Old Ideas: The Positions of P.M. Cross
and H.G. Kippenberg
Breaking the Two-Episode Paradigm: The Position
of R.J. Coggins
13
13
22
30
33
41
48
Chapter 2
RADICAL ALTERNATIVES:
THE THEORIES OF CROWN AND NODET
A.D. Crown's Late Dating for a Distinctive Samaritanism
Samaritans as Original Israelites? The Position of E. Nodet
52
53
61
Chapter 3
SAMARITAN LITERATURE
The Pentateuch
Manuscripts
Translations
The Special Features of the Samaritan Pentateuch
76
76
83
85
87
The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Samaritan Theological Literature
Chronicles
Halakhic Literature
Commentaries on the Pentateuch
94
97
103
103
Chapter 4
SAMARITANS IN JEWISH, CHRISTIAN AND HELLENISTIC

LITERATURE
Rabbinic Judaism in the Light of the Samaritan Question
Christianity in the Light of the Jewish-Samaritan Question
The Request for an Identification of Simon the Just and
Ben Sira 50.25-26
The Foolish People in Shechem: Who Are They?
Shechem in the Old Testament Tradition
The Levites in Jewish Traditions
Zadok; pTTC '33 D^H D^HDH and the Levites
Jews, Conflicts and Reputation
104
104
115
125
138
146
152
158
171
Chapter 5
SAMARITANS IN THE WRITINGS OF JOSEPHUS

General Introduction to Josephus's Works
Examination of Josephus's Various Descriptions of Samaritans
Josephus's Terminology
Josephus between Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities
Concluding Remarks to Josephus's Presentation of Samaritans
Mount Gerizim, Tell er-Ras
183
183
192
216
222
226
234
Chapter 6
SAMARITAN HISTORIOGRAPHY
Prophets in Samaritan Tradition
The Historiography of the 'Postexilic' Period
239
254
258
Chapter 7
FROM LITERARY TO HISTORICAL REALITY
273
Bibliography
Index of References
Index of Authors
286
300
315
PREFACE
Never again will a single story be told as though it's the only one.
John Berger
In its earliest form this monograph was an entry in the annual prize
essay competition in Old Testament exegesis at the University of
Copenhagen in 1996. The original essay, Samaritanerne og den antikke
j0dedom, was fortunate enough to be awarded a gold medal. The editors
of the Copenhagen International Seminar, Niels Peter Lemche and
Thomas L. Thompson, recommended that I revise it and publish it in
English in their series. For support and assistance in producing the
original prize essay and this monograph I would like to thank the following: Pere Etienne Nodet of the Ecole Biblique for lending me his
English manuscript of A Search for the Origins of Judaism, which has
been a considerable inspiration in my own work; Professor Emanuel
Tov of the Hebrew University for his hospitality and friendship during
my stay in Jerusalem; Dr Richard Harper, director of the British School,
Dr John Woodhead, vice director at the British School and his wife
Karin, the staff at the school and my fellow residents for their interest
and support and my son Andreas for being a courageous and wonderful
companion during our stay. Professor Niels Peter Lemche of the University of Copenhagen and Lektor Per Bilde of Aarhus University for
their advice and corrections of earlier drafts of this thesis; Professor
Thomas L. Thompson of the University of Copenhagen for his neverending encouragement, inspiration and support as well as the revision
of my English. For financial support for research in Jerusalem, I am
indebted to the Thora Odlands Fond, Tribute to the Danes through
Scholarships Fund and the Copenhagen University Fund. Finally, I
want to thank every scholar whose works and ideas I have used and
exploited, whether it has been with pleasure or annoyance. None has
been without its use, as one can never know to whom one is indebted.
Ingrid Hjelm
Copenhagen
ABBREVIATIONS
AB
ABD
AF
AnBib
ANET
AnLeeds
ANRW
AOAT
ASOR
ASTI
ATLA
ATR
BA
BASOR
BHS
BJRL
BKAT
BO
BR
BZAW
CBQ
CIS
CPJ
CRINT
DDD
DID
DSD
DSS
EncJud
Erlsr
Anchor Bible
David Noel Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary
(New York: Doubleday, 1992)
Kitab al Tarikh of Abu'1-Fath
Analecta biblica
James B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts
Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1950)
The Annual of Leeds University
Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase (eds.), Aufstieg
und Niedergang der romischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur
Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung (Berlin: W. de
Gruyter, 1972-)
Alter Orient und Altes Testament
American Schools of Oriental Research
Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute
American Theological Library Association
Australian Theological Review
Biblical Archaeologist
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
Biblia Hebraica stuttgartensia
Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester
Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament
Bibliotheca orientalis
Bible Review
BeiheftezurZW
Catholic Biblical Quarterly
Corpus inscriptionum semiticarum
Corpus Papyrorum Judaicum
Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum
Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible
Discoveries in the Judaean Desert
Dead Sea Discoveries
Dead Sea Scrolls
Encyclopaedia Judaica
Eretz Israel
Abbreviations
FGrHist
F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker

(Leiden, 1923)
HDR
Harvard Dissertations in Religion
Hen
Henoch
HSM
Harvard Semitic Monographs
HTR
Harvard Theological Review
HUCA
Hebrew Union College Annual
IDBSup
IDB, Supplementary Volume
IEJ
Israel Exploration Journal
JA
Journal asiatique
JBL
Journal of Biblical Literature
JJS
Journal of Jewish Studies
JNES
Journal of Near Eastern Studies
JQR
Jewish Quarterly Review
JRAS
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society
JSOT
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JSOTSup
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series
JSS
Journal of Semitic Studies
JTS
Journal of Theological Studies
KS
Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel (3 vols.;
Munich: C.H. Beck, 1953-59)
LCL
Loeb Classical Library
NKGWPhil.-Hist. Klasse
Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften zur Gottingen
NovT
Novum Testamentum
NovTSup
Novum Testamentum, Supplements
NTOA
Novum Testamentum et orbis antiquus
NTS
New Testament Studies
OLZ
Orientalische Literaturzeitung
OTP
James Charlesworth (ed.), Old Testament Pseudepigrapha
PEQ
Palestine Exploration Quarterly
RB
Revue biblique
REJ
Revue des etudes juives
RevQ
Revue de Qumran
SET
Studies in Biblical Theology
SJLA
Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity
SP
Samaritan Pentateuch
SPB
Studia postbiblica
SSEA
Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities
ST
Studia theologica
SUNVAO
Skrifter utgitt au der Norske UitenskapsAkademi i Oslo
TSK
Theologische Studien und Kritiken
VT
Vetus Testamentum
VTSup
Vetus Testamentum, Supplements
10
WMANT
Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen

Testament
Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenshaft
Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlandischen Gesellschaft
Zeitschrift des deutschen Paldstina-Vereins
Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZAW
ZDMG
ZDPV
ZNW
INTRODUCTION
'When shall we take them back?' This talmudic utterance (Mass. Kut.
28) forms the backbone of most of Jewish and Christian discussions
about Samaritans since Josephus wrote his various origin stories of the
Samaritans in the first century of this era. The utterance both implies
that the Samaritans have left 'us' and that 'we' are the ones to decide
when 'we' will accept them as part of 'our' community. The forcefulness of this view on Samaritans, formed by Judaism's self-understanding of having developed from the Old Israel's transformation of past
traditions to become the New Israel, has been determinent for most
scholars' writings about the Samaritans for the past century. Scholars
have worked hard to establish the origin of Samaritans in accord with
these stories, to overcome contradictions and confusion as well as to
harmonize Josephus's stories with other stories. Most of these efforts
have proven unsuccessful. Whether one places the origin of Samaritanism in the eighth-century Assyrian policy of deportation, based on a
story of 2 Kings 17, in a fifth-century expulsion of a priest serving at
the temple in Jerusalem, based on a remark in Nehemiah 13, in a fourthcentury deceit of the Persian King Darius at the advance of Alexander
the Great, based on Josephus's Antiochus IV story and the books of
Maccabees, all resolutions have agreed on the worthiness and reliability
of one or other Jewish story about Samaritan origin and the Samaritan
community's departure from a Jerusalem centred Judaism. This departure was followed by a final schism, usually dated to the second century
BCE, based on Josephus's John Hyrcanus story and scholarship's claim
for a development of the Samaritan Pentateuch at that time.
Against this view stands Samaritan self-understanding that they
belong to the Old Israel, have an unbroken chain of high priests and a
cultic continuation that has kept their heritage unchanged. While
Judaism argued for the necessity of a new beginning after the Babylonian exile, Samaritans insisted that their old tradition be maintained.
As Abraham had left the godless world of Haran to go to Shechem, so
12
Samaritansin their postexilic returnbrought home their old tradition (kept in custody in Nineve) from Haran. The discussion clearly
places itself in an implicitly much broader discussion about the new and
the old Israel, with the Samaritans opting for continuity and the Jews
for new beginnings in the Ezra-Nehemiah traditions. Such a new
beginning, however, according to Samaritan understanding, had already
taken place in the time of Eli and had proven false.
Each having opted for their own tradition we are left to ask whether
ancient 'historiography' is anything but competing stories? Is scholarship forever doomed to justify one or another's story? Giving up the
priority of the biblical tradition, based as it is on the false assumption
that not only the Bible, but also its stories, belong to our origin, we
might, however, be able to establish each tradition in its own right.
Competing stories are competing stories belonging to those who wrote
them. Historical reality belongs to the world that created these stories. It
is not necessarily reflected in any simple truth about the past.
Chapter 1
THE TWO-EPISODE PARADIGM: SAMARITAN RESEARCH

FROM MONTGOMERY TO COGGINS
The Earliest Jewish Sect: The Position ofJ.A. Montgomery1
Published in 1907 and reprinted with few revisions in 1968, this was
the first work that, on the basis of the Samaritan sect's own sources,
sought to describe the history of the sect and its relation to Judaism,
Christianity and Islam in the past and the present. In the previous century, scholarship had centred around studies of the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) and its relationship to the Masoretic Text. Studies of the
copy of the SP brought home by Pietro Delia Valle in the 1620s seemed
to support the text of the Septuagint against the various Hebrew texts. It
thereby became important for the anti-Reformation's fight for the establishment of a textus receptus.2
The title of Montgomery's book places it in a Jewish as well as a
sectarian context. Montgomery's working hypothesis found its inspiration in K. Lincke's Samaria und seine Propheten,3 which he judged had
'unsuccessfully attempted to establish the theory that the Samaritans
were true descendants of the Northern Israelites in a direct line from
Elijah, Elisha, Hosea and the Yahweh-worshipping family of Jehu'.
Using 'authoritative' sources from the Christian period (New Testament, Josephus and Talmud), Montgomery concluded that the Samaritans 'were nothing else than a Jewish sect'. The one essential difference
between them and Judaism was that 'their cult centres on Gerizim, not
on Zion'.4 This denial of any other differences marked the perspectives
1. J.A. Montgomery, The Samaritans: The Earliest Jewish Sect: Their History,
Theology and Literature (Philadelphia: John C. Winston, 1907; repr. New York:
Ktav, 1968). The 1907 edition is used throughout this work.
2. This question will be dealt with more extensively in Chapter 3.
3. Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1903.
4. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 46.
14
of Montgomery's judgment of Samaritanism's dependency on Judaism

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

6. Josephus, Ant. 9.277-91. Montgomery is here in full accord with E. Schiirer,
Geschichte des judischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs,
1885) (whom he does not refer to), who stated that although Samaritans are of
mixed stock they rightly are to be considered to belong to the Jewish people since
they have adopted Jewish worship of Yahweh to such an extent that only Gerizim
and Jerusalem marks the difference.
7. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 54. Evidence for this hypothesis was based on:
(1) Hezekiah's passover as told in 2 Chron. 30, which also included the people from
Ephraim who caused a delay of the celebration; (2) the capture of Manasseh to
Babylon (2 Chron. 33.11); (3) the reform of Josiah (2 Kgs 23), which includes all
the cult places in Samaria; (4) the deputation from Shechem, Shiloh and Samaria,
which paid the mourners in Jerusalem a visit of condolence after the destruction of
the temple (Jer. 41.4-6).
1. The Two-Episode Paradigm
15
exiled from Samaria and later from Judaea,8 there remained a core of
'old Israelite blood' that joined together under the Judaic crisis in mutually supporting the survival of their common religion. The return from
exile did not break this agreement, for, during the reign of Darius I
(521-385 BCE), the return of Zerubbabel had created expectations of
the coming of the Messiah, which joined Judaean, Samaritan and
Babylonian Israelites together in a new enthusiasm powerful enough to
overcome old differences.9
Opposition to this enthusiasm was not to be found within Judaism
itself and the 'am ha'ares of Ezra 4.4 was not the Samaritans, as was
usually asserted on the basis of Josephus's interpretation. They were
non-Israelite peoples who moved into Judaea during the Babylonian
exile.10 The real opponents to the activities of the returnees were the
political governors of the Persian province of Aber-Nahara, such as the
8. Comparing biblical references from 2 Kgs 17; Isa. 7.8; Ezra 4.2, 9 and
Assyrian Annals 11-17, 20-23, 67, 94, 95, Montgomery made the conclusion that
not the whole population had been deported and that it was mainly the leaders of
the people, while the poorer country people remained 'without king, without prince,
and without altar, and without sacrifice and without pillar, and without ephod or
teraphim' (cf. Hos. 3.4). This remaining group was added to by immigrants from
various places in Mesopotamia for around a hundred years (cf. Samaritans, pp. 4853). For later discussions, see J.B. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating
to the Old Testament (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1968); B. Oded,
Mass Deportation and Deportees in the Neo-Assyrian Empire (Wiesbaden: Reichert,
1979), who on the basis of a study of 157 Assyrian texts concluded that several
deportations took place, involving very different numbers of people, having different purposes and comprising entire regions, cities or families, and were not subsequently followed by similar migrations. See also Th.L. Thompson, Early History of
the Israelite People (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992); Th.L. Thompson, The Bible in History (London: Cape, 1999), pp. 190-99, 210-27; H. Barstad, The Myth of the Empty
Land (Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1996); L.L. Grabbe (ed.), Leading Captivity Captive: 'The Exile' as History and Ideology (JSOTSup, 278; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998).
9. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 62: an expectation which was carried out by
the prophets Haggai and Zechariah. Montgomery here found support in the view of
Wellhausen, that Zech. 6.9-13 referred to Zerubbabel, for whom the crown was
designed.
10. Reflected in fact in 1 Esd. 3.45 and 4.50, but in sharp contrast to Josephus
and later rabbinic tradition that stressed the ideological contrast between North and
South that the South had remained empty during the exile and had avoided defilement by foreign peoples.
16
Horonite Sanballat 'without doubt belonging to the heathen colonisators

in Samaria, Tobiah who had close relations to the Judaean aristocracy
and priesthood although he was an Ammonite (Ezra 6.17ff.; Neh.
13.4ff.) and finally Geshem the Arab (Neh. 2.19; 6.6)'. These were not
to be considered to belong to those who had observed the Jewish religion in Samaria. Political privileges given to the Jews caused the envious acts supported and led by these officials.11 According to Montgomery, the Bible did not connect these postexilic events, related in
Ezra and Nehemiah, with the Samaritans. Scholarship's interpretation
was based solely on Josephus, who, elaborating on Neh. 13.28, reported
that Sanballat, being the father-in-law of Manasseh, grandchild of
Eliashib and brother to Jaddua, built a temple on Gerizim to his son-inlaw and others following him after they had been expelled from the
Judaean temple in Jerusalem. 12 In spite of Josephus's novelistic
11. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 65. This view is much later repeated in L.L.
Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian, I (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1992), p. 121.
12. Although Josephus placed his account in the time of Alexander the Great,
scholarly consensus maintained that there was only one event that had been given a
different context and consequence. In Montgomery's view Josephus was dependent
on a Samaritan tradition that combined the legend with Sanballat (Montgomery,
Samaritans, pp. 67-69). Among Montgomery's contemporaries the historicity of the
Alexander legend was met with a considerable mistrust (cf. H.H. Rowley, 'Sanballat and the Samaritan Temple', BJRL 38 [1955-56], pp. 166-98, reprinted in idem,
Men of God [London: Thomas Nelson, 1963], pp. 246-76). Rowley here argued
against an early view put forward by G. Holscher, Geschichte der israelitischen und
judischen Religion (Die Theologie im Anbriss, 7; Giessen: Alfred Topelmann,
1922), p. 172, who, according to Rowley, Men of God, p. 258 n. 2, had previously
rejected Josephus's account and regarded it as an unhistorical legend originating in
Jewish-Alexandrian circles.
This view is shared by several scholars as cited by Rowley, Men of God, p. 250
n. 1: R. Riietschi, 'Was Josephus von einem Sanballat erzahlt...ist ein sehr ungeschichtliches Erzahlung'; H. Willrich, 'Dass uns ein apokryphes Buch im Auszuge
vorliegt, ist unzweifelhaft'; A.H. Sayce, 'The whole story seems to be derived from
some apocryphal Jewish account of the Origin of the Samaritan Temple'; F. Vigouroux: 'Le recit de Josephe est plein d'anachronismes et ne saurait etre accepte';
G. Holscher, 'Die Ausbildung der jiidisch-alexandrinischen Schullegende, von der
Josephus abhangig ist, ervolgte nur wenige Menschenalter vor Josephus... Von
Tradition iiber mehrere Jahrhunderte fruhere Ereignisse kann damals nicht die Rede
sein, wie gerade die ganz konfuse, aus blosser willktirlicher Exegese des Nehemiatextes herausgesponnene Alexander-Jaddualegende zeigt'; G.F. Moore, 'The Alexander part of the story in Josephus is not embellished legend but pure fiction of a
17
'historiography', this could still inform us about the reasons for the
expulsion.13
The reform activities of Ezra and Nehemiah had as their goal the
formation of a 'church state' in Jerusalem and its immediate neighbourhood, which was supported religiously and politically by the Babylonian golah. Not everyone shared the enthusiasm for their efforts to
secure 'the purity of the holy seed', and it is not difficult to imagine the
opposition to these returned 'doctors of the Torah', who, irrespective of
both their Davidic and high priestly lineage, introduced the priestly
codex.14 The 'am ha'ares gained support from their heathen leaders,
who had close relations with aristocratic circles in Jerusalem.15 Whether
they met with immediate success we are not told. However, 'since
(Nehemiah) had to solve the problem afresh' Montgomery concluded
that 'Ezra had failed'. Nehemiah, the successor of Ezra, in office from
445-433, was a 'far more strenuous, yet withal more political, ruler'.
Leaving aside chronological incompatibilities, Josephus's story about
Manasseh, son-in-law to Sanballat the Horonite, offered itself as a useful solution to Montgomery's reconstruction. He and no one else was
the person who laid the foundations for the Samaritan sect16 that
emerged out of 'the excommunication from the Jewish church' 17 and
found a home in Samaria, in Shechem, 'which was always an open
town to foreigners in ancient times'. Independent of Jewish jurisdiction,
species very familiar in the Hellenistic literature of the Jews... A historian may
properly decline to admit such testimony as to either fact or date'; E. Sellin, 'Es ist
klar, dass es sich hier iiberwiegend um eine Legende handelt, die aus Neh. 13:28
heraus gewaschen ist'. For the later literature see below. It is noteworthy that most
of these statements occur before the publication of the Elephantine papyri by
A.E. Cowley in 1923.
14. Montgomery's statement that the high priests were considered to be 'as secular-minded as the royalty' seems to be due to simple prejudice. The Hebrew Bible
in fact places Ezra in the pre-exilic high priestly lineage (cf. Ezra 7.1-2; 1 Chron.
6.1-2).
16. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 68-69 did not give any solution to Josephus's
disagreement with Neh. 13 and the placement of Sanballat's son-in-law in the time
of Alexander the Great, but ascribed this confusion to the incorrectness of ancient
historiography and to the possibility that Josephus had other sources at hand, that is,
1 Esdras and probably some Samaritan traditions that were intended to connect
certain important events to this legendary ruler.
18
'a home offered itself through the political favor of the political leaders
and officials of that district, who were bent on doing mischief to Jerusalem and its church'. Here they had most of the holy places from
Jewish ancestry and here they found a place to build a temple and
establish a cult. This group later became known as Samaritans or Shechemites, a more correct designation used by Josephus. Their self-designation remained Israelite, and, leaving it to their adversaries to call
themselves 'Jews', they verbally preserved Joseph's priority over
Judah.18
Montgomery did not consider this to be a complete schism. In the
following centuries, political, religious and family relations nourished
the Samaritan sect, where a branch of the Jewish high priesthood
reigned. The close agreements of Samaritan and Sadducean theology
also seemed best explained by close relations between the priests in
Shechem and Jerusalem, supported by the family ties of the high
priestly lineage. The ultimate and irreversible schism occurred when
John Hyrcanus conquered Shechem and Gerizim and destroyed the
Samaritan temple in 128 BCE.19 Being only a minor group, the Samaritan sect did not play any significant role in the Maccabean uprising.
According to Josephus, they even denied having any relationship with
the subdued Judaeans in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. A contradiction to this statement, found in 2 Mace. 5.22-23's account, that Antiochus had placed governors in Jerusalem and on Gerizim, led Montgomery to assert that John Hyrcanus's conquest must be understood
within a context in which the majority of the Samaritan population consisted of heathens who supported the occupation. It was therefore only
natural that John Hyrcanus, after Judaea's annexation of Ephraim,
Lydda and Ramathaim around 145 BCE, extended his reign into the
central hill areas, 'and not only paid off old scores with the degenerate
Syrian kingdom, but also took vengeance on the weakened Samaritan
sect', whose city and temple he laid waste in 128 BCE.20 This act was
19. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 71: 'We possess no further data concerning the
Palestinian Samaritans until the second century BCE, in the period of the Maccabees. But the intervening age was not one that was committed to the rigorism of
Ezra and Nehemiah, or of the Chasidim and the Pharisees of the second century.
The fortunes of the Jewish Church were chiefly in the control of the high priesthood, which appears in general to have been utterly worldly-minded.'
20. The Samaritan Chronicle Kitab al Tarikh of Abu'l Fath (AF) relates that
19
followed by the conquest of Samaria in 107 BCE by the sons of John

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

true Yahwism because of the support 'offered to those weak brethren
by the more persistent community of Juda'.23
This basic view, which we now must characterize as a caricature of
the Samaritans based on an anachronistic understanding of the origins
of Judaism, also coloured Montgomery's presentation of Samaritan
theology. The Samaritans did not possess any 'intellectual independence'. The sect 'was content to draw its teachings and stimulus from
the Jews, even long after the rupture was final'. The Pentateuch
formed24 the backbone of Samaritan theology that reached its most fundamental development in the teachings of the fourth century CE Samaritan theologian Marka. This development, however, 'celebrated in the
traditions concerning Baba Rabba',25 had but a brief blooming. 'The
Samaritans fell back into the prosaic type characteristic of them, so that
their theology has become a hard and dry product with little imagination and spiritual afflatus'. 26 The same judgment was given of Samaritan liturgy. Although this is represented, in the British Museum alone,
in 12 large quarto volumes, numbering some 2000 pages, consisting of
hymns, litanies, songs of praise, requiems, meditations, midrashic
hymns composed for the great feasts of Passover, Pentecost and Booths
(Kippur), as well as fasting liturgies and haggadic literature, they only
'rarely expose any poetic genius, but borrow and imitate Jewish and
Syrian-Christian traditions'.27 Only in regard to earnestness and sincer23. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 54.
24. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 205. Montgomery did not engage himself in
any lengthy discussion of the Pentateuch. The assertion made by Wellhausen that
the Law must have reached its final form by the time of the exclusion of the priest
who became the leader of the Samaritans about 432 BCE, he found unsubstantiated,
since scholarship's knowledge of Jewish and Samaritan relationships for at least
200 years was so limited that we could not know for sure whether Samaritans
and/or Jews had revised their Scriptures (cf. p. 73). Montgomery's ambiguity, however, found expression in his statement about relations between SP, MT and the
LXX: 'all mysteries and theological prepossessions aside, the simplest hypothesis is
that the Samaritan represents an actual early form of the Pentateuch... Indeed it is
not the disagreement that is remarkable so much as the great similarity ot the two
texts. Apart from the few falsifications inserted by the Samaritans, there are no
material differences' (p. 289).
25. A third century CE reformer of Samaritan theology, see Chapters 2 and 3.
21
ity in principles of faith did Montgomery allow the Samaritans a genuine religious spirit that 'gives a true dignity to very much that is in
itself absurd and trivial'.28 Not only Jewish but also Christian theology
influenced Samaritan thought. The phraseology is clearly marked by
this influence, and several of the epithets attributed to Jesus can be
found in the Samaritan 'belief in Moses, who, however, because of
absolute monotheism, never can reach a divine status similar to that of
Jesus. Moses is the sole prophet, the confidant of God, the son of his
house, one with whom God talked face to face. He is the end, the limit
of all revelation, a very ocean of divine utterance. Coloured by Christian terms, he is 'God's evangelist, the Pure one, the Light on Earth
etc.'.29 However, Montgomery's proof of what he calls Christian influence in fact takes most of its epithets from the Old Testament. It is not
owing to Christian influence that 'no prophet has ever arisen like Moses,
or ever will arise; or that Moses is the absolute prophet, for all things
hidden and revealed were shown him on the holy mount, so that other
prophets are superfluous'. Even the assertion that 'on his account the
world was made' has its first parallel in Jewish thought. The lack of
interest in sacrificial laws in Samaritan theology gave Montgomery reason to conclude that the theology laid greater stress upon the moral side
of the law. Expressed in haggadic form, it marks Samaritan theology
with a tone of spirituality that might have been 'one of those numerous
developments of Old Testament religion which were forerunners of the
spiritual worship of synagogue and of Christianity'. This places Samaritan synagogue worship earlier than the similar Jewish one, 'for the
glory of Gerizim fell two centuries before that of Jerusalem' .30
This constant ambiguity in Montgomery's judgment is probably
given its greatest expression in his description of holy places, of which
Judah can only 'boast of Hebron and Beer Sheba, and of the very modern sanctity of Jebusite Jerusalem', while 'the north was full of sanctuaries where Yahweh had appeared and where his heroes lived and
died'.31 It is for Montgomery a 'strange outcome that the one-time sepa28. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 300.
31. Montgomery, Samaritans, pp. 15-16: 'Straight into the inviting uplands of
Ephraim went the tribes of Israel...their objective was Shechem, the natural capital
of the district (Jos. 1-9). Upon its two holy mountains was performed, and this
according to Judaean tradition, the first formal covenant of the people with Yahweh
22
ratist tribe (Judah) became the church of Israel, while the north has at
last given home to the smallest and most insignificant sect in the
world'.32 The full impact of this statement is not dealt with satisfactorily in Montgomery's work. His reader is left to consider whether he in
fact was so influenced by the nineteenth century's status of the Samaritan community that, in spite of considerable references to a more widespread and a more independent Samaritan religion and society in the
Old Testament, in Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, in the New Testament, in, for that matter also, some of the writings of Josephus and the
Church fathers, he found it impossible to conclude otherwise about
Judaean-Samaritan controversies in antiquity. In spite of these inconsistencies, Montgomery's work had a considerable impact on scholarly
opinions of Samaritanism. For decades it forced scholars either to challenge his obvious mistakes or to create more substantial 'evidence' in
support of his historical reconstruction. Of these the latter certainly predominated.33
The Original Israelites: The Position ofM. Caster34
Caster's book forms a response to Montgomery's conclusions. Taking
up the same issues and by and large using the same literature, Caster's
implicit criticism of Montgomery's use of sources became a counterin their new home (Jos. 8.30ff.; Deut. 27) ...And now again the land was consecrated by the graves of Joseph and Joshua and Eleazar (Jos. 24.29ff.) and even
according to an early tradition the tombs of the twelve patriarchs (Acts 7.16). This
was the land of Gideon and Samuel and Saul, of Elijah and Elisha, in a word the
land of Israel, whereas the South possessed no better title than its tribal name Juda,
a provinicial designation, over against the noble succession of the North.'
33. In fact A.D. Crown, in his presentation of Samaritan studies since Montgomery, could state that although his recent book (A.D. Crown, A Bibliography of
the Samaritans [ATLA Bibliography Series, 10; London: The Scarecrow Press,
1984]) contained 2806 entries for all texts and writings from the sixteenth century
until 1984 (with an addition of 311 entries for the following two years), it could be
concluded that 'in many of these, Montgomery's book was still the principal
reference. In many cases one receives the distinct impression that the scholars
writing this material were "rediscovering" the Samaritans as if there had been no
work done since the days of Montgomery'. Cf. A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans
(Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck],1989), p. xvi.
34. M. Gaster, The Samaritans, Their History, Doctrines and Literature (London: Oxford University Press, 1925).
23
weight to the pro-Judaic perspective underlying Montgomery's work.

Where Montgomery failed to take seriously the sources he had at hand,
Gaster sought to establish a harmonious historiography based on the
SP, some Samaritan Chronicles, the Masoretic Pentateuch and the Old
Testament Scriptures as well as the body of Jewish literature. The conclusions of Caster's historiography placed Samaritans in a much more
independent role. They were not, as in Montgomery's book, the weak
half, entirely dependent on their stronger brethren in the south, but they
certainly were a people with their own strength and character, a religious and (political?) threat to their southern brethren, who were forced
to fight over centralization of the cult.35
Whereas the Hebrew Bible considered the origin of the Samaritans to
have resulted from the settling of heathen colonies in the northern kingdom after the fall of Samaria (referred to in 2 Kgs 17, Ezra 4 and
confirmed in Josephus, Ant. 9.277-91; 10.184; 11.1-119), Samaritan
tradition related the origin of the tribe(s) to the settling in 'the holy
land'. The Samaritans, in Hebrew D'HQCZJ (Somerim: the keepers [of the
Law]) are presented as descendants of Ephraim and Manasseh along
with adherents from other tribes. Their list of high priests is traced back
to Phinehas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron. The original tabernacle was
erected on Mount Gerizim by Joshua, where the commandments of the
Law were written (cf. also Deut. 27.2, which in the BHS is named
Mount Ebal).36
35. Although Gaster could ascribe to the Samaritans the role of being the original Israelites, he still considered them to be a Jewish sect, having their background
in the same Pentateuch and without any trace of heathen influence: 'The most
minute investigation has failed to indicate a single trace; on the contrary, the result
has been to fortify still farther, and confirm more strongly, the conviction that the
Samaritans are none other than a purely Jewish sect' (Samaritans, p. 41).
36. Implicitly confirmed in Josh. 24.26: 'And Joshua wrote these words in the
book of the Law of God, and took a great stone, and set it up there under an oak,
that was established by the sanctuary of the Lord' (cf. Gaster, Samaritans, p. 8).
Gaster did not accept Higher Criticism's attempts to take away the genuineness and
antiquity of the chapter (cf. p. 8 n. 2). Gaster's acceptance of the Samaritan claim to
be the original Israelites was later supported by F. Altheim and R. Stiehl, 'Erwagungen zur Samaritanerfrage', in idem (eds.), Die Araber in der Alien Welt, IV
(Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1967); A. Mikolasek, 'Les Samaritains gardiens de la loi
contre les prophetes', Communio Viatorum 12 (1969), pp. 139-48; J. Macdonald,
The Samaritan Chronicle No. II: From Joshua to Nebuchadnezzar (BZAW, 107;
Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1969). E. Nodet, Essai sur les origines du juda'isme: de
24
Disagreements in the priestly families between the older and younger

sons of Aaron, Eleazar and Ithamar, and Eli's subsequent move of the
ark to Shilo marked the beginning of the Judaean-Samaritan controversies. The schism culminated in David's building of the temple in
Jerusalem and became manifest during the time of Ezra.37 In order to
give a certain authority to his sanctuary, Eli brought with him a copy of
the Law Ithamar had had in his possession. This copy was later placed
in the foundation of Solomon's temple.
According to Gaster, the historicity of these events presented in the
Samaritan Chronicle found its confirmation in several cases: (1) In Old
Testament historiography, it is not until after the establishment of the
tabernacle in Shiloh that Yahweh is named Yahweh Sebaot. (2) Eli's
companion in his schismatic work is a descendant of Korah (1 Chron.
6.18-24), marking the new revolt as a reiteration of the revolt of the
ancestor against Moses and Aaron (cf. Num. 16). (3) The obscure passages in the David-Saul story, relating Saul's killing of Ahimelekh and
the priests of Nob and David's friendship with Abiathar and Ahimaas,
could find its explanation in rival priestly families sympathizing with
either one or the other. (4) The aetiological story in 2 Kings 17 about
the removed peoples, which in Josephus bear the name Cuthaeans, had
no impact on and no consequence for later Old Testament literature.
With the exception of Ezra 4.1-2, the Samaritans cannot be traced in
any biblical text. Ephraim is generally considered to be a legitimate
Israelite tribe, belonging to the 'holy people' in so far as they keep the
Law and accept Zion (cf. Isa. 7.8, 9; 11.11-13; Jer. 23.5-6; 31; Ezek.
37.16-19; Zech. 9.13; 10.6). Furthermore, both Hezekiah and Josiah
send embassies to the 'old' Israelite tribes, unaware that these had been
replaced by heathens.38 The parallel account in the Samaritan Chronicle
does know of drought, famine and attacking wild beasts (so also Lev.
26), but such had been caused by the deportation of the priests, which
had brought an end to the worship. After a petition to the Assyrian
rulers, the high priest Serayah returned to rebuild the temple and to reestablish the cult on Mount Gerizim. Contrary to the Jewish version, in
this tradition of the Samaritans, it is Serayah who asks the Jews and
Josue aux Pharisiens (Paris: Cerf, 1992); rev. Eng. version: In Search of the Origins of Judaism: From Joshua to the Mishnah (JSOTSup, 248; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1997).
37. Gaster, Samaritans, pp. 8-9.
25
their leader Zerubbabel to participate in the rebuilding. Since it was not

comme ilfaut for the Jews to act positively to this request, the building
was delayed. Not until after negotiations with the Persian king Surdi
and proof given of Gerizim's priority over against Jerusalem did the
rebuilding continue under royal protection. The chronological disagreement in placing Serayah as a contemporary of Zerubbabel did not affect
Caster's reconstruction.39 This is surprising as his readings of Samaritan
as well as biblical material is of a thoroughly historicizing character.
Neither is the parallel account in Ezra about the rebuilding of the
temple in Jerusalem considered to be either unhistorical or to conflict
with the Samaritan account. The Ezra story, on the other hand, is seen
to give evidence for the power of the Samaritans, namely that they
could delay the rebuilding of the temple for years 'while they enjoyed
the privilege of having rebuilt one on Mount Gerizim a long while
before'.40
In contrast to Montgomery, the 'am hd'dres and the 'adversaries of
Judah and Benjamin' are certainly the Samaritans. The unsolved question for Gaster is why the Jews rejected Samaritan support in the
rebuilding. 41 His answer to this question concerns the purifying function of the exile. The returnees from the Babylonian exile were 'chastened in heart and wholly changed in their religious outlook. Every
trace of ancient idolatry had been shed and pure monotheism was now
the outstanding form of their worship and belief. They certainly did not
have intentions of reviving old cult forms nor, by intermingling with
other peoplenot even their former associates from before the exile
want to risk losing what had been gained from the purifying suffering of
the exile. For that reason, the Jews had to reject the Samaritan offer,
avoid any kind of socializing and install the true high priest in the
House of David. This was the struggle of the prophets Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. Interpreting Satan of Zech. 3.1-2 as representative of
the Samaritan interests (in his attempt to convince the high priest
39. Gaster, Samaritans, p. 20. It is not clear, however, to me, on what Samaritan
material Gaster based his reconstruction. The newer translations of Samaritan
Chronicles do not present these confusions.
40. Gaster, Samaritans, p. 21.
41. 'It is however perfectly clear and easy to understand the refusal of the Jews
to accept the invitation of the Samaritans to worship with them on Mount Garizim,
but if the Samaritans came and offered to worship in Jerusalem, why should they
have been refused' (Gaster, Samaritans, p. 21).
26
Jehoshua that Gerizim/Shechem was the place chosen by God), Gaster

placed this story in the centre of assumed postexilic discussions over
cult and belief. Standing the test, Jehoshua's rejection of Satan's temptation established his legitimacy as high priest,42 a legitimacy that had
been presumably rejected by the Samaritans, who otherwise claimed to
have a correct and direct descendant from the Aaron-Eleazar branch of
the lineage. The changing of garments in Zech. 3.3-7 illustrates the prophet's claim that, although Jehoshua was not the legitimate high priest,
he now was the elected high priest.43
Although I agree with Gaster that we find these disputes in the Old
Testament and that Zechariah also seeks to legitimize the high priest in
Jerusalem, I do not think that Zechariah's text bears an implicit rejection of the Samaritan priesthood. The scenario is that of the book of
Job. The fire and the removal of filthy garments are metaphors for
'removal of iniquity'. This is clear from v. 4. That this recognition in a
context of cult centralization implies rejection is conjecture and stands
in contrast to Gaster's interpretation of Zech. 4.14 that the olive trees
reflect a future reunification of the two priestly families. The text as
such seems not to have such a perspective, and we are far better off if
we consider the two olive trees as symbolic representations of Jehoshua
and Zerubbabel; namely of priesthood and kingship. The legitimacy of
Jehoshua is confirmed in 1 Chron. 6.1-15. As son of Yehozadak son of
Serayah he belongs to the lineage of Eleazar-Levi. This is the claim
found also in Samaritan traditions, which, as we have seen, placed Serayah in their high priestly genealogy. The recurrent Old Testament
motif of conflict of brothers certainly is also representative, and seems
to be so fundamental for the Judaean-Samaritan conflict that we come
across it over and over again. Of greatest importance is that Ezra is also
placed in this genealogy, although he never bore the title of high priest:
a title that is, however, remarkably absent in both Ezra and Nehemiah.44
According to Jewish as well as Samaritan tradition, Ezra transcribed the
Hebrew text into the Aramaic script from the old characters still found
among the Samaritans. In Gaster's interpretation of the event
44. Gaster, Samaritans, p. 27: 'as for his title, it is noteworthy that his genealogy is given, though many links are missing, and that he is described as the safer
mahir' meaning 'a very high functionary, either equal to the high priest or commander of the army'.
27
there could only have been one reason for such a drastic step; namely to
break completely and to eliminate the Samaritan text from circulation
among the Jews, to relegate it to a place of inferiority or to declare it
spurious as well as incorrect and unreliable, as was often declared in the
Rabbinic writings, and to wean the people from any contact or any knowledge of the old script. The new alphabet formed the impassable barrier
between the two.45
According to Samaritan tradition, Ezra not only transcribed the text, he

also falsified it, adding an extra commandment to replace the original
commandment that the altar should be on Mt Gerizim, and further
changed the wording of Deut. 27.4 to Ebal against an original Gerizim.
This explains why 'the Levites read the Law to the people under the
command of Ezra and with the assistance of Nehemiah'.46
Gaster's interpretation of these events is complicated by his attempts
to incorporate what he think is the prophets' 'hope of reunification' by
Samaritan submission to Zion and Jerusalem. Not only Zech. 4.14, but
also Ezra 10 and Nehemiah 13 as well as Hag. 2.11-12, are directed
towards Judaean-Samaritan relations.47 Stretching his argumentation
beyond what in fact is said in these texts, it seems that Gaster, in his
attempt to save the Jewish people from having fallen so deeply into
apostasy that they even intermingled with heathen nations, allocates
more cases to this argumentation than is dealt with in the texts.48 It is a
wonder why Gaster did not bring in such texts as 2 Chronicles 30 and
46. Gaster, Samaritans, p. 30: 'This will explain the failure of Ezra's activity
until his work was taken in hand by Nehemiah and carried through owing to the
authority wielded by the latter. The High Priest and his family, the princes of Judah,
and all those who lived in amity with the Samaritans unquestionably offered great
opposition and resistance to Ezra's reformative work and were able to thwart it during the years that Ezra was alone.'
47. See Gaster, Samaritans, p. 29. Gaster considered the Ashodim to be a
euphemism for Samaritans, whom they avoided mentioning.
48. See p. 22: 'The relations between the Samaritans and the returned Jews must
have been of a friendly character at the beginning; after all, they were conscious of
being parts of one nation, they practically spoke the same language, worshipped the
same God, followed the same injunctions, and had the same laws. The Jews could
therefore easily have intermarried with the Samaritans, for it is not to be assumed
from the records of the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, that the Jews had so far forgotten themselves as to intermarry with the heathen inhabitants'; p. 29: 'In order therefore, to carry out his decision, Ezra had first to break the family relations: hence the
stern decree of divorce.'
28
Jeremiah 30-31, which seem more appropriate to his argument about

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

the Law expressed in halakhah by both Jews and Samaritans are due to
a common Pentateuch (which must have had divine and unchangeable
character for both groups long before the development of oral traditions). This can be clearly demonstrated by the fact that Samaritan
halakhah in some instances agrees with the so-called Sadducaean interpretation, while in many others it agrees with the so-called Pharisaean
interpretation. In contrast to Judaism, Samaritanism did not experience
a break from the tradition. In Jewish tradition this was the necessary
consequence of the Babylonian destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.
The Samaritan list of high priests can be dated back to Adam, while the
worship on Gerizim is understood never to have ceased as 'they have
never been removed from Mount Gerizim'. Gaster in fact argues here
against the Samaritan self-understanding that they had been removed
three times: in the time of Saul, at the exile and finally in the time of the
Jewish king Simon. These removals, however, caused no break with
tradition. The return from the Babylonian exile is a return to the old cult
place, a return to the old code, re-establishing the former cult.52
I do not wish to engage myself in a lengthy discussion about Gaster's
presentation and judgment of Samaritan literature, but some few
remarks must be made. Without direct evidence, admittedly difficult to
establish, Gaster considered the Samaritan texts to be of a considerable
antiquity and to have been copied accurately for centuries. The asserted
differences between the Samaritan, the Masoretic and the Septuagint
Pentateuchs were all due to later rewritings of the various texts in book
form. These were 'not invested with the same sacred character as that
with which the scroll was endowed'. 53 Only the scroll was used for
divine service and should remain unblemished. For that reason, the
former judgments of differences should be reconsidered and the discussion about the Samareiticon and the LXX taken up once again. This
argument of Caster's has been seen for the last 50 years in quite another
light. With the finding of the scrolls in the caves of the Judaean desert,
Caster's argument fell apart. The establishment of an unchangeable
textus receptus was finally accepted as belonging to a much later
period. Gaster's other arguments regarding palaeography, colophons
'did not avoid considerable influence from Islam' (pp. 37-39), since he is here
speaking from both a different perspective and time.
52. See Chapter 6.
30
and passeq in the Masoretic texts (where they deviated from the Samaritan texts) created few interested comments in following decades. The
same must be said of his arguments about the Samaritans having been
originally Israelites and preserving Hebrew in its most archaic form.54
Albeit this argument found its roots in both Jewish and Samaritan tradition, few scholars accepted it as historical. For years to come, the presentation of the Samaritans given by Josephus found its way into most of
the 'historiographies' on both Judaism and Samaritanism.
A Postexilic Political Schism: The Position of A. Alt55
Montgomery and Gaster both operated within what can be called a twoepisode paradigm. Placing the origin of either Samaritans or Jews in the
first episode of separationwhether this be in post- or pre-exilic
timesand a subsequent final schism in the fifth-second century BCE,
the division of Jews and Samaritans begged explanation beyond pure
political circumstances related to the formation of the Jewish state and
the subsequent reign of the Hasmonaeans. The assertion of hostilities in
the intervening period is conjectural. It does not explain steps taken by
the Hasmonaeans or give reason for the hatred arising from such events.
This problem forms the background of Alt's judgment of political circumstances in Palestine during Assyrian and Persian times. Historicizing the biblical accounts, Alt reached the conclusion that the schism
was purely political. The building of the temple on Gerizim was an
unavoidable consequence of Persian policy, whichwith Nehemiah
gave Judaea an independent political role similar to what Samaria had
enjoyed for 300 years.56 The ruling classes in Samaria,57 placed there
54. Gaster, Samaritans, p. 107: 'We thus have here four stages of development:
first the old Hebrew writing, then some time afterwards the separating dot, then the
transliteration of the old Hebrew writing into the square associated with the name of
Ezra, and lastly the final evolution of the difference between the final and the
medial letters. This development of course covers a long period and is probably the
work of centuries. The Samaritan scroll shows the period of the separating dot, and
thus from the point of view of palaeography has preserved a most archaic form
which in all its details is entirely independent of any Jewish or other known
influence.'
55. A. Alt, 'Die Rolle Samarias bei der Entstehung des Judentums' (1934), KS
2, pp. 316-37.
56. Alt, 'Rolle Samarias', p. 337: 'Das sich die Provinz Samaria auf diesen
Umschwung hin auch als Religionsgemeinschaft unabhangig von Jerusalem kon-
31
first by the Assyrian governors and later by the Babylonian and Persian
authorities, had jurisdiction also over Judaea and its remaining poor
landed population. When the Persians, however, sent home Judaea's
exiled aristocracy58 this population, called 'am ha'ares, fought to remain
under Samaritan rule. Aided by the governor, they appealed to the Persian king to stop what they considered to be usurpers of 'government'.
The immediate result was favourable to the 'am ha'ares. Judaea was
without its own governor and the Samaritan jurisdiction had no intention of giving up its influence in this area. It was not until the time of
Nehemiah and the establishment of an independent Judaean province
that the neighbouring provinces were deprived of influence in Judaic
policy.59 This did not lead to the establishment of two equal regions.
stituerte und durch offiziellen Ausbau der Verehrung Jahwes auf dem Garizim ein
kultisches Element, das ihr bis dahin gefehlt hatte, in ihren Bestand einfiigte, war
die unausbleibliche Folge.'
57. Alt, 'Rolle Samarias', p. 320: 'Nicht minder wichtig fur die Rechtslage und
fur das innere Leben der neuen Provinz ist aber zweitens die Ersetzung der deportierten bisherigen Oberschicht, die damit fur immer aus der Geschichte Palastinas
ausscheidet, durch eine neue, die auf dem gleichen Wege der Deportationen aus
anderen Teilen des Grossreiches zusammengeholt wird, also weder in sich selbst
noch mit der an ihren Platzen belassenen Untersicht der Provinzialbevolkerung
einen angestammten, nicht erst durch die Massnahmen der assyrische Regierung
kiinstlich hergestellten Zusammenhang besitzt'. At the core of Alt's argument lies
the assumption that these people remained unassimilated. Cf. p. 322: 'Es ist daher
ein griindlicher Irrtum, wenn man sich die Entwicklung der Dinge in der Provinz
Samaria von der Assyrerzeit so vorstellt, als ware da allmahlich ein Ausgleich
zwischen der alteinheimischen und der neugefiihrten Bevolkerung eingetreten, und
wenn man gar diese angebliche Volkermischung zur Grundlage fur das Verstandnis
der spateren samaritanischen Religionsgemeinde machen will, als ware bei ihrer
Entstehung eine Religionsmischung mit im Spiel.'
58. Alt argued that the exiled Judaean high society had not been exiled in the
technical sense of the word, but was only removed for a limited period from its
homeland, and was never replaced by a foreign upper-class group, as had happened
in Samaria (cf. Alt, 'Rolle Samarias', p. 326). With the return of this 'exiled' upperclass group, its submission to Samaritan authority created the conflicts described in
Ezra and Nehemiah. The Samaritan upper class, called 'am ha'ares, were those
who for political reasons sought to delay the building of the temple in Jerusalem.
59. Alt, 'Rolle Samarias', p. 331: 'hatte es dort von anfang an einen persischen
Statthalter gegeben, so miisste er an mehreren Stellen genannt sein, wo man in
Wirchlichkeit nicht ein Wort von ihm lest, Ex.: Ezra 5:3ff, 4:8, 7:12ff; Neh. 2:7ff.'
The mention of former governors in Neh. 5.15 does not necessarily refer to the
same function, and it is possible that it refers to the Samaritan governors (p. 333
32
Jerusalem kept its priority at least until the end of the Persian period. In
Samaria, it was only the central area and Gerizim that had cultic independence.60 Supporting Alt's assertion of Jerusalem's sovereignty was
the acceptance of the common Pentateuch, which in Alt's opinion must
have taken place long after Nehemiah. Furthermore, the people from
the Jewish colony in Elephantine sent their letter to the governors in
both Jerusalem and Samaria, but to the high priest only in Jerusalem
(cf. Elephantine pap. 31).
It is characteristic for Alt's presentation that it was not as directed by
the biblical account as might be the immediate impression.61 It is the
extra-biblical material, the Assyrian Prism text, that undermines the
understanding of 2 Kings 17 as historical, and it is the Elephantine
papyri that supports the historicity of Neh. 5.14. With this step, scholarship began its move into the paradigm shift in Old Testament research,
which in its historical reconstruction sought to place the development of
Samaritanism and Judaism in the postexilic period and to remove
entirely connections between 2 Kings 17's dubious 'Samaritans' and
Ezra's and Nehemiah's 'Adversaries'. Involved in these attempts at
reconstruction have been the severe and still-ongoing debates about the
historicity of the Bible's accounts. This debate tended to divide scholars
into two groups: one who, comparing the biblical accounts with extrabiblical material, found it difficult to consider the stories of the Bible
historical, and another group who, seeking to explain the divergences,
tried to establish foundations supporting the historicity of the Bible. In
n. 2). This argumentum ex silentio is the unproven part of Alt's assertion that
Nehemiah carried out the separation some time before the end of the fifth century,
as documented in the Elephantine papyri, which seemed to be the only secure
anchor for a dating. Cf. p. 332: 'So bezeugt denn auch fur die Folgezeit (408) eines
der jtidisch-aramaischen Dokumente aus der Militarkolonie von Elephantine die
Existens einer besonderen Statthalterei in Juda neben der in Samaria, was zur Voraussetzung hat, dass nunmehr das einstige Gebiet des Staaters der Davididen ganz
oder wenigstens zu einem wesentlichen Teil aus einer Eingliederung in die Nachbarprovinzen gelost und administrativ verselbstandigt war.'
60. Cf. A. Alt, 'Zur Geschichte der Grenze zwischen Judaa und Samaria',
(1935), KS 2, pp. 346-62. The heritage from Josephus is clear here; and it is not
declared from what the Samaritans had cultic independence.
61. So also in his famous Landnahme hypothesis Alt takes his starting point first
and foremost from the late bronze Iron age transition and only secondarily from the
traditions of Judges (A. Alt, Die Landnahme der Israeliten in Paldstina [Leipzig:
Reformationsprogramm der Universitat Leipzig, 1925]).
33
Samaritan studies, this development reached its climax in H.G. Kippenberg's claim for the historicity of 2 Kings 17, placing this event in a
context entirely unrelated to the events after the exile. The 'Samaritans'
involved in both cases were unrelated.62 If it were not for the fact that
Josephus relates these two groups (called Kot>0aioi, Cuthaeans, in his
writings), Kippenberg's suggestion could easily have solved the
historical problem. We will return to this below.
The issues regarding the origin of the Samaritans in this formative
period of scholarship were not reducible to political developments.
They were increasingly related to the broader questions of the origin
and development of both postexilic and pre-rabbinic Judaism. Central
to these debates have been the questions of the development of the
Pentateuch and the formation of the Canon. By necessity, this included
reconsiderations of an asserted pre-exilic Deuteronomistic Yahwism
comprising all of Palestine and dating back to a biblically established
common monarchy, which, in the light of new insights gained from
texts as various as the Elephantine papyri and the Dead Sea Scrolls,
could be maintained only with great difficult.
Decisive Elements in the Formation of a Distinct Samaritan
Community in the Hasmonaean Period: The Positions
ofH.H. Rowley, G. Holscher, W.F. Albright and M. Smith
The move towards this paradigm shift is clearly demonstrated in H.H.
Rowley's article from 1955,63 rejecting the reconstruction made by C.C.
Torrey and G. Holscher. In an attempt to save the reliability of Josephus's Alexander legend, they argued either for a placement of the
event in the time of Nehemiah's rule during the reign of Artaxerxes II
(405-359 BCE)64 or for the dependency of Josephus on Alexander
62. H.G. Kippenberg, Garizim und Synagoge: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur samaritanischen Religion der aramaischen Periode (Berlin: W. de
Gruyter, 1971), pp. 92-93.
63. 'Sanballat and the Samaritan Temple'.
64. C.C. Torrey, Ezra Studies (1910), repr. W.F. Stinespring, Prolegomena
(Library of Biblical Studies; New York: Ktav, 1970), pp. xi-xxviii; idem, 'Sanballat
the Horonite', JBL 47 (1928), pp. 380-89; idem, The Chronicler's History of Israel:
Chron.-Ezra-Neh. Restored in its Original Form (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1954), p. xxxi, repeated these former views and totally rehabilitated Josephus's story about Alexander's arrangements in Samaria.
34
Polyhistor, 'who normally is considered to be reliable'.65 Concluding

that we have no knowledge of when the Samaritan temple was built,
Rowley did not consider it necessary that the building of the temple had
anything to do with the schism asserted by Josephus. The texts from
Elephantine did not display any knowledge of a break between Jerusalem and Samaria, and the cult centralization from the time of Josiah
was most probably deemed only short-term and not extending into a
postexilic period.66
That the Jewish colony in Elephantine did not seem to have any
knowledge of the Pentateuch, the Law, sabbath, feasts, biblical traditions, and so on, was pointed out by A. Cowley as early as 1923: 'so far
as we learn from these texts Moses might never have existed, there
might have been no bondage in Egypt, no exodus, no monarchy, no
prophets'.67 This led Cowley to assume that the Pentateuch in its later
form was chiefly postexilic, and that the rabbinic tradition's assertion of
65. G. Holscher, Die Quellen des Josephus fur die Zeit vom Exil bis zum jiidischen Kriege (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1904). See note 12 for early references to this
discussion. Critical viewers of Josephus's reliability at the time were, for example,
R. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament (New York, 1941), p. 809: 'Josephus... gives a purely fictious account of the founding of the Samaritan church';
M. Noth, History of Israel (ET; 2nd rev. edn by P.R. Ackroyd; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), p. 354: 'The whole story is full of legendary details and introduces all kinds of figures, such as the governor of Samaria Sanballat, who do not
belong to this historical context.' Rowley had nothing but contempt for Josephus's
history writing, which he characterized as inaccurate and unrealistic: 'It is curious
to find how little accurate history of the Persian period survived in Jewish tradition,
and for chronological purposes in this period Jewish sources are of slight value'
(Men of God, p. 257).
66. Rowley here refers to the Samaritan tradition's assertion that the temple at
Gerizim was restored by Sanballat in the time of Zerubbabel, thus supporting Josephus with 200 years' divergence (Men of God, p. 266 n. 2), and further on p. 268 he
says, 'At the end of the fifth century BC the Jewish authorities could be presumed to
look with complacency on the existence of a temple at Elephantine, which could
serve a community there which was cut off from the Jerusalem temple, and it might
have looked with equal complacency on a temple on Mount Gerizim, either then or
later, since the political tension which had appeared between Jerusalem and Samaria more than once in the post-exilic days had made the Samaritans but coldly
welcomed visitors in Jerusalem.'
67. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, p. xxiii.
35
the loss of the Law which therefore was restored by Ezra (cf. Sank.
21b; Suk. 20.3) should be judged trustworthy.68
Rowley did not agree with this, but maintained that the Pentateuch
must have reached its finished form before the time of Ezra, as it was
highly improbable that the Samaritans had borrowed the Pentateuch from
the Jews after the breach had become complete, and almost certain that
the whole Pentateuch must have been accepted as the work of Moses
before things had reached such a point.69
That the Samaritans should have 'borrowed' and 'accepted' the Hebrew
Pentateuch and at the same time have treated Ezra with the 'greatest
bitterness' was for Rowley a contradiction that could not bring these
traditions together.70 The purpose of Ezra's mission was to bring religious practice into agreement with this Law code, andgiven the reference to the finding of it in Jerusalem's templedeclare this place to
be the place for the name of Yahweh. The erection of the Samaritan
temple was thus not a result of this reform. This temple, based on the
traditions of the Pentateuch, must have existed long before that time.71
It is reasonable to expect that Rowley had asked whether it in fact
was the destruction or the claim implicit in the Deuteronomistic reform
for a centralization of the cult that caused the schism. This would have
brought him closer to the opinions put forward by Holscher and
68. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, p. xvii.

69. Rowley, Men of God, p. 273: 'if Ezra had changed the Pentateuch, so that
the original reading of Deut. 27.4 is Gerizim, as claimed by the Samaritans then it
was not improbable that the Samaritans had older copies.' Asserted also by G.F.
Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries, I, pp. 25-26: 'In Deut. 27.4, the Jewish text
has "Mount Ebal", where the whole tenor of the context demands "Gerizim", as the
Samaritan Hebrew reads; the same change has been made in the Jewish text in Jos.
8.30... Shechem-Gerizim was therefore manifestly the place so often spoken of in
Deuteronomy where God would put his name; Jerusalem had usurped a precedence
never meant for it. So far as the letter of Scripture went, the Shechemites could
make out an embarrassingly good case.' Cf. Rowley, Men of God, p. 272 n. 4.
70. Rowley, Men of God, p. 211.
71. Rowley, Men of God, p. 275. The non-acceptance of the historical books
was for Rowley easy to understand because of their anti-northern bias. For the
Prophets and the Psalter, on the contrary, it is difficult to give reason for their dismissal: 'It seems more likely that the breach had become so deep that a reconciliation was impossible before these books had secured anything like so firm a place as
they had by the time of Ben Sira.'
36
Albright,72 which had been rejected by Rowley on the grounds that 'it is
hard to see why the Samaritans did not accept more than the Pentateuch
if that were so'.73
As early as 1922, G. Holscher had argued that the schism was only
indirectly related to the development of the canon. Jews and Samaritans
had the same Pentateuch. The collection of the prophets should not be
dated earlier than the end of the second century BCE, since these and the
biblical historical books display an anti-Ephraimitic tendency, which
had been unacceptable for the Samaritans. The common opinion that
the schism should be dated to the time of Ezra and Nehemiah and that
Josephus's Alexander legend should reflect an underlying historical
event was rejected by Holscher on the grounds of 2 Mace. 6.1's mention of Gerizim, as well as the dating of the final redaction of the Pentateuch later than the time of Nehemiah.74 It was only increasing envy
and unfriendliness over cult practices, with an excessive eagerness for
the observance of what the Hasmonaeans considered to be the proper
cult, that had led to the destruction of the Samaritan temple and a final
schism.75
Without joining the discussion about Samaritan acceptance or nonacceptance of Old Testament prophets and Scriptures, religious and
72. They placed the schism in either the second century BCE (cf. Holscher,
Geschichte, p. 170) or the first century BCE (cf. W.F. Albright, From the Stone Age
to Christianity (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2nd edn, 1946),
p. 336.
73. Rowley, Men of God, p. 269.
74. Holscher, Geschichte, p. 172 n. 14.
75. Holscher, Geschichte, p. 170: 'Erst die Intoleranz der Hasmonaerzeit hat
den Bruch herbeigefiihrt. Wahrend die Seleukidenmacht im 2. Jhrh. zerbrockelte,
gelang es den Hasmonaeren, die jiidische Herrschaft u'ber den grossten Teil Palastinas auszudehnen: Jonatan gewann die samarischen Grenzdistrikte, Simon eroberte
Gazara und Jope, Hyrkan I. Iduma'a, Pera'a und Samaria, Aristobul I. auch Galilaa
bis an die Grenzen Libanons; Alexander Jannai war am Ende Herr fast ganz Palastinas. Dabei trieben diese Hasmonaer eine Million mit Feuer und Schwert; wo sie
konnten, vor allem in Iduma'a und Nordgalilaa, zwangen sie die Bevolkerung zur
Beschneidung. Diesem orthodoxen Religionseifer fiel auch das Heiligtum auf dem
Garizim zum Opfer, welches Hyrkan I im Jahre 128 zerstorte. Mit Ausnahme der
grossen hellenistischen Stadte war Palastina seitdem judaisiert; das Programm des
Deuteronomiums von der Zentralisation des Kultes in Jerusalem war fiir kurze Zeit
verwirklicht'. But already in 63 BCE the Samaritans were liberated by the Romans
and from that time on was 'die Sekte der Samariter bei Sichem als eine eigene, vom
Judentum losgeloste Religionsgemeinschaft entstanden.'
37
political circumstances, the reform of Ezra, and so on, W.F. Albright

dated the Judaean-Samaritan schism to the Hasmonaean period. He
based his assertion on the existence of coins from this period bearing
clear impressions of the script of Samaritan scripture. Considering this
to be a revival of the pre-exilic archaic Hebrew script, Albright concluded that it was 'presumably then or somewhat later that the entire SP
was retranscribed into the archaizing "Samaritan" script, which symbolised the refusal of the Samaritans to follow the "modernists" of
Jerusalem'.76 The conquest of Shechem and Samaria between 128 and
110 BCE and the Roman takeover in 63 BCE confirmed for Albright his
dating of the schism.77 This scriptural 'evidence' was strongly supported by P.M. Cross, who, on the basis of preliminary work on DSS in
the mid-fifties, concluded that 'the Samaritan Pentateuch, its textual
type, orthographic style, Paleo-Hebrew script, and linguistic usage, all
developed in the Maccabean and early Hasmonean periods'.78 Cross,
76. Albright against M. Gaster (and rabbinic tradition), considered the Samaritan 'retranscription' to be a two-step movement, which must have implied that he
expected the Samaritans to have followed the practice instituted by Ezra.
77. Albright, Stone Age, pp. 265-66: 'Since there is not a single passage in the
whole Pentateuch which can be seriously considered as showing post-exilic
influence either in form or content, it is likely that the entire Pentateuch was compiled in substantially its present form before 522 BCE. However, this does not mean
that its form was already fixed according to the standards prevailing in the time of
the Septuagintal translation (c. 250 BCE) or in that of the Samaritan recension
(which Samaritan palaeography practically compels us to place between c. 100 and
c. 63 BCE), to say nothing of Masoretic standards more than a millennium later.'
The contradictions in this statement certainly have inspired innumerable studies on
how a later excerpt can be prior to itself.
78. P.M. Cross, 'Papyri of the Fourth Century B.C. from Daliyeh', in D.N.
Freedman and J.C. Greenfield (eds.), New Directions in Biblical Archaeology (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971), pp. 45-69 (65); J.D. Purvis, The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin of the Samaritan Sect (HSM, 2; Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1968), p. 87, gave Albright and Cross full support: 'its script
developed from the paleo-hebrew; its orthography is the standard full orthography
of this time; the textual tradition it represents is not only known from this time, but
completed the development of its characteristics during the Hasmonean period.'
R. Pummer, 'Present State of Samaritan Studies I', JSS 21 (1976), pp. 39-61 (51),
gave Purvis's statement this comment: 'Whereas many would agree with Purvis in
principle that the final break must have come then, and that specifically sectarian
version of the SP dates from that time, not everyone considered Purvis' arguments
as conclusive.' References are made to reviews of Purvis's Samaritan Pentateuch:
38
however, operated within the two-episode paradigm. His studies on the

papyri from Wadi Daliyeh from 1963 and especially 1975 sought to
solve the chronological confusions in Josephus's Alexander story by
data from other sources. Before examining this contribution to the Samaritan debate we need to deal with Morton Smith's challenging work,
Palestinian Parties and Politics That Shaped the Old Testament, from
1971. Reconsidering the whole question of the image of Judaism prior
to the Hasmonaean period and placing Samaritans within that Judaism,
Smith removed any reason for sectarian ruptures related to temple
building projects. With reference to a widespread religious syncretism
in Palestine until the second century BCE, he argued that it was fashion
rather than conscious religious policy that had brought an end to offerings and the replacement of cult places with synagogues, resulting in a
decimation of cult places to 'the official cults at Jerusalem and Samaria
and perhaps a few holy places in the north, most likely Mt Gerizim' ,79
The 'Samaritan schism' is not to be dated from the erection of this
temple but from the breakdown of relationships between Jerusalemites
B.J. Roberts in JTS 20 (1969), pp. 569-71; M. Smith in ATR 53 (1971), pp. 127-29;
J.H.C. Lebram in BO 25 (1969), pp. 382-83; Z. Ben-Hayyim in Biblica 52 (1971),
p. 255, who expresses severe doubts when he asks, 'Can one really come to an
important historical and social conclusion such as the time of the formation of the
Samaritan sect according to the orthographic form and the script of its Holy Writ?'.
The dating was on other premises accepted by M. Smith, Palestinian Parties and
Politics that Shaped the Old Testament (New York: Columbia University Press,
1971), p. 191, who did not reckon with the canonization of the prophetic books
before the Hasmonaean period, which made the question about acceptance/nonacceptance unimportant; R.J. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews: The Origins ofSamaritanism Reconsidered (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1975), p. 152, who rejected
Cross's theory about the local text tradition, since there could have existed several
local text traditions which have now been lost. The most that can be said is that
palaeography points to a recension in the Hasmonean period. Coggins (Samaritans
and Jews, p. 155), warned against too heavily stressing the fact that the Samaritans
had rejected the non-Pentateuchal Scriptures: 'In fact, a wide range of attitudes
could be found, and it appears that the Samaritans were similar to the Sadduccees
and the Jews of the diaspora at Alexandria in the way in which they accorded fully
canonical status to the Torah alone, with a more limited place being found for certain other works.' Further research on the DSS brought up new ideas about various
text types and the development of the Samaritan script, and in fact loosened the
scholarly asserted ties between schism and recension. See Chapter 3 .
79. Smith, Palestinian Parties, pp. 184-85.
39
and Samaritans, which led to a reversal of each group's legal opinion regarding the permissibility of the cult carried on at the other's sanctuary.80
This conclusion Morton Smith based on an assertion of the existence

of two competing parties in postexilic Palestine: a Judaic separatist
party, led by the governor Zerubbabel and the priest Yehoshua son of
Yosadak,81 and an assimilation party represented chiefly by priests from
Jerusalem who allowed mixed marriages, proselytism, a certain degree
of religious syncretism and more cult places. Between those parties we
find the 'am ha'ares, the remaining pre-exilic syncretist Yahweh worshippers, or perhaps apostates or pagans. They were now forced to
decide for one or other party.82 Paraphrasing Ezra and Nehemiah with
related prophets and using parts of Josephus's historiography as reliable
sources, Smith asserted that the separatist party gained influence in the
fifth century83 but fell behind again in the fourth century when the
80. Smith, Palestinian Parties, p. 185. M. Smith pointed out that, according to
Ezra 3.Iff., 4.Iff. and Jer. 41.5, sacrificial worship of Yahweh continued after the
destruction of the Jerusalem temple and prior to its rebuilding. This in fact separated the temple from the sacrificial cult, which only demanded altars, several of
which have been found in and outside of Palestine: Haran, Elephantine, Babylon,
Lakish, Gerizim, Tabor, Karmel, Hebron, Mamre, Deir 'Alia, Tell es-Sa-dieyeh,
Araq el-Emir, Leontopolis, etc. (cf. pp. 90-98).
81. The separatist party emanated from the pre-exilic Yahweh-alone party
(Smith, Palestinian Parties, p. 34) with a new programme of realizing the EzraNehemiah reform (cf. pp. 110-11).
82. M. Smith based his analysis on textual evidence relating to the modification
of former customs. See pp. 180-84 (183): 'Since the Judeans and the north Israelites
continued to worship Yahweh, and since we are told that the cult in the north was
sacrificial, the problem which had to be overcome on the Judean side was that of
explaining away the passages in Deuteronomy which prohibited sacrifice outside
Jerusalem. This problem the assimilationist priests had already met when they combined the deuteronomic and holiness codes in a single collection, since the holiness
code anticipated (and seems framed to necessitate) sacrifices in every village.
Perhaps their harmonistic exegesis simply interpreted Deuteronomy's references to
sacrifice at "the" place, which Yahweh would choose as meaning "any" such place,
that is, any established shrine ("the" often has the meaning "any" in priestly legal
texts).'
83. In the work of Nehemiah, it finally gained political as well as religious
authority in Judaea. The Judaeans were from that time on a special people, segregated from their neighbours, observing peculiar customs (such as the Sabbath), and
devoted to a Yahweh worship centred around the temple in Jerusalem. Whether the
40
assimilist party gained power. This was kept until around 180 BCE, only
interrupted once by a crisis around 350-330 BCE during the reign of
Artaxerxes III Ochus. His conquest of Jerusalem, probably in the 350s,
became a decisive event for the relationship between Judaea and
Samaria. The deportation of a mainly pro-Egyptian government and the
installment of a pro-Persian one in Jerusalem, whose members came
mainly from the separatist party, 'may have produced a temporary crisis
in relations with the Samaritans and may have contributed to Josephus's
erroneous location of the "Samaritan schism" in the period immediately
following'.84 With Alexander the Great's defeat of Darius in 333 BCE,
the assimilist party is seen to have gained power again, which they kept
until around 180 BCE. The principal achievement of the Jerusalem
priesthood
during this century and a half of assimilationist control was to establish
their corpus of religious lawthe Pentateuchso firmly as the law of
Yahweh and the law of the land that its preservation could become the
battle-cry of the Maccabees, and its interpretation the central concern of
later sectarian Judaism... From the Samaritan acceptance of the law to
the Maccabean revolt there is no reliable sign of any lasting and official
breach. Shechemites and Judeans formed a single religious community
in Ptolemaic Egypt and were treated as a single religious community by
assimilationists liked it or not, they could do nothing but submit to this 'religion of
(most) Judeans', called '"Judaism"' (p. 145). This, however, did not lead to any
realised cult centralisation or to a destruction of a Samaritan temple (which must
have existed from pre-exilic times, Ezra 4.2). This would have required a military
occupation, which would have been contrary to the Persian administration's protection of local religious groups (Smith, Palestinian Parties, pp. 197-98).
84. Smith, Palestinian Parties, pp. 185-86: This accounts for many of the
prophecies warning against alliances with Egyptour present collection of prophetic books was probably being put together about this time.' This utterance is
typical for Morton Smith's work of combining history and literature (cf. p. 151).
Historically there is much in support of such an argumentation, but methodologically it is very difficult to avoid circular arguments that are in constant danger of
creating both political history and history of literature on unsubstantiated arguments. The prophetic warnings discussed by Smith could in fact have been brought
at any time in Israel's ancient history. The lack of historical references to most of
the events in the Persian and Hellenistic periods until the time of Antiochus Epiphanes (around 170 BCE) makes it possible to create whatever scenario one thinks
fit for the texts and probably also accounts for the scholarly hypothesis that the texts
were finally edited in this period, since such an assertion does not bring them in a
conflict with later literature, or later events.
41
the Seleucids until the hellenizing party in Shechem protested. Their

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

work. The assertion of a continuation of the assimilist party in Judaea
but not in Samaria after the period of Artaxerxes III, creating an initial
schism in this period, seems to be a necessary hypothesis for Smith's
reconstruction of the establishment of the Pentateuch. For unknown
reasons, this is asserted to have originated in the Jerusalemite priesthood, although its perspective is entirely from outside of Jerusalem.
The assertion of a Samaritan acceptance of this Law, which could only
happen if 'there was no lasting and official breach', is not substantiated,
and, whatever reason the Samaritans might have had to revise this
'accepted' Pentateuch, it is not presented in Smith's work. The possibility that it was the separatist party that needed to revise their early edition of the Pentateuch seems not to have occurred to him.
Taking up Old Ideas:
The Positions of P.M. Cross and H.G. Kippenberg
The finding of the so-called Samaria papyri from Wadi Daliyeh in 1962
brought further confusion regarding the formation of postexilic Judaism's relation to Samaritanism. The still unsolved question of the
chronological inconsistencies in Josephus's Alexander legend has only
seemingly found its solution in the reconstruction offered by P.M.
85. Smith, Palestinian Parties, p. 191, here followed the views of Waltke, 'that
the Samaritan Pentateuch was influenced by the proto-Masoretic text, but later went
through a period of corruption' (B. Waltke, Prolegomena to the Samaritan Pentateuch [HTR, 58; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965], p. 463). 'This
would seem a reflection of the two periods, first 198-173, when the massoretic text
was being formed and the upper classes of Jerusalem and Shechem were on good
terms, then the Maccabean period, when Shechem at first was in the hand of the
Hellenizers, later was at war with the Maccabees, and finally destroyed at 107.'
42
Cross.86 The finds from a cave in the Jordan valley, north of Jericho,
consisted of several, mostly administrative, documents from Samaria,
potsherds of a type found in Shechem also, and about 300 skeletons.
Some of the documents carried the name of Sanballat and, together with
the Elephantine documents, they bore testimony to Sanballat's ties to
Samaria. By way of the so-called papponomy theory,87 Cross sought to
demonstrate comparable reliability for the Chronicler, Josephus and the
papyri. However, in spite of possible evidence implicit in the papyri,
Cross's reconstruction had the sole purpose of saving the biblical 'evidence' and Josephus's elaboration on it. It is somewhat ironic that
Cross, in his first article on the subject in 1963, claimed: 'The significance of the discoveries in the Wadi Daliyeh despite the relatively banal
content of the papyri, is considerable. Any light on the fourth century
BC. is highly welcome; one doubts that there is a less known century in
Palestine in the entire first millennium.'88 The reconstruction made by
Cross with Sanballat I-II-III and the associated high priests Yohanan I86. P.M. Cross, Jr, 'The Discovery of the Samaria Papyri', BA 26 (1963), pp.
110-21; idem, 'A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration', JBL 94 (1975), pp. 418.
87. Which he based on his own reconstruction of a king list from an Ammonite
inscription from Tell Siran in the sixth century BCE. See P.M. Cross Jr: 'Notes on
the Ammonite Inscription from tell Siran', BASOR 212 (1973), pp. 12-15, and
B. Mazar, 'The Tobiads', IEJ 1 (1957), pp. 137-45, 229-38, who placed all references to Tobiah in one genealogy stretching from 590 BCE (Lachish Ostraca) to 200
BCE (Zenon papyri) with an addition of the Tabeel lineage from the eighth century
BCE, referred to in Isa. 7.6. This reconstruction did not achieve general acceptance
as it relied mostly on the Old Testament and Josephus, and since it had not been
established that similarity of names implies the same genealogy (cf. T.C. Eskenazi,
'Tobiah', ABD, VI, p. 584-85).
88. In his article from 1975, 'Reconstruction', Cross complained about the lack
of progress in research since the discovery of the Elephantine papyri in 1911: 'If
one compares the review of literature on the date of Ezra's mission by H.H. Rowley
in 1948 ["The Chronological Order of Ezra and Nehemiah"] and the review by
Ulrich Kellermann in 1968 ["Erwagungen zum Problem der Ezradatierung", ZAW
80 (1968), pp. 55-87] and ["Erwagungen zum Ezragesetz", ZAW 80 (1968), pp.
373-85] one comes away disappointed; a generation of research has added at best a
few plausible speculations.' To these Cross reckoned J. Morgenstern, 'The Dates of
Ezra and Nehemiah', JSS 7 (1962) pp. 1-11, and Smith, Palestinian Parties (p. 252
n. 109), who, criticizing Rowley, argued, 'Arguments from personal names are generally worthless because of the frequence of papponomy at this period, and the frequency of most of the names concerned'.
43
II-III and Yaddua I-II-III were not witnessed, as claimed by Cross, by

Elephantine papyrus 30 and Samaria papyri 5, 8 and 14.89 With a dating
of Elephantine papyri to 408 BCE and Samaria papyri to 375-335 BCE,
both of which speak of the 'sons of Sanballat', Cross found it necessary
to identify the Sanballat of Elephantine papyrus 30 as number I, while
the Sanballat of Samaria papyri 5 and 14 had to be number II. Finally,
the Sanballat mentioned in Josephus's Alexander story was seen as
number III.90 As a consequence of this reconstruction, Josephus's
account of the marriage of the daughter of Sanballat (III) to the Jerusalemite priest Manasseh, brother to Yaddua (III) had to be a different
incident than that mentioned in Neh. 13.28. This could only be the marriage of the daughter of Sanballat (I) to the son of the high priest
Yoyada (Yaddua I).91 Cross's attempt to save Josephus's mistake by a
reference to a late composition for the work of the Chronicler in the
Rabbinic period (as a reason for Josephus's use of 1 Esdras and an
89. Samaria papyrus no. 5 mentions 'Yahu son of [San]ballat, Governor of
Samaria'; no. 8 mentions '[H]nnyh, governor of Samaria'; no. 14 mentions '[Yes]hu
son of Sanballat and Hanan the prefekt' (cf. Cross, 'Papyri of the Fourth Century
B.C.', p. 46).
90. R.W. Klein gave full support to this reconstruction in 'Sanballat', IDBSup,
I, pp. 781-82, where he furthermore found it probable that there could have been
several priests who married Sanballat's daughters since the schism had not occurred
immediately. G. Widengreen, 'The Samaritan Schism and the Construction of the
Samaritan Temple', in J.H. Hayes and J.M. Miller (eds.), Israelite and Judean
History (London: SCM Press, 1977), pp. 489-538 (507-509) rejected Cross's
reconstruction for not only having construed the results but also their presuppositions. H.G.M. Williamson, 'Sanballat', ABD, V, pp. 973-75 points to the
obvious problem, that formerly Rowley ('Sanballat and the Samaritan Temple') and
Mowinckel (Studien zu dem Buck Ezra-Nehemia II: Die Nehemia-Denkschrift
[Oslo: SUNVAO, 1964]) had noted that Josephus did not place his account about
the son-in-law of Sanballat in the time of Nehemiah but rather in the time of
Alexander the Great, and that it has not been proven that 'the Sanballat of Josephus
proves to be Sanballat the III'. It should be further noticed that Josephus, disagreeing with the biblical account, leaves out any naming in his Nehemiah account (Ant.
11.159-83), and only refers to those included as Ammonites, Moabites and Samaritans (11.174), which would have been unnecessary if the names could have been
repeated. The disagreements in Josephus's historigraphy thus had not been overcome with the new finds, as asserted by Cross in 'Reconstruction', p. 5.
91. '...it is clear that he [Josephus] confused Yaddua II and Yaddua III as well
as Sanballat I and Sanballat III with diabolic results for the history of the Restoration' ('Reconstruction', p. 6).
44
independent Nehemiah source) might save the historicity of Nehemiah

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

Cross's conclusions. With a dating of Nehemiah to the time of Artaxerxes I, about 445 BCE, he needed an extra generation in order to hold
the evidence from Elephantine and Samaria papyri together with the
biblical material. The attempt to save the historicity of the biblical
material provided this material with a superiority over extra-biblical
evidence. In fact it took away any possible historicity of the extra-biblical material. Where one might have expected a revision of the 'evidence' from the Bible and from Josephus on the background of new
material, the contradictions introduced by this material were smoothed
away in an even more fanciful reconstruction. This certainly was an
'upside down' Martin Noth: 'Es geht aber wissenschaftlich nicht darum,
ob wir "external evidence" brauchen, sondern ob wir "external evidence" haben.'92 Here we had 'external evidence' that in a twisted way
created two extra Sanballats out of the 'son(s) of Sanballat' mentioned
in the papyri. More clearly, this lack of consistency is demonstrated in
Cross's 1971 article on the subject, where he stated: There can be little
doubt that the erection of the temple of Gerizim as a rival to Zerubbabel's temple in Jerusalem further aggravated the traditional bad relations between Samaritan and Jew.' This assumption was based solely
on Josephus and had, as R.J. Coggins demonstrated a few years later93
no contemporary documentation. When the schism in the second century was claimed to be a culmination of these circumstanceswitnessed in archaeology and DSS's documentation of a Samaritan text
type as well as by an independent development of the Samaritan
92. M. Noth, 'Der Beitrag der Archaologie zur Geschichte Israels', in G.W.
Anderson et al. (eds.), Congress Volume Oxford 1959 (VTSup, 7; Leiden: E.J. Brill,
1960), pp. 262-82 (27 I n . 1).
93. R.J. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews.
45
Pentateuch in this periodwe once again were faced with a construed

historiography's apologetic claiming Judaism's sovereignty:
It is difficult to speak of the Samaritans as a fully separated sect, so long
as direct Jewish influence shaped their doctrine and practice, so long as
the biblical text which they used was held in common with the Jews, so
long as Jew and Samaritan used a common national style of script.94
Representing a conservative strain of scholarship's problem with

incorporating new evidence in already well-established concepts about
Israel's and Judaism's history, based mainly on the biblical evidence,
Cross demonstrates pretty well the working paradigms of this scholarly
view. The two-paradigm episode established in Samaritan studies,
which operated mostly with a 'sudden first separation' related to temple
erection and a similar 'sudden second separation' related to temple
destruction, based itself on another paradigm related to cult centralization and a biblical Judaism already as early as the fifth century BCE.
This second paradigm, however, was one of conjecture rather than evidence,95 and the assumption that a 'sudden first separation' should have
anything to do with cult centralization and for that reason have caused
inevitable conflicts and clashes was based on this conjecture. When at
the same time the historicity of this 'sudden first separation' and the
asserted temple building had been shown to be improvable, scholarship
was left with the second part of the first paradigm: the temple destruction and the appearance of a Samaritan text-type and script as secure
anchors for a reconstruction. Those anchors, however, began to give
way in the course of DSS studies, and have left the scholarly world
even more confused about the origins of the Samaritan Pentateuch,
giving rise to renewed discussions about 'who changed what' and
when. The dating of the temple destruction, which seemed well established, did not undergo any severe criticism in the following decades,
although questions of reason and range had not been satisfactorily
answered. Thus Cross's conclusion that '[tjhis reconstruction of the history of the Samaritans solves many problems' and 'it dissolves the
mystery of the specifically Jewish character of Samaritanism' only
satisfied those scholars dealing primarily with questions of Jewish history for whom a paraphrase of Josephus at length was considered to be
methodologically acceptable.
94. Cross, 'Papyri of the Fourth Century B.C.', p. 64.
95. As pointed out by M. Smith, Palestinian Parties.
46
Another representative of the two-episode paradigm was the German

scholar H.G. Kippenberg, whose quite influential work from 1971,
Garizim und Synagoge, sought to remove what might have been left of
connections between pre-exilic and postexilic Samaritans. This, however, did not relegate the 'Samaritans' of 2 Kings 17 to the unhistorical.
In Kippenberg's reconstruction they belonged to another period and had
nothing to do with the later Samaritans.96 Kippenberg's interpretation of
the first schism follows closely the views put forward by Montgomery.
In rejecting the thesis of Alt he concluded that the schism was religious
and not political.97 The reason seemed to have been a prohibition of
mixed marriages in Jerusalem, which also included marriage with
Samaritan women (cf. Josephus, Ant. 11.312).98 This conclusion seems
somewhat anachronistic, if we are to conclude that the Samaritans originated as a result of this prohibition, and that faithfulness to Jerusalem
included an abandonment of former practices, whereby those who could
not follow these innovations formed their own cult in 'Shechem, lying
deep in Samaria, once had been the very birthplace of the whole of
Israel'.99 Echoing the conclusions of Montgomery, Kippenberg asserted
that this did not lead to a final break. Most of the differences could be
handled. Both groups still had the same Pentateuch and it was still the
priests from the same lineage who maintained the cult both in Jerusalem and in Shechem. Once again it is stated that 'it was not until the
96. Kippenberg, Garizim und Synagoge, p. 37: 'Fassen wir zusammen. Die
offen vertretene und unterschwellig wirkendeMeinung, nach dem Sturtz des Nordreiches seien die Israeliten deportiert und Heiden neu angesiedelt worden, ist einseitig. Nach den Quellen ist nur ein Teil der Israeliten verschlept worden. Die
zuriickgebliebenen Israeliten waren der Zahl nach den neu angesiedelten Heiden
gewiss iiberlegen. [as argued by Montgomery in 1907]. Dass diese Kolonisten in
der autochtonen Israel-Bevolkerung aufgingen, ist warhscheinlich [against Alt].
Diese ganze Vorgang, der vielleicht auch zu einem Synkretismus gefiihrt hat
(2 Kon 17), fallt zeitlich bis vier Jahrhunderte vor Griindung des Garizim-Kultes
und hat mit diesem nichts zu tun.'
97. Kippenberg, Garizim und Synagoge, pp. 58-59: 'So ist der Garizim-kult
nicht als Resultat einer politischen Tat, sondern die Folge einer Verdrangung von
Priestern, die sich nordisraelitischen Traditionen verbunden fiihlten. Es bildete sich
also am Ende des 4. Jh. v. Chr. in Israel ein neues Zentrum von Glauben und Kult
heraus.'
98. Kippenberg, Garizim und Synagoge, pp. 58-59.
99. 'dass tief in Samaria liegende Sichem, dass ja schon einmal die Geburtsstatte ganz Israels gewesen war (Josh. 24)'.
47
time of the Maccabees that Jews and Samaritans divided into two
groups.'100 The reasons were priestly quarrels prior to the Hasmonaean
success and the appointment of illegitimate priests in Jerusalem. This
called for a Samaritan independence in the continuation of the high
priestly Eleazar lineage as an opposition to the illegitimate Hasmonaean
priests in Jerusalem.101 Although it was the Hasmonaeans who broke
the high priestly succession and thereby forced the Samaritans to claim
the legitimate priesthood for themselveswhich in Purvis's work was
understood to be the Zadokites, common to Samaritans and Jews, and
in Kippenberg's the Samaritan Eleazarites opposing the Zadokites
this break somewhat arbitrarily led to the formation of a 'sect' that
maintained continuity. Not able to give up the well-established idea of
syncretism in northern Israel and echoing 2 Kings 17, Kippenberg
concluded that it was an increasing Hellenization of the Samaritan community that had become mixed with Sidonians in Shechem that led the
Jews to destroy their temple and their city.102 Kippenberg's rendering of
the history thus became as contradictory as Josephus's. What seemed to
be an abolishment of the 2 Kings 17 paradigm of syncretism was in fact
nothing more than a reuse of a Deuteronomistic theology transferred to
100. 'erst in der Makkabaerzeit Juden und Samaritanen in zwei Gruppen

trennten'.
101. Kippenberg, Garizim und Synagoge, p. 92: 'Die samaritanische Sekte
scheint sich im wesentlichen im 2. Jh. v. Chr. konstituert zu haben. Getragen wurde
sie von israelitischen Priestern, die sich als Eleasar-Sohne verstanden und Zadokiten, Eliden und Leviten die Hohepriesterwiirde absprachen. Wahrend des 3. Jh. v.
Chr. scheint die Rivalitat zweier Priesterschaften in Sichem und in Jerusalem noch
nicht als endgiiltige Antitese verstanden worden zu sein. Erst im 2. Jh. v. Chr., als
die Jerusalemer Hohenpriestersukzession zerbrach, entstand Streit iiber den legitimen Kult. Jetzt, beim Zerbrechen des einst einigen Israels, fiihlen sich die Samar.
veranlasst, ihre Hohepriestersukzession darzulegen und ihre Heilige Schrift zu kanonisieren.' This in fact was the position of Purvis, Samaritan Pentateuch, pp. 11316, who furthermore stressed the importance of political solidification of Judaean
control over especially the North as a motivation for John Hyrcanus's attack.
102. Kippenberg, Garizim und Synagoge, p. 93: 'Die jiidische Seite ihrerseits
nahm Anstoss an der Hellenisierung des Garizim-Kultes, die wohl nicht nur von
einer Kolonie Sidonier in Sichem, sondern vielleicht auch von diesem oder jenem
Samar. gebilligt wurde.' Pummer, 'Samaritan Studies I', rightly criticized this assertion in his review of Kippenberg (pp. 53-55): 'it should be underlined that there
is no conclusive evidence regarding the exact point in time or reasons for the final
separation between Samaritans and Jews.'
48
the third-second century BCE. This theology ascribed to Israel/Samaria

the role of those who first broke the covenant and rightly bore the
punishment for it. Kippenberg's attempt to read Josephus historically
and correct his 'mistakes' in fact brought him right back into the arms
of Montgomery. Historicizing the biblical material loosened it from its
own perspective and deprived it of the inherent myth-making theology
that had claimed that both Samaria and Judaea were emptied by the
exilic events, and that Samaria, in contrast to Judaea, did not remain
empty and 'undefiled'. This central message of 2 Kings 17 played a
considerable role in the Jewish self-understanding of 'pure remnant'. In
Ant. 10.184, Josephus could state:
Now when Salmanesses removed the Israelites, he settled in their place
the nation of Cuthaeans, who had formerly lived in the interior of Persia
and Media and who were then, moreover, called Samaritans because
they assumed the name of the country in which they were settled. But the
king of Babylonia, when he carried off the two tribes, did not settle any
nation in their place, and for this reason all of Judaea and Jerusalem and
the temple remained deserted [epriuot; 8te|ieivev] for seventy years.
Removing this perspective merely distorts the text, but it does not solve
the historical problems, which certainly have nothing to do with any
traceable historical event, but asks rather for clarification about why the
Samaritans are portrayed in this manner in some Jewish literature: a
literature that reached its climax in Josephus's attempts to extirpate
these so-called Cuthaeans. Josephus, in fact, is not representative of an
overall understanding about the Samaritans. New Testament and early
rabbinic literature still fought to find ways of placing Samaritans within
Judaism. Syncretism played a very limited role in their respective judgments. We shall turn to these problems again in Chapters 4 and 5, in an
evaluation of the thematic elements involved in the various presentations of Judaean-Samaritan controversies.
Breaking the Two-Episode Paradigm: The Position ofR.J. Coggins
R.J. Coggins's monograph Samaritans and Jews: The Origins ofSamaritanism Reconsidered from 1975 became epoch-making for Samaritan
studies. Partly abolishing the two-episode paradigm, Coggins's work
led to new considerations of Samaritanism in the Roman period and to
the thesis of a very late final break. Reconsidering the various Old
Testament readings that were usually ascribed to belong to the
49
Judaean-Samaritan schism,103 Coggins concluded that these did not

expose any considerable anti-Samaritan attitude, as well as that later
interpretation of these texts had been based mainly on readings of Josephus. The Old Testament texts thus gave no evidence for a schism as
such, but rather for increasing tensions between north and south, such
as can be seen from a few apocryphal and pseudepigraphal texts: Sir.
50.25-26, 2 Mace. 6.1-2 and the book of Judith. 104 The Samaritans'
close relations to the Sadducees, with whom they shared similar views
on Scripture, priesthood and cult, as mentioned also in the Mishnah,
placed them in a spectrum of Jewish groups that did not break from
rabbinic Judaism until long into the present era.105 Josephus's account
of the building of the Samaritan temple in the time of Alexander the
Great was still undocumented, and the finding of the Samaria papyri
from Wadi Daliyeh only solved the problem regarding Sanballat but not
those otherwise implied in the story.106 Archaeological evidence of a
rebuilding of Shechem in the fourth century BCE and a destruction in
the end of the second century might support Josephus's story. G.E.
Wright,107 in his report, also found support for this chronology in
Quintus Curtius's History of Alexander (first century CE), which related
that some Samaritans had burned to death the governor Andromachus,
whom Alexander had placed in Samaria. As a result, the remaining
Samaritans were expelled from the city and settled in Shechem.
103. 2 Kgs 17; Isa. 7.8b; 9.8; 11.10-16; 56-66; Jer. 41.5; Hos. 5; Mic. 1.5-9;
6.16; Hag, Zech. 1-8; Ezek. 37.15-28; 40-^8; 2 Chron. 13, Ezra; Neh.; Pss. 78; 87.
104. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, p. 81: 'Indirectly however, the Old Testament evidence is of value in two ways. First it is clear that tension between North
and South in Israel goes back to a very early date. Such tension is a recurrent theme
even in the period of the United Monarchy, and probably goes back at least to the
time of the Judges. It is not our purpose here to explore its origins, but it is clear
that there is some link between the tension and that which later developed between
Jews and Samaritans. It would be wrong to identify them, and suppose that the
Samaritans can simply be identified as a continuation of the old Northern Kingdomas we shall see, there is much in Samaritan tradition that militates against
thatbut it would be equally wrong to deny all connection and continuity.'
105. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, p. 161.
107. G.E. Wright, Shechem: The Biography of a Biblical City (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1965), p. 181; idem, The Samaritans at Shechem', HTR 55 (1962),
pp. 357-66; Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, pp. 104-108.
50
Rejecting both Quintus Curtius108 and Josephus, and not at all convinced that we know enough about Alexander's placement of troops in
Samaria, Coggins suggested a reconsideration of the whole material.
This had previously been done also by B. Reicke,109 who had argued for
an establishment of the Samaritan community in 380 BCE, when the
repercussions of the 'Zionistic reforms of Nehemiah' forced the officials in Samaria and a few aristocrats in Judah to form their own community in Shechem, 'retaining the Torah but no other scriptures'. This
dating would fit the dating of the Samaria papyri and could further be
argued on the basis of finds of Persian material on the spot. Although
Reicke's reconstruction had 'certain obvious strong points', Coggins
rejected it because of its weaknesses according to an asserted, but
undocumented antagonism between Jerusalem and Shechem in the
rebuilding of the city, inconclusiveness of the finds dating the coins to
the Hellenistic period and the artifacts to the Persian period, and finally
because the reconstruction as such rests on a schismatic model for
which we had no evidence.110 What was left for Coggins was Josephus's statement that the temple, which John Hyrcanus destroyed, had
been built 200 years earlier (Ant. 13.256). Dating the destruction to
either 128 BCE as Josephus did, or to 108 BCE according to the coins
found on the spot, this would bring us as close as possible to any
knowledge of the formation of a community. Coggins's reference to a
confirmation of John Hyrcanus's destruction in Samaritan Chronicles111
cannot be substantiated. Quite the contrary. According to this literature,
it was a King Simon, chronologically placed before Alexander the
Great, who had destroyed the temple. John Hyrcanus's attack on Sebastia and Nablus did not lead to any cult place destruction.112
Refuting the two-episode paradigm, Coggins suggested that Samaritanism developed from Judaism's formative period from the third
century BCE. The context for this development was for Samaritanism
what it was for other factions and currents of Judaism: disagreements
over cult, belief and society, which resulted in the formation of Jewish
108. Based on J. Warrington in Everyman's Classical Dictionary (London, 2nd
edn, 1969), p. 175, who declared Quintos Curtius worthless and R. Marcus in the
Loeb Josephus, VI, app. C, esp. pp. 520ff.
109. The New Testament Era (London: SCM Press, 1969).
110. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, pp. 109-15.
112. See Chapter 6.
51
communities outside of Jerusalem: Qumran, Leontopolis, Elephantine,

Araq-el-Emir, and so on. The Deuteronomistic cult centralization probably was practised in a less restricted manner than had been assumed
earlier, and final breaks did not occur until centuries later. Given this
background, the term 'schism' seems to have been misleading, presuming an orthodox norm that was not present in Judaism until the
Christian era.113 Scholarship's current use of this theme has played an
unreasonable role in Old Testament studies as part of an anti-Samaritan
polemic's implicit purpose of demonstrating the apostate character of
Samaritanism:
The simple truth is, that there is no reference to the Samaritans in the
Hebrew Old Testament. Some of the allusions in the work of the Chronicler may point to a situation which would later develop into JudaeoSamaritan hostility, but that is the most that can be said.114
More than 15 years elapsed before Coggins's work began seriously to

influence the scholarly world. The idea of a schism was so well established in the classical views on Samaritanism that in the following
decade scholars' acceptance of Coggins's ideas had a close parallel in
the considerations of how and when Samaritans broke away from Judaism in either Persian or Hellenistic times.115 The abandonment of the
exclusion model regarding whether it had been political or religious
circumstances that had led to a formation of a new Jewish community
in Shechem that we later came to know as the Samaritans, did not occur
before Judaism's sovereignty and normativity in pre-Christian time was
seriously challenged. This step forms the next chapter of the history of
research.
113. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, p. 163, is here referring to P.R. Ackroyd,
Israel under Babylon and Persia (New Clarendon Bible, OT, 4; Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1970), p. 185.
114. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, p. 163. It must be noted that Coggins did not
reckon with a dating later than 250 BCE for the Chronicler and accepted the Old
Testament Scriptures' implicit chronology as historical for their dating.
115. See, e.g., J.D. Purvis, 'The Samaritans and Judaism', in R.A. Kraft and
G.W.E. Nickelsburg (eds.), Early Judaism and its Modern Interpreters (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), pp. 81-98; E.J. Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek
Age (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987), pp. 8-12.
Chapter 2
RADICAL ALTERNATIVES:
THE THEORIES OF CROWN AND NODET
The establishment of 'Societe d'Etudes Samaritaines' in 1985 marked a
turning point in Samaritan studies. In 1984,l the first comprehensive
bibliography had been published, and in 1989, a full presentation was
given of the standing positions of Samaritan research in the fields of
history, literature, language, theology, diaspora studies and archaeology, all with updated bibliographies.2 With contributions from scholars
who over years had worked intensively with various issues, the book
represented an up-to-date work, aiming not so much to give answers to
all the questions involved as to stimulate further research. Profiling the
positions of its contributors, it demonstrated the broadness of the scholarly research,3 which certainlyas pointed out by Crown in his foreword'over the last quarter century numbered so many specialised
works which have so changed the state of our knowledge in numerous
areas of Samaritan studies that the field is very different from what it
was in Montgomery's day'.4 These works' concentration on Samaritan
literature gave impetus to current publications of Samaritan texts, translations, commentaries, grammars, encyclopaedia, and so on. Having
established the origin of the SP 'securely' in the Hasmonaean period,
the insecurity about which political circumstances had led to this step
1. Crown, Bibliography of the Samaritans. The former bibliography of L.A.
Mayer from 1964 was shown to be incomplete and certainly also needed an updating (L.A. Mayer [ed.], Bibliography of the Samaritans [Abr Nahrain Suppl.;
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1964]).
2. Crown, The Samaritans.
3. See S. Noja, 'The Last Decade in Samaritan Studies', in A.D. Crown (ed.),
The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 802-14.
4. Crown, Samaritans, p. xvi; notice Crown's critique of the uncritical use of
Montgomery, Chapter 1.
2. Radical Alternatives: The Theories of Crown and Nodet
53
furthered new evaluations of the Samaritans' own traditions and their

relation to the asserted priority of Jewish tradition. The intention of the
book was not to synthezise the various insights in a new historiography,
but rather to make up for the need of evidence in research.
A.D. Crown's Late Dating for a Distinctive Samaritanism
The tendencies of deconstruction in biblical research, which in the
1970s had begun in the studies of Israel's prehistory,5 inevitably came
to include also the postexilic period and the request for a reconsideration of the biblical evidence for Judaism as such.6 This request loosened
5. Taking its departure in a rejection of the historicity of the patriarchal narratives, cf. Th.L. Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives (Berlin: W.
de Gruyter, 1974); J. Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1975), G. Fohrer, Geschichte Israels: Von den Anfangen bis
zu Gegenwart (Heidelberg: Quelle Meyer, 1977); A.D.H. Mayes, Israel in the
Period of the Judges (SBTh, 2.29; London: SCM Press, 1974); J.M. Miller, The
Israelite Occupation of Canaan', in J.H. Hayes and J.M. Miller (eds.), Israelite and
Judean History (London: SCM Press, 1977), pp. 213-84; J.A. Soggin, The Davidic
and Solomonic Kingdom', in Hayes and Miller (eds.), Israelite and Judean History,
pp. 332-80; D.M. Gunn, The Story of King David (JSOTSup, 6; Sheffield: JSOT
Press, 1976); J.P. Fokkelmann, Narrative Art in Genesis (Assen: Van Gorcum,
1975); idem, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Book of Samuel (Assen: Van Gorcum,
1981). Contemporary with the critique of historicity went a considerable critique of
the Documentary Hypothesis and the datings of the biblical material: cf. H.H.
Schmid, Der sogenannte Jahwist: Beobachtungen und Fragen zur Pentateuchforschung (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1976); R. Rendtdorff, Das Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuchs (BZAW, 174; Berlin: W. de Gruyter,
1977); H. Vorlander, Die Entstehung des jehowistischen Geschichtswerkes (Europaische Hochschuleschriften, 23.109; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,
1978); E. Blum, Die Komposition der Vdtergeschichte (WMANT, 57; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984); N.P. Lemche, Early Israel: Anthropological
and Historical Studies on the Israelite Society before the Monarchy (VTSup, 37;
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1985); N. Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch (JSOTSup,
53; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987); see Th.L. Thompson, Early History of the Israelite People (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992), pp. 77-126, for an annotated introduction to
this new paradigm and its implications for historical research; and G.W. Ramsey,
The Quest for the Historical Israel (London: SCM Press, 1981), for a summarized
overview of the implications for biblical science.
6. This, however, did not place Samaritanism in any central position within the
large number of scholarly works on Judaism published in these decades, e.g., L.H.
Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univer-
54
the previous fate-determining 'symbiotic character' of Judaean-Samaritan controversies and paved the way for re-evaluations of the 'sources',
leading to quite interesting and challenging new conclusions. A.D.
Crown contributed considerably to this new line of ideas in his article
from 1991, 'Redating the Schism between the Judeans and the Samaritans'. 7 According to this article, neither temple building nor its destruction had been decisive for the final schism, which could not be dated
earlier than after the Bar Kochba revolt. Prior to the occurrence of the
rabbinic literature after Judah ha-Nasi, no significant anti-Samaritan
polemic could be found in this literature, and
it was only in the generation after Judah ha-Nasi, following the Bar
Kochba-revolt, that we see the development of anti-Samaritanism in a
series of negative statements by the rabbinical teachers, culminating in
the ruling that the Samaritans are unquestionably to be considered as
Gentiles.
The development of a heretic Judaism with a specific Samaritan

Pentateuch in the third century CE, and a spreading of this teaching to
synagogues and midrash schools, together with the establishment of a
specific liturgy and halakhah, led to irreversible schism. Crown based
his argumentation for this late dating of SP on the negative evidence
from DSS,8 that none of these texts bear similarities to what had been
found in Origen's citation of the Samareiticon. That made it pretty safe
to conclude an origin after 135 CE.9 The few occurrences of clashes or
sity Press, 1992); G. Boccacini, Middle Judaism, Jewish Thought, 300 BCE to 200
CE (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1991): D. Mendels, The Rise and Fall of Jewish
Nationalism (New York: Doubleday, 1992); Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian; E. Schiirer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ: 175
BC-AD 135 (trans, and rev. G. Vermes et al.\ Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973-87).
7. A.D. Crown, 'Redating the Schism between the Judeans and the Samaritans', JQR 82 (1991), pp. 17-50.
8. Crown, 'Redating the Schism', p. 49 n. 112: D.N. Freedman and K.A.
Matthews, The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,
1985), where the term 'proto-Samaritan' regularly indicates that the text is not the
Samaritan Pentateuch. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll from Qumran: 4Qpaleo
Exod and the Samaritan Tradition (HSM, 30; Atlanta, CA: Scholars Press, 1986),
finds 4Q Paleo Exod M rather close to the Samaritan version but not identical with
it. See Chapter 3 in the present study for a discussion of these problems.
9. Crown, 'Redating the Schism', p. 47: 'None of the Paleo-Hebrew texts from
Qumran which have similarities to the Samaritan version are at all close to the
Samareiticon cited by Origen in his Hexapla.' See further Crown, 'Redating the
55
events involving Samaria in the New Testament (Jn 4.3-4; Lk. 9.52.)
and Josephus (War 2.232-33; Ant. 20.118-38) were exceptions that
were few enough to become reported.10 By this we are brought to the
reforms of Baba Rabba, whom Crown, on the basis of the Samaritan
Chronicle Kitab al-Tarikh of Abu'1-Fath, dated to the third century CE
rather than to the usually accepted dating in the fourth century.11 An
increasing Samaritan activity in this politically rather peaceful period
had as its purpose the spreading of Samaritan thought and halakhah to
all places within and outside of Palestine where Samaritans lived. Hand
in hand with this went the canonizing and the promulgation of the
Samaritan version of the Pentateuch.12 This activity, according to
Crown, became decisive for the Judaean-Samaritan relationship: 'After
Baba, Judaism reached its limit of toleration of Samaritanism because it
had produced a Torah version at variance with that which was accepted
as canonical in Judaea.'13
This reconstruction of events did not free Crown from reckoning
Samaritans as a Jewish sect ('i.e. a religious subgroup of a main religion that remains so close in belief and practice that it cannot be
regarded as a different religion') that had originated from Judaism, 'and
certainly were Jews before the schism', and this in a more conservative
form regarding circumcision, sabbath, passover ritual, and so on, for
which Samaritans preserved 'pre-rabbinic' practices (i.e. practices
Schism', n. 109, for a discussion of the characteristics of the 'Samaritan' text in
Hexapla; J.D. Purvis, 'The Samaritans and Judaism', pp. 81-98 (86), for a dating in
the second century based on 'palaeographical, orthographic and textual evidence'.
10. Crown, 'Redating the Schism', pp. 27-28.
11. Crown, 'Redating the Schism', p. 44 and n. 96, for Crown's dating of the
Samaritan Chronicle, supported by P. Stenhouse, The Kitabh al-Tarikh of Abu-'I
Fath (Sidney: Mandelbaum Trust, University of Sydney, 1985), and D. Groh, 'Jews
and Christians in Late Roman Palestine: Towards a New Chronology', BA 51.2
(1988), pp. 80-98, who argued for a stable and prosperous period in Palestine
around 250-363 CE: 'The building activities of Rabbi Babba and his followers
would fit well into this period.'
12. Crown, 'Redating the Schism', p. 46.
13. Crown, 'Redating the Schism', p. 50, based paradigmatically on Purvis,
'The Samaritans and Judaism', and F. Dexinger, 'Limits of Tolerance in Judaism:
The Samaritan Example', in E.P. Sanders (ed.), Judaism, Jewish and Christian Selfdefinition, II (London: SCM Press, 1981), pp. 88-114, cf. Crown, 'Redating the
Schism', n. 108, and transferred from their dating in the third-second century BCE
to the third century CE.
56
derived directly from the Pentateuch).14 This view on Samaritans characterizes important parts of Crown's article, in which he simultaneously
seeks to balance differences between Samaritans and Jews and describes Samaritans as sectarians and schismatics in constant conflict
with the Jews about the placement of the temple. Thus 'open hostilities
are rare'15 and probably an exaggeration in Josephus's account, while at
the same time the temple at Gerizim gives reason for 'an increasing
difficulty of the second temple period' and becomes a 'dangerous rival'
to the temple in Jerusalem,16 because of its situation and its connection
to the Pentateuch traditions,17 which did not support any claim for a
primacy of the temple in Jerusalem according to cult, architecture and
high priestly genealogy.18 Crown thus argued that not only had the
14. Crown, 'Redating the Schism', p. 21 and n. 11.
15. Crown, 'Redating the Schism', p. 27: The evidence is against the outright
bitterness in the first century between Samaritans and Jews, that is spoken of in
Josephus and the later rabbinical sources.'
16. Crown, 'Redating the Schism', p. 31: 'the Gerizim temple was almost
certainly seen as a dangerous rival to the Jerusalem temple, since it was proximate
to an ancient sacred city, Shechem, and its claims to a Jewish temple were not
dependent upon Greek patronage. The temple at Gerizim was evidently a source of
considerable friction between Jews and Samaritans even in Egypt, and on occasion
in Palestine, we cannot be sure that the friction was continuous in view of the
alleged friendship between the Sadducees and the Samaritans.'
17. Crown, 'Redating the Schism', p. 32: 'The Samaritans argued that their
temple stood on a site made sacred by the sacrificial activities of the Patriarchs and
by the fact that the first sacrifice in Canaan (Deut. 27.4) took place thereon, since it
was the Mount of Blessing... If indeed one reads the patriarchal accounts with a
critical eye, Bethel and Shechem seem to be the same, or at least proximate, places.
The association of Bethel with all the events in the patriarchal accounts linked with
Bethel, Shechem, Moriah and Gerizim can be made directly from the Torah. The
Septuagintal reading of Shiloh instead of Shechem (Jos. 24) and the statement in
the Testament of Joseph (2.6) that Joseph was buried in Hebron rather than near
Shechem suggests that the Jewish authorities were already troubled by Samaritan
interpretations of the sacred writ in favour of Shechem and Mt Gerizim. There is
also clear evidence from the polemics between Eliezer ben Simeon and the
Samaritans over their reading of Gen. 12.6 that by the mid-second century CE the
Samaritan claims about Shechem were proving worksome to the tannaim.' See
Chapter 7 of the present study for much earlier 'corrections' of the Pentateuch,
which Crown did not include in his argumentation.
18. Crown, 'Redating the Schism', p. 33, referring to Ant. 12.8-10: 'The story
though brief, is most informative. It tells us directly that the Samaritans offered
sacrifices in their temple, and it implies that there was nothing to choose between
57
destruction caused an increasing Samaritan hostility against the Jewish

temple in the second century BCE, but that it was the loss of both cult
places that led to open rivalry and to increasingly polemical activity
from the middle of the second century CE.19 That this argumentation
bears a clear imprint of the influence from Josephus, Crown involuntarily testified in his reference to Josephus's account about Demetrius's
concession to Jonathan, including that 'it shall be in the power of the
High Priest to take care that no one Jew shall have any other temple for
worship but only that at Jerusalem' (Ant. 13.54), which for Crown was
a reference to the existence of other temples and Jerusalem's concern
about this, especially in regard to the Gerizim temple.20 What Crown,
however, was not aware of is the difficulty of the parallel reference in 1
Mace. 10.25-45, which must be the source for Josephus's text, and
which in this place has a different wording testifying that this specific
question did not have that kind of actuality in the second-first century
BCE.21 Apion 2.193 might point to a similar lack of clarification. The
Samaritan woman's question to Jesus in John 4 could indicate that two
centres of worship were regarded possible as legal Jewish shrines and
that a central authority of these centres could be questioned. It is therefore still open to debate whether the various stories about hostility and
rivalry form part of a 'historiography', which sought to legitimize an
act that had quite different premises, and might not be at all related to
disagreements over cult and practice until a much later period. The
Johanine 'evidence', dating to the beginning of the first century CE and
these and the sacrifices at Jerusalem that would clearly distinguish them from each
other... Josephus's account clearly indicates that the objection to the Gerizim
temple was based not on arguments against its ritual or style but that it was simply
acknowledged by all to be secondary (and by implication, inferior) to that in
Jerusalem'; p. 35 n. 63: 'From this perspective it does not matter whence Josephus
drew his account and whether it was fanciful. Josephus accepted the view that the
Gerizim temple was in the authentic tradition of the Old Testament, which is what
we should expect of the Samaritans.'
19. Crown, 'Redating the Schism', p. 40: 'we begin to note an increase in the
polemical writings relating to the rivalry, that is from the middle of the second
century CE onwards. It is evident that the rivalry was kept within reasonable bounds
until this period'.
20. Crown, 'Redating the Schism', p. 31 n. 52.
21. Which in fact supports Crown's assertion that the discussion gained actuality in the second century CE. See Chapters 5 and 7 below for a debate on the issues
implied.
58
Josephus's fight for claiming Jewish priority in his Antiquities from the
end of the first century CE, does not document that the so-called sectarian writings of the Samaritan Pentateuch have to be dated that late. The
renewal of these discussions after the loss of both temples might not
have anything to do with an establishment of new positions, but may be
a matter of convincing argumentation in the context of a pagan audience.22 The negative evidence from the DSS at best only tells us that
Samaritan writings were not included among the texts; and recent discussions have demanded that the various text designations need to be
reconsidered.23
In spite of Crown's quite innovative suggestions, we must conclude
that in many respects they are tied to the seemingly inescapable anachronism that understands rabbinic Judaism as normative already in
pre-Christian times. This understanding does not take seriously the sectarian aspects of the origin of this Judaism in Ezra-Nehemiah Torah
theology of postexilic times, which in fact forms the backbone of the
Mishnaic understanding of the oral Torah, and which have led to a considerable Ezra veneration in rabbinic thought. I find it necessary to
argue that the denial of this development constantly leads to absurdities,
which on one hand ascribe Samaritan independence and authenticity,
and a religion common with Judaeans, but on the other hand maintain a
Jewish sovereignty and primacy from which Samaritans originated and
developed. Changing the term to 'a pre-rabbinic Jewish sect' does not
solve this problem. On this premise it would be more correct to argue
that it is rabbinic Judaism, which left its foundation in the teaching of
the fathers,24 if we are to consider this to be the Pentateuch or the Mosaic code and if the goal had been a preservation of this kind of orthodoxy.25 That history has confirmed the viability of this Jewish 'sect'
implies a risk to historians of bestowing upon it pre-existential authority. Using the language of inclusion or exclusion seems to be misleading in both cases, and presupposes an established hierarchy, which
in fact is not even present in Josephus's slanderous writings about the
22. See further Chapter 5.
23. See Chapter 3.
24. Cf. the discussion of the various Jewish sects in Josephus, Ant. 12.10, 292,
296-97; 18.14-15; Life 191.
25. As pointed out also by Dexinger, 'Limits of Tolerance', p. 89, referring to
Samaritan self-understanding. This view forms the central core of Nodet's work,
Origins of Judaism.
59
Samaritans. Giving credit to this insecurity, which in fact seems to have

been the purpose of Crown's article, it would have been more appropriate to speak of variant traditions instead of sects.26 The terms Samaritan
and Jew might then designate nothing more than the temple a person
belonged to and not include specific religious obser-vations. Cult centralization as a political issue in the formation of a partly independent
Jewish state during the Hasmonaeans required a centralization of the
power, which, with king and high priest in one person, seems to have
left no room for another powerful centre in Sam-aria. Claiming their
legality of the high priestly lineage, the Samaritans had the means seriously to challenge the status of the Hasmonaean priests.27 Could in fact
the tradition about the division of the kingdom in the Iron age, which
implied a decentralization of the cult and an establishment of centres in
Samaria and Jerusalem, have led to an inclusion of Samaria in the time
of John Hyrcanus, which by necessity had to imply a destruction of a
Samaritan temple that was no less Jewish than that in Jerusalem,28 but
which, according to tradition, was representative of a fatal schism in a
remote past, and certainly stood in opposition to extra-Pentateuchal
26. Suggested also by Purvis, The Samaritans and Judaism', pp. 91-95, about
criteria for speaking of variant instead of sect, and the need for a more nuanced
view on Judaism and Samaritanism. Purvis warned against an anachronistic understanding of both.
27. D. Mendels, Jewish Nationalism, argued that with the Hasmonaean uprising
and its development into a war for national independence a need arose for an establishment of national symbols: capital and temple. After the final conquest of Jerusalem in 141 BCE during Simeon 'the capital and the temple were at the heart of the
Jewish nation, and the high priesthood was its highest political office' (p. 135).
'[From 142-76 BCE] the Temple became the most important symbol of national
political independence. The high priests were the secular rulers of the nation,
without any dependence on foreign rulers' (p. 138). 'The wish for only one religiopolitical centre is a dominant motif in much of the literature of the period. [References are given to Jewish, Samaritan and Greek literature on the previous pages.]
At that juncture of their history the Jews well knew that in the past, competitive
religio-political centers had brought about their own national destruction; and indeed, ten tribes were lost (Ezekiel 23)... For this reason they felt uncomfortable
with other Jewish religious centres such as Leontopolis, Shechem and Araq elEmir. The Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim was, of course, the main problem'
(p. 150).
28. Crown, 'Redating the Schism', p. 35 n. 63: 'Josephus accepted the view that
the Gerizim temple was in the authentic tradition of the Old Testament, which is
what we would expect of the Samaritans.'
60
biblical traditions? 29 If this scenario be structurally correct, then it

accounts pretty well for the problems of finding any distinct Samaritanism before much later. It also accounts, however, for the problems of
finding any distinct authoritative Judaism before the fall of the Jewish
temple in 70 CE.
The question of relations between Sadducees and Samaritans thus
have to be seen in a new light and cannot be explained by priestly contacts alone.30 We need to ask why these contacts were upheld? Were
they based on family relations, such as has been asserted by some
scholars, or is it more likely to regard them as being quite natural, given
the agreements in cult practice and belief?31 We also need to ask what it
means when Abu'l-Fath's version of John Hyrcanus's quarrel with the
Pharisees, in the Samaritan Chronicle not only led to his turning of allegiance to the Sadducees (Josephus, Ant. 11.293-97), but also included a
reversal of his former behaviour towards the Samaritans, and that he
even asked permission to go on pilgrimage to Gerizim (AF p. 113).32
That the Church Fathers also do not distinguish clearly between Sadducees and Samaritans, and Mishnah in some instances simply juxtaposes the two groups, must raise considerations beyond what can be
29. Mendels, Jewish Nationalism, p. 96: 'The concept of the twelve tribes
recurs again and again in the documents of the Hasmonaean period, and can also be
found in the Jewish literature of the Roman period. The number twelve, signifying
the completeness of the Jewish nation, is also associated with the settlement of the
nation on the most extensive territory the Jews were believed to have possessed in
the past.'
30. Montgomery, Samaritans, pp. 72, 73, 86-87; Coggins, Samaritans and
Jews, pp. 157-58; Crown, 'Redating~the Schism', pp. 23-24: 'It is not impossible
that the Samaritans had a cordial relationship with the Sadducees and that there was
some degree of co-operation between the Jerusalem and Gerizim priests.'
31. Crown here refers to Josephus's description of the Samaritan temple as 'the
temple of the God Most High' and that Josephus's account clearly indicates that the
objection to the Gerizim temple was based not on arguments against its ritual or
style but that it was simply acknowledged by all to be secondary (and by implication inferior) to that in Jerusalem; see also, 'Redating the Schism', pp. 34-35; E.J.
Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek Age (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988), p. 10.
32. Crown, 'Redating the Schism', p. 36 n. 69, referring to J. Bowman, Samaritan Documents Relating to their History, Religion and Life (Pittsburgh: Pickwick
Press, 1977), p. 135. Crown's comment that the Samaritans might still have been
using the ruins of the temple confuses two traditions. It was only according to Jewish tradition (Josephus, Ant. 13.256) that John Hyrcanus destroyed the temple, not
to Samaritan tradition as mentioned earlier in Chapter 1.
61
seen as plainly sectarian groupings. These considerations might find

their answers in the various groups' self-understanding and their interpretation of the common tradition. According to the Samaritan Chronicle Abu'l-Fath, no Jewish sects are claimed to be Samaritan, even if
they share the same view on Scriptures as the Sadducees do, or they
'rally around the Samaritan temple' and participate in the cult there,
such as the Hasidim.33 Regarding the Sadducees, the unsurmountable
problem was their relation to the temple in Jerusalem, and regarding the
Hasidim it seems to have been their belief. The Pharisees, because of
their exegesis and lenient attitude towards truth, was the most hated
Jewish group in Samaritan tradition (AF p. 111).
Samaritans as Original Israelites? The Position ofE. Nodet
With his quite comprehensive work Essai sur les origines du judaisme:
de Josue aux Pharisiens,u E. Nodet revived the discussion about the
possibility that Samaritans should be considered to be original Israelites.35 Some of these views had previously been argued by M. Gaster in
his 1924 book and by J. Macdonald in his 1964 book.36 The view
33. Macdonald, Theology, p. 25, identified the Hasidim with the Samaritans
based on an unpublished text of 2 Chronicles, disagreeing with AF, who considered
them to be connected geographically to the Samaritans.
34. (Paris: Cerf, 1992); rev. Eng. version (used throughout): In Search of the
Origins of Judaism: From Joshua to the Mishnah (JSOTSup, 248; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1997).
35. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 12: 'I hope to show that the simplest way to
take into account various anomalies and many scattered bits of information is to
presuppose, schematically the following: that the Samaritans of Gerizim were the
most direct heirs of the ancient Israelites and their cult; that the material in the
Hexateuch should generally be attributed to them, with the conscious exception of
the weekly sabbath; that Judaism, dispersed throughout the whole Seleucid Transeuphrates, was an import from Babylon and was made up of ancestral traditions and
memories of the Kingdom of Judah; that the union between these two, that is to say
between two quite restricted groups, took place a little before 200 BCE, and was
followed by an intense literary activity; that Judaism was given legal status at
Jerusalem by Antiochus III.'
36. Macdonald, Theology, p. 8: '"Judaist" a term restricted to the period beginning with Ezra, has reference to the religion of the post-exilic Judaeans. Judaism
thus applies to the religion whose origin is that of Samaritanism, but whose path of
development from the Babylonian exile was quite different from that of the
Samaritans.'
62
gained only few supporters, but, as shown in the review of Crown's

article, it certainly did (and still does) need serious consideration.
The first driving force for Nodet's work was the surprising observation that our history writing methodologically rested on very weak
foundations, and that the insufficiency of the available sources led to a
veiling rather than an unveiling of the historical facts. When classical
history writing construes a history on 'facts' with a plausibility far less
than one hundred percent that rests on similar uncertain 'facts', the historian is left with a reconstruction that at best is only probable. In other
words: The progress of this positivistic method of establishing facts
becomes very quickly disastrous.'37 This methodological insufficiency
was especially crucial in the reconstruction of Jewish history from the
destruction of the temple in 587 BCE to the Hasmonaean takeover in
about 150 BCE. The main source for this period was Josephus, and, as it
turned out in Nodet's research, he was 'no better informed than we are
and we often have the feeling that he is deliberately drawing out a
meagre documentation in order to fill up centuries that are especially
empty'. 38 That Eusebius of Caesarea was no more conclusive in his
results in his work Preparation for the Gospel convinced Nodet of the
inadequacy of the method.39
The second driving force in Nodet's work was the question of the
status of the Bible in Judaism, leading to the chronological and typological delimitation of the work given in his subtitle From Joshua to the
Mishnah.40 In the postexilic period, the status of the Bible underwent a
change, which, as reflected in rabbinic literature, challenged the teaching of the Bible and in several instances made the biblical text inferior
to the oral tradition.41 It probably was this insecurity about the Bible's
authority that had in the beginning led rabbi Akiba's school to attempt a
synthesis of the written and oral Torah. This condition stood in strange
contrast to the attitude toward the Bible represented by Samaritans,
37. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 60.
38. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, pp. 9, 331.
40. 'Joshua was the one who locally established in writing a statute and a law at
the Shechem assembly, while the Mishnah was the ultimate metamorphosis of the
traditions brought from Babylon and mixed in with Judaean influences'; Nodet,
Origins of Judaism, p. 12.
41. y. Sank. 11.6: 'The Words of the scribes are more important than those of
the [written] Torah.'
63
Sadducees, Philo, Josephus and even the New Testament letter to the
Hebrews, all of which ascribe to the Pentateuch a central position as a
source of law, history and philosophy.42 Josephus's claim of adherence
to Pharisaism and his neglect of those in rabbinic tradition so wellknown rabbis Hillel and Shammai, his ignorance of the academy in
Jamnia, as well as rabbinic tradition's similar ignorance of Josephus,
reflected for Nodet a curious relationship, which was best explained by
the rabbinic movement's placement outside of Jerusalem in the rural
regions of Galilee and connected with Babylon.43
The discussions about the keeping of the sabbath clearly illustrated
the implications of this problem. Nodet's main reference to this discussion is 1 Mace. 2.41's account that Mattathias in 167 BCE, during Antiochus Epiphanes' persecutions, decided that Jews were allowed to bear
arms in defence on the sabbath. Almost at the same time, according to
Josephus, the Samaritans declared that they had recently adopted the
sabbath from the Jews and that they were ready to give it up to avoid
reprisals.44 Nodet here follows Josephus's description of the Samaritans
as those 'Sidonians' living around Shechem and maintaining the cult at
Gerizimin fact a very limited group:
who could have been the dissidents, degraded by foreign marriages and
lax observances. In fact they constituted a limited group and had undergone some Jewish influence (Sabbath, Sabbatical year). Yet before these
influences, they had been the heirs of the Israelites (Jacob, Joseph).45
Nodet therefore considered this sabbath rule to be rather late.

The status of the temple in Jerusalem was another problematic case
that was difficult to fit into classical historiography: 'artificially magnified in the story of Alexander, it is astonishingly marginal for
42. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 10: 'the rabbinic tradition, in its oldest layers,
shows no sign of a biblical foundation, but only of secondary offshoots from the
Bible, it can in no way pass for a "religion of the Old Testament".'
43. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 59: This marginal situation implies that the
rabbinic tradition, although wanting to be heir to the memories of Jerusalem and the
Temple, had its origin in fact from the ruling circles of Jerusalem. This would
explain perfectly why Josephus ignores them altogether, or even would not want to
know of them. In a similar way, Josephus only discovered Christianity in Rome,
when he could not deny it a certain social importance.' Cf. E. Nodet, 'Jesus et Jean
Baptiste selon Josephe', RB 92 (1985), pp. 321-48.
44. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, pp. 63-64.
64
Nehemiah as well as for the Pharisees, which does not, however prevent strong claims being made about it'. The inauguration of the altar
on 25th Kislev in 164 BCE by Judas Maccabaeus had no immediate
institutional consequences, and it was evident that it was not the temple
but the temple institution as such that played the most central role
during the Maccabaean crisis.46
With these examples the issues of research in Nodet's work is presented: The Maccabaean crisis, the authority of the holy books, the
development of the oral Torah, sabbath, and finally the Samaritans who
seem to appear 'at each moment in the development of ancient Judaism,
and that Josephus in particular systematizes their opposition, from
Cyrus to the Maccabees'.47
Since the historiography for the period is incoherent, contradictory
and limited to singular events that cannot be brought into any harmonious course (the edict of Cyrus, the building of the temple, the reforms
of Ezra and Nehemiah, the arrival of Alexander and the decrees of
Antiochus III), it is not possible to create a coherent picture of events
and developments of early Judaism and its placement in the Persian
period prior to Alexander the Great by means of classical source analysis.48 After Judas Maccabee, information becomes more numerous, and
it is evident that conditions regarding the sabbath, temple and Samaritans have changed. This gave Nodet reason to use Judas Maccabee as a
chronological reference. He separated him from the other members of
the Hasmonaean family, since it was clear that he had other interests
and also obtained a different position in the books of Maccabees.49
As a typological reference Nodet used what he calls the Nehemiah
model/the Nehemiah city, which, removed from its 'historical' context,
'designates a community structure defined by a limited and protected
space, where the Torahand especially the Sabbathcould be ob-

48. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 38: 'the origins of Judaism, distinct from the
reconstruction of the sanctuary under the patronage of Cyrus and Darius, fit in very
poorly in the Persian period, but are a priori earlier than the arrival of Alexander,
since he was impressed with the temple and with the worship there, and since he
bestowed upon the Jews privileges, which he refused to the Samaritans. If this
episode fades away as fictional, however, there is no longer anything which would
appear to guarantee so ancient a date for these origins.'
65
served without any hindrance'. 50 The question of the sabbath is here

used as the touchstone in Nodet's research, since the discussions and
the accounts about defence or lack of defence, combined with Josephus's obvious uneasiness about stating that the sabbath rule, which
prohibits defence on the sabbath, should belong to the Mosaic tradition,
could point to a late fixing, and seems rather to belong to the split in
Judaism into various fractions in the third-first century BCE.
The 'results' of Nodet's methodical research led to the establishment
of three distinct Jewish groups, which in different ways determined
development during the Hasmonaean crisis.51 The reform policy of
Antiochus III52 gave the impetus to this development. This reform policy was similar to the well-known reforms presented in Ezra and Nehemiah. Transformed to this period, where they would fit better, they
instituted a new law as a synthesis of the Law of Moses with Babylonian customs.53 An active policy of restoration was instituted after
Antiochus Ill's takeover in 223 BCE and Jerusalem played a central role
in this restoration. The condition for the city was similar to that described in Ezra 6.1-12: without high priest, with an unfinished temple
and with no authority to receive the decree, which therefore was sent to
the Syrian governor, who had the highest authority economically and
religiously.54 The purpose of the decree was to move observant Jews to
central places in Palestine where they could serve Seleucid interests as
50. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, pp. 62, 87, 379.
52. Understood on the basis of Antiochus's decree presented in Josephus, Ant.
12.138-44, which Nodet (pp. 217ff.) considered to be authentic. Cf. E.J. Bickerman,
'La charte seleucide de Jerusalem', REJ 100 (1935) pp. 4-35, reprinted in E.J.
Bickerman, Studies in Jewish and Christian History, II (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1980),
pp. 44-85, and Y.H. Landau, 'A Greek Inscription Found Near Hefzibah', IEJ 16
(1966), pp. 54-70. This stele inscription mentioning Antiochus Ill's fiscal reorganization of Palestine can in no way be connected to Josephus's decrees ascribed to
Antiochus III.
53. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 225; see also p. 386: 'In brief, the book of
Ezra-Nehemiah, which contains ancient information, not only offers no serious
obstacle to the proposed conclusions, but even makes it possible to clarify the functions of these two personages: to Ezra was precisely connected the written Law (all
or part of the Pentateuch), with views about all Israel and a dominant high priesthood governing the Law and the cult, whereas under the name of Nehemiah and his
library were gathered together the traditions of the Elders, various writings and a
Jewish nostalgia for a monarchy having control over the cult.'
66
'buffer' zones against upheavals without themselves being a threat to

the rulers, since they were not allowed to carry weapons on the sabbath.
This model was known from a similar practice, related in Ant. 12.14950. After the order of Antiochus III, 2000 Jewish families were moved
from Mesopotamia to Phrygia and Lydia because of an upheaval there.
Xeukis, who was in charge of the move, was instructed to make sure
that these loyal Jews became properly settled, were free of taxes for ten
years and were allowed to live by the law of their fathers.55 According
to Nodet this policy changed the balance of power in Palestine. The
'deportation' of these observant Jews to Jerusalem led to confrontations
and splits that definitively formed the agenda for the Maccabaean crisis
and also became foundational for the formation of rabbinical Judaism.
Prior to the decree of Antiochus, the returned Jews had formed two
main groups. One group concentrated around the temple in Jerusalem,
whose situation is reflected in Ezra 1-6. The other group, called Nehemiah Jews or Ezra Jews, were Hasidic Jews, 'Men of the Great Assembly', who, after their return from Babylonia, instituted the weekly sabbath, which previously had been connected to the feasts of the new
moon. These Jews began to collect the Pentateuch traditions, probably
together with the Samaritans, with a late addition of Deuteronomy.56 At
the core of the sabbath problem lay in fact calendar disagreements. The
lunar calendar governing feasts and sabbaths formed the foundation of
Israelite religion, such as it is traceable in the Pentateuch prior to the
55. The letter is undated, but is considered to be authentic and belonging to the
same period (cf. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 223).
56. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, pp. 281-86, 289, 335, see also p. 92: The Hexateuch as a whole can with great difficulty be considered the work of NehemiahJudas [2 Mace. 2.13f.], since on the one hand the narrative part superbly ignores
Jerusalem and very largely gravitates around Shechem and Mount Gerizim and
therefore applies more to the Samaritans than to Judaea, and on the other hand the
Babylonian model of the sabbath, close to that of Nehemiah, does not agree with
the basic biblical ideas. Some of the accounts referred to above indicate besides that
these same Samaritans, although attached to the Pentateuch, denied that they observed the sabbath like the Jews, at least in the time of Antiochus IV, as if the
Sabbath precept had no further force. In dispensing with the biblical narratives then,
it is advisable to examine the legislative sections, especially those dealing with the
Sabbath: is it possible to picture a Pentateuch without the weekly Sabbath of the
Creation?' The result is positive in Nodet's study, giving a Pentateuch without the
priestly redaction, which must have taken place after Nehemiah and before 1 Mace,
(cf. pp. 93-121).
67
priestly redaction, and which is unknown to Ezekiel and Isaiah.57 With

the introduction of the weekly sabbathseparated from the phases of
the moona cult reform was introduced whose central aim was to
remove the fertility cult connected with the moon. As a result, the Jews
were forced to form two distinctive groups: observant Nehemiah Jews
fitting the description of Agarthacides, for whom the sabbath observance was central, and non-observant Jews,58 who had no problems in
joining Alexander's army (cf. Ant. 11.339).
The conflicts between these two groups were to some degree solved
by the high priest Simon the Just,59 who seemingly had some success in
combining the Babylonian oral Torah with the Pentaeuch in some form
and the requirements of the priesthood realizing the decrees of Antiochus III. After Simon this unity fell apart again and quarrels about the
high priestly office led to the formation of three different groups:
57. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, pp. 118-21, 99-102 and 380: 'The Sabbath in its
old form, attested in the prophets and in some narratives, referred to the full moon
and the associated ceremonies. The Passover, the 14th of a lunar month, was therefore a Sabbath in this sense. The Mesopotamian sources were likewise acquainted
with a shabattum, corresponding to the full moon. They were acquainted too with
"dangerous days" the 7th, 14th, 21st, and 28th. Practically, the rhythm of the quarters of the moon was close to the weekly sabbath, but with the computation beginning over again each month, therefore in dependence of the moon. The weekly sabbath had at the outset the same rhythm but was freed from that lunar servitude,
which implied a change in cult of major significance, since the moon, governing
human fertility was easy to divinize.'
59. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, pp. 277, 335. Of Egyptian origin, based on the
name and indirectly testified in 1 Mace. 5.23 and Josephus, Ant. 12.226-27. See
p. 260: 'The simplest hypothesis is therefore to admit that Jason and Onias were
really Lacedaemonian in origin, or more exactly, since their Lagide connections are
certain, that they were Egyptian descendants of Spartan colonists. Moreover, this
does not conflict in any way with their having been named or recognized as high
priests by the Seleucids: the governor-high priest of Coele-Syria to whom Antiochus III had addressed the Charter of Jerusalem was a former Egyptian general
named Ptolemy. Likewise, according to 2 Mace. 6.1, Antiochus IV named an
Athenian to rededicate to Zeus the sanctuaries of Jerusalem and Gerizim, and that
function greatly resembled an appointment as high priest in the official Seleucid
royal cult.' This, of course, is a highly tendentious reading of the implied texts leaning heavily on Josephus's interest in exploiting the similarity of names. With
R. Smend, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach (Berlin: Georg Reimer Verlag, 1906), we
are told that Onias was the Greek rendering of the Hebrew Yochanan.
68

1.
2.
3.
High priests of different origins, accepted and supported by

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

61. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 334: They were more biblical (and less given
to activism) than Judas Maccabaeus himself, but were very similar to the book of
2 Maccabees, with a vision of the Temple as a divine dwelling and with an efficacious desire to influence the Diaspora, as the festal letters show.'
62. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 63. Judas did not carry weapon on the sabbath, but fled to the mountains (cf. 2 Mace. 8.25-26; 15.1-2).
63. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, pp. 215-16, 237-48.
64. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, pp. 209, 215-16, 246-48, 381.
69
Judaea. Their prototypes are Jonathan65 and Simon, sons of

Mattathias. Mattathias himself, a priest with Samaritan connections, had left Jerusalem because of its decadence, but
dreamed about seeing the temple again. From them we have
the connection to the Sadducees,66 who originally connected to
the Samaritans, established themselves in Jerusalem and
became dominant in the time of Alexander Jannai.67 Claiming
to be heirs to the Zadokite priesthood, they are connected with
the books of Chronicles, which established the genealogical
connection to the Zadokites (cf. 1 Chron. 24.3-31) and whose
theological profile match that of the Sadducees according to
Josephus's description in Ant. 18.16.68
65. In whose days the holy books came to Jerusalem (cf. 1 Mace. 12.9). The
disagreement of this text with Josephus, Ant. 13.167, 'although we have no need of
such evidence, since our own writings inform us of this', made Nodet assert, 'Onias
as high priest did not possess the "holy books", that is to say he did not have the
Pentateuch, in which in particular the genealogies were found; or at the very least,
he sought other proofs of antiquity than these books, which were perhaps not really
"holy" for him.' Cf. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 259.
66. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, pp. 335, 381.
67. Which implies a transfer of John Hyrcanus's discussion with the Pharisees
(Ant. 13.289-90) to Alexander Jannai (cf. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 249).
68. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 266: 'The difference between Judas and Mattathias has become clearer, under the veil of a common armed resistance. The latter
has been recognised as an Aaronite, perhaps a Zadokite, with Samaritan connections. But what results from this is a problem relative to the Book of Chronicles,
which described a cult installed in Jerusalem, in which the Davidic monarchy and
the tribe of Levi (priests and Levites) held sway. Moreover, the interpretation of the
line of Joarib and Mattathias as Zadokites is based solely on the interpretation of
the list in 1 Chron. 24.3-31. If it is omitted it is still possible to compare the Sadducees with Mattathias and the Samaritans, but their name becomes again inexplicable. The difficulty may seem artificial, since Chronicles is commonly dated to
the Persian period or the beginning of the Hellenistic period, without any definite
relationship with the decree of Cyrus, or with the activities of Ezra and Nehemiah.
But Chronicles is to be dated after the "Law of Moses", which they constantly
mention. Jonathan's letter to the Spartans, in which he declared that he had the
sacred scriptures at his disposal, which Onias did not have, or did not utilise, shows
that the existence or at least the authority of the Law of Moses (or of the "holy
books") among the circles directing the Temple could not have gone back a good
while before the Maccabean crisis.'
70
The roles of these groups in the Maccabaean crisis and the development of the rabbinic tradition in the aftermath of that crisis will not be
dealt with here. According to Nodet, the origin of the Samaritans is hidden in the complex pre-history of Israel, which does not form part of his
study. They probably are not those from 2 Kings 17's and Josephus's
imported Cuthaeans, but relate to a local Yahweh cult centred around
Shechem,69 with strong local traditions connected to Jacob-Israel. They
furthermore are connected to the Aaron traditions via Bethel, which
must be identified with Shechem or a nearby sanctuary whose origin is
lost.70 At a certain time, not later than Alexander the Great, the Gerizim
cult originated with the traditions connected to them.71 From this came
the Hexateuch traditions, the connection to Joshua, the Jacob traditions,
which had been written down around 250-200 BCE and were accredited
with the authorization as the 'Law of Moses' without the weekly sabbath, interpolated in a later redaction.72 The meeting with the returned
Nehemiah Jews led to an acceptance of some of their customs, inter alia
the weekly sabbath (cf. Ant. 12.259). This resulted in a considerable literary activity and probably also in a common Pentateuch, which
69. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 147: 'The people did not intermix with the
subjects of the province as a whole. On the occasion of the visit of Alexander (Ant.
11.340), two entirely distinct groups are clearly apparent: the Samaritans in general,
and the "dissident" Jews connected with the Gerizim temple. Even if Josephus's
presentation is tendentious, since he always tried to denigrate the Samaritans there
is a certain duality, represented by the two cities of Samaria and Shechem. In other
words, the petition just studied did not concern all the Samaritans, but only a group
revolving around Shechem and the unnamed temple.' Nodet here argues against the
scholarly tradition that assumes the Sidonians to be a colony, living among the
Samaritans, but not connected with those (see below, Chapter 5). Nodet's argumentation is bound to his establishment of a history for the development of the weekly
sabbath, which would fall apart if the Sidonians in Josephus's writing were not the
Samaritans.
72. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, pp. 191, 152, 381: 'In addition the Samaritan
Pentateuch has interesting contacts with the Qumran fragments and with the least
revised forms of the LXX (Philo, New Testament). The Letter of Aristeas which
presents a Jerusalem high priest ruling over the twelve tribes, conferred authority on
a revision, in a more Judean or more balanced sense, of a translation of the Pentateuch that had been judged to be too "Samaritan". Since Antiochus III, the importance of Judaea had only kept on growing, but the Samaritan text, despite later
corruption, should be regarded as the first heir of the primitive edition.'
71
became dispersed to the diaspora.73 Because of the Nehemiah Jews'

self-assertion as heirs to all Israel, they collided in Jerusalem with
another tradition that was 'cultic, prophetic and perhaps also royal. This
forms the prehistory of the Maccabaean crisis' in which the Samaritans,
in Nodet's presentation, did not participate.74 The role of the Samaritans
in Jewish history had ended. Concentrated around the high priestly governed life75 on their wind-swept mountain, they could do nothing but
wait for extermination in 107 BCE.
The present reader certainly is left wondering how this peripheral
group could leave such an imprint on the cult in Jerusalem, that it
accepted its history as part of their own, and seemingly had so great
veneration for this history that changing it had to go via secondary
interpretations, such as in the book of Jubilees, Testament of Joseph,
and so on.76 Nodet's view on the Samaritans as a minor group that
seemed to have contact with other groups in Judaism only for the basis
of the establishment of a history of the Pentateuch in our scholarly
world certainly is an intrinsic weakness of his work. By this he introduced a distortion that supports the Jerusalem tradition's own assertion
of the existence of a widespread and normative Judaism as early as the
third century BCE.77 The connection to the Hasidic Jews and later the
Sadducees is so weak that it cannot be seen as more than a working
hypothesis, having no sociological resonance. The question of their
relation to the cult in Jerusalem before and after Simon the Just is left
unanswered in Nodet's work. The Samaritan account, which curses
King Simon for having destroyed the temple at Gerizim and which
73. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, pp. 191-95, 38.
75. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 269: 'An essential element for the Samaritans
was the absolute primacy of the priesthood, in conformity with the Pentateuch, in
complete contrast with pharisaic and then rabbinical Judaism, which was a lay
democracy in which the dominant element was the teaching of tradition by the doctors of the Law; among the Samaritans, all religious acts went through the priests,
and in particular the seven feasts and the calendar.'
76. See Chapter 7 below.
77. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 381: 'If the Samaritans constituted a very
local reality, it was not the same for the Jews, scattered as far as the Tigris. In the
prehistory of the Maccabean crisis, the Jerusalem charter granted by Antiochus III
(about 200) is of prime importance, since it attempted, in order to ensure their
fidelity, to federate a Jewish population of Babylonian culture scattered throughout
his whole kingdom, by reorienting it on the city and its temple.'
72
curses Ezra for having forged the Law is not taken into consideration
either. Instead, Ezra's role as promoter and promulgator of the Law of
Moses and his institution of scribal and teaching activities in the whole
of the Seleucid kingdom during Antiochus III are given special attention. If this be the source of the common Pentateuch, such as suggested
by Nodet, it fits badly with the Samaritan view on Ezra.78 Whatever
historical role this figure might have had, the tradition ascribes to him a
far greater role than the promoting of the Pentateuch. Nodet's separation of Ezra and Nehemiah, making Nehemiah the innovator and preserver of 'the traditions of the Elders, various writings and a Jewish
nostalgia for a monarchy having control over the cult', and making Ezra
the promoter of 'the written Law (all or part of the Pentateuch), with
views about all Israel and a dominant high priesthood governing the
Law and the cult' hardly reflect biblical, Samaritan or rabbinic tradition.
The collection of the Masoretic texts is the work of the rabbis. Ezra's
mission is first and foremost the promotion of an oral Torah. For that
reason is he placed outside the temple (Neh. 8.4). It is not the priests,
but the Levites (metaphorical rabbis) who teach the people (cf. Neh.
8.7-9): 'So they read from the Book, from the law of God, with interpretation [crib!?]. They gave the sense, so that the people understood
the reading.' This is well testified in 'Abod. Zar., which makes Simeon
the Just the first high priest in a series of seven generations of teachers.
Before the promulgation of the Law, the city and the temple have been
rebuilt, and the Jews from the rural districts have moved into the city.
In other words circumstances were in place for a realization of the commandments of the Law, so that after the reading of the Law, the confession of sins (Neh. 9) is followed by the cutting of a new covenant: in
this version the signing of a contract (ch. 10)by which religio-social
reforms instituted by the Law could be declared valid (Neh. 13). The
placement of Nehemiah after Ezra in biblical tradition has as its purpose
bringing Ezra into the old tradition and leaving Nehemiah as a guaranty
that what the new Ezra brings is not completely different from the old
tradition, but that it (as part of the tradition) is enclosed by it. That the
keeping of the Sabbath and the marriage regulations are made part of
the old tradition is documented by the references to the Pentateuch
(Ezra 9.12; Neh. 8.13-15; 10.31-40; 13.1-2, 10, 25), which guarantee
that they should be kept. The inclusion of Ezra in the tradition at the
78. As pointed out by Rowley, Men of God, p. 271.
73
time when he introduces something new is a common literary technique

of biblical composition. The circularity designates the wholeness, annuls the chronology and, by making the first the latter and the latter the
first, connects past and present. Rabbinic veneration for Ezra as the
figure who together with 120 Elders form 'the Great Synagogue' that
returned from exile 'made many new rules and restrictions for the better
observance of the Law' also fits Nodet's model badly. Ezra's function
as innovator and competitor to Moses (cf. t. Sank. 4.7): 'If Moses had
not anticipated him, Ezra would have received the Torah'; (b. Suk. 20a):
'He restored and re-established the Torah that had been almost forgotten' not only brings him into conflict with the Samaritans, but also
with the Sadducees, who according to Nodet originated from them.79 As
a contrast to this veneration, the work of Nehemiah is given insignificant reference in rabbinic tradition, restricted to a few sabbath rules
(cf. b. Sab. 123b). That the decree of Antiochus III in Josephus reflects
the Nehemiah model, which he has not presented previously, neither in
his mention of Ezra (Ant. 11.121-58) or Nehemiah (Ant. 11.159-83),
should be the 'caveat', which either accepts Nodet's placement of the
reform here or rejects to write history on the premises of Josephus. The
placement of Simon the Just as the high priest who combined the
various 'traditions' and thus realized the decree of Antiochus III implies
an impossibility regarding the book of Ben Sira. Ben Sira's ignorance of
Ezra and the reforms of Nehemiah, of whom he seems to have knowledge of his building of the city wall only (cf. Sir. 49.13)'The memory
79. Meg. 31b; y. Meg. 4.1.75a: 'He ordained that public readings from the Torah
take place not only on Sabbaths, but also on Mondays and Thursdays'; b. Sank.
21b: He also had the Bible rewritten in 'Assyrian characters, leaving the old Hebrew characters to the Samaritans'; B. Bat. 21b-22a: 'He established schools everywhere to fill the existing needs and in the hope that the rivalry between the institutions would redound to the benefit of the pupils'; B. Qam 82a-b, y. Meg. 4.1.75a:
'He also enacted the ordinances known as "the ten regulations of Ezra" and together
with five of his companions, compiled the Misnah' (tractate Kelim, in A. Jellinek,
Beit ha Midrash: Sammlungen kleiner Midrashim und vermischter Abhandlungen
aus der altern judischen Literatur [6 vols.; Jerusalem: Bamberger & Wahrmann,
3rd rev. edn, 1967 (1853)], p. 88). Aside from the book which bears his name, Ezra
wrote the genealogies of the book of Chronicles up to his own time (B. Bat 15a) and
had a hand in writing the book of Psalms (Song R. 4.19). The rabbis identify him
with the prophet Malachi (Meg. 15a). He is one of the wise men whose piety is
especially extolled by the rabbis (Midr. Jeh. to 105.2), cf. E. Davis, EncJud, VI,
p. 1106.
74
of Nehemiah also is lasting; he raised our fallen walls and set up gates
and bars, and rebuilt ruined houses'is significant. It can be argued, of
course, that the language here must be read metaphorically. The placement between v. 12, the temple building activity of Yehoshua ben
Yozadak, and v. 14's praise of Enoch certainly can also give clues to
such an interpretation. The praise of Simon (son of Onias in Sir. 50)
mentions his high priestly performance during the service and does not
mention anything about reform activities, unless one reads his building
activities metaphorically. It has to be noted that the book of Ben Sira
does not display any special interest in sabbath or marriage laws, and
that the main demand concerning worship is social adjustment and the
keeping of the offering commands (cf. chs. 7 and 35). Of course, there
could be several reasons for that, and it cannot be denied that the case is
political: also regarding the praise of the high priest, whoever this
person is. Considering the book of Ben Sira to belong to another
context that does not have knowledge of these reforms would imply
that its Jerusalemite orientation is a late insertion.80 The dating of the
book is another important matter. Its implicit dating to 182-132 BCE
and a possible late dating to 117 BCE removes it so far from the alleged
reforms of Antiochus III that other contexts become possible.
The origin of the Pentateuch in Samaritan tradition and its 'adoption'
in Jerusalem is meaningful only if this tradition had first later become
Samaritan or if both groups had identified themselves with the same
prehistory. If they did not, we must ask why the cult in Jerusalem
accepted the Samaritan version as their own. Interestingly, the biblical
tradition confirms Nodet's hypothesis that the Samaritans were the
original heirs to the Pentateuch traditions. It also confirms that the cult
moved from north to south and not the opposite. In the Ezra-Nehemiah
tradition it asserts furthermore that this move was necessary, and that
the break between the pre-exilic old Israel and the postexilic new Israel
was foundational for the survival of the New Israel with its new interpretation of the Law. What confuses this scenario, however, is the later
80. Sir. 50.27. The standard translation based on the LXX: 'Ir|oot>c; mo<; ipa%
EA,eaap 6 Iepoat>A.euiTr|c;, 'Jesus, son of Eleazar, son of Sirach of Jerusalem',
conflicts with the Hebrew text: KTO p "ITI^K p "pIOD. R.H. Charles, Apocrypha
and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), and
P.W. Skehan and A. A. Di Leila, The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation, with
Notes (AB, 39; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987) both omit Simeon, asserting
this to be an erroneous insertion.
75
traditions' wish for a correction of the direction of this move. Denying

the innovative aspects of that move, they claimed heritage to the whole
tradition. This is particularly evident in Josephus's claim for Jerusalem's sovereignty. The contradictions to this claim is not given satisfactory attention in Nodet's work. Nodet's selective reading of his
'sources', which a priori asserts the authenticity of some texts and
rejects others as inauthentic, implies the assertion that our texts are historical documents directly reflecting reality. Establishing hypothesis on
the background of the veracity of some texts indirectly provides these
texts' reality-creating activity with an authority that ignores these very
texts' myth-making functions. Such a reading is in constant danger of
leading to circular argumentation and tendentious confirmation of the
hypothesis at test. Nodet hereby seems to have fallen victim to his own
criticism of methods. That might be inevitable if we are to engage ourselves in historical reconstruction at all. That such a reading also can
give wonderful new insights and establish new hypotheses is well
demonstrated. It certainly is one of Nodet's greatest achievements that
he brings up the question of the Pentateuch afresh. Its origin and transmission raise urgent questions of the primacy and authority of what we
are wont to call Judaism.
Chapter 3
SAMARITAN LITERATURE
This chapter offers a brief introduction to most of the literature we call

'Samaritan', including DSS texts, from the SP to the latest of the
Samaritan Chronicles of the nineteenth century CE.1 Detailed text examination should not be expected here, and readers are advised to seek
further information in the literature referred to. The historiography of
the Samaritan Chronicles will be examined in Chapter 6.
The Pentateuch
With the exception of some few references to surviving Samaritans in
Palestine in the fourteenth century CE, it was not until the end of the
sixteenth century CE that real information about Samaritan communities
was given by J. Scaliger, who wrote diaries from his travels in Palestine
and brought them to the attention of Western scholarship. Scaliger also
collected some few manuscripts and was in close correspondence with
the Samaritan community in Nablus for years.2 The publication of these
Samaritan manuscripts raised text-critical questions about the originality of the biblical manuscripts, and led to the first European publication
of the SP in 1616 by Pietro della Valle. Later, J. Morinus, who already
in 16313 had argued that the SP was earlier than the MT, inserted the SP
into his Polyglot, published in Paris in 1645. Morinus's text appeared in
1. See J.P. Rothschild, 'Samaritan Manuscripts', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The
Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 771-94, for preservation of manuscripts and fragments, a total of about 1800 placed in about 70 libraries and private collections.
2. J.J. Scaliger, Opus De Emendatione Temporum (Leyden, 1583; 1598; Geneva, 1629).
3. J. Morinus, Exercitationes Ecclesiasticae in utrumque Samaritanorum Pentateucheum (Paris, 1631).
3. Samaritan Literature
77
revised form in the London Polyglot, published by B. Walton in 1657,4

which also contained a list, made by Casellus, of the text variants to the
MT: 6000 were found, 1900 of which corresponded with the LXX.
This interest in the SP was not entirely scientific. The ideologies, expressed in sola scriptura and ad fontes of the Reformation had challenged the authority of the Catholic Church. For centuries both parts of
this debate had a major interest in 'excavating' the most original text,
a so-called Urtext. The demonstration of a greater correspondence between the SP and the LXX, which also could be proved to harmonize
better with the Vulgate text than those Hebrew manuscripts the reformers claimed to have been Urtexts had the purpose of defending the tradition and warding off the critique of church tradition by Lutherans.
The classical work of Gesenius from 18155 sought a revision of these
views. He assumed that the Samaritan sect came into existence with
Alexander the Great's permission for the Samaritans to build a temple
on Mt Gerizim. At this time the Samaritan priests, he argued, revised
the Jewish text to fit this new reality. The correspondence with the LXX
could be explained by assuming a common origin in an AlexandrianSamaritan recension, which Gesenius considered to oppose a Jewish
recension, and to have had authority among the Jews. The AlexandrianSamaritan recension was a more popular edition, made for public use,
while the Jewish recension, for the sake of its claim to greater respect,
had not undergone the same revisions, but had kept its textual problems.6
4. B. Walton (ed.), Biblia Polyglotta (6 vols.; London, 1657). Prolegomenon
XI: De Samaritanis et eorum Pentateucho eiusque versionibus. (The prolegomena
have been frequently republished by: Heidegger [Zurich, 1673]; Dathe [Leipzig,
1777]; Wrangham [Cambridge, 1828].)
5. W. Gesenius, De Samaritanorum origine, indole et auctoritate (Halle:
Springer Verlag, 1815).
6. Gesenius, De Samaritanorum origine, p. 14: the variants comprised:
(1) grammatical changes, (2) explanations in the text, (3) assumed changes in order
to remove textual difficulties, (4) changes based on parallel passages, (5) expansions based on parallel passages, (6) harmonizing of chronologies, (7) Samaritan
words (including the special use of laryngeals), (8) sectarian readings based on
Samaritan theology and cult practice. For these reasons Gesenius did not consider
the SP to be useful for text-critical studies. Gesenius's views are discussed in Purvis, Samaritan Pentateuch, p. 75, and B. Waltke, 'The Samaritan Pentateuch and
the Text of the Old Testament', in J.B. Payne (ed.), New Perspectives on the Old
Testament (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1970), pp. 212-39 (228-32).
78
These opinions of Gesenius were followed by Z. Frankel, S. Kohn

and J. Nutt.7 A. Geiger shared Gesenius's views in principle but was
more critical in regard to the MT. By introducing much new material, he
sought to demonstrate that most of the variants were older than the
Samaritan community, and that the Samaritan text should rather be
considered to be an independent text than a development of any Jewish
text.8
In 1915 these views were further argued by P. Kahle,9 who considered the SP to be very old and to have a greater degree of originality10
than the MT, which had only later been compiled and edited from various sources. The LXX was similarly based on various translations, which
first developed a standard version in the Christian era. Kahle based his
arguments on SP's accords with Jubilees, 1 Enoch, the Assumption of
Moses, Philo, LXX and the New Testament. Scholars like R. Pfeiffer,
B. Roberts, F.G. Kenyon, O. Eisfeldt, A. Weiser and E. Wiirtwein all
shared Kahle's opinions.11
P.M. Cross, working out more fully a theory put forward by W.F.
7. Z. Frankel, Vorstudien zur den Septuaginta (Leipzig: n. pub., 1841); idem,
Uber den Einfluss der paldstinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik
(Leipzig: n. pub., 1851); S. Kohn, De Pentateucho Samaritano eiusque cum versionibus antiquis nexu (Leipzig: n. pub., 1865); J.W. Nutt, Fragments of a Samaritan
Tar gum: Edited from a Bodleian Ms. with an Introduction, Containing a Sketch of
Samaritan History, Dogma and Literature (London: n. pub., 1874; repr. Giitersloh:
C. Bertelsmann, 1980).
8. A. Geiger, Urschrift und Vbersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhdngigkeit von
der innern Entwicklung des Judenthums (Breslau: Heinauer, 1857).
9. P. Kahle, 'Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Pentateuktextes', TSK 88
(1915), pp. 399-439.
10. Against Gesenius, who could not find more than four authentic readings.
11. B.K. Waltke, 'Samaritan Pentateuch', ABD, V, pp. 932-40; R. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament; BJ. Roberts, The Old Testament Texts and Versions
(Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1951); idem, review of Purvis, Samaritan Pentateuch, JTS 20 (1969), pp. 569-71; F.G. Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts (revised by A.W. Adams, New York: n. pub., 1958); idem, The Text of the
Greek Bible (London: Gerald Duckworth, 3rd rev. edn, 1975 [1936]); F.F. Bruce,
The Books and the Parchments: Some Chapters on the Transmission of the Bible
(London: Pickering & Inglish, 1953); O. Eissfeldt, Einleitung in das Alte Testament
(Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 3rd edn, 1964 [1934]); A. Weiser, The Old
Testament, its Formation and Development (New York: n. pub., 1961); E. Wiirtwein, Der Text des Allen Testament (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1952)
(ET: E.F. Rhodes [trans], The Text of the Old Testament [Leiden: SCM Press, 1980]).
79
Albright,12 revised Kahle's opinions. On the basis of DSS biblical

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

family as a rewritten sectarian text 'not earlier than the Hasmonean
era', and the MT could be understood as a text revised by the rabbis
around 100 CE.13 The Palestinian and Alexandrian texts' close relations
in form and orthography were caused by the latter being 'a branch of
the Old Palestinian family', which broke off in the early fourth century. 14 In contrast to Albright, Cross would not call these textual families 'recensions', since they were 'the product of natural growth or
development in the process of scribal transmission, not of conscious or
controlled scribal recension'.15 Thus, Cross (as in the Sanballat question) seems to be operating within two paradigms: maintaining the
paradigm of the antiquity of the Hebrew Bible and merging this paradigm with the evidence from DSS, which in fact does not support the
first paradigm and gives little evidence for the second, since Cross's
proto-MT of Babylonia does not exist among DSS. This was clearly
understood by S. Talmon,16 who could not agree to the theory of a
single Urtext or any development of three distinct local families. Rather,
he considered it most likely that various 'primal traditions' had been in
12. W.F. Albright, 'New Light on Early Recensions of the Hebrew Bible',
BASOR 140 (1955), pp. 27-33.
13. P.M. Cross, 'The Contribution of the Qumran Discoveries to the Study of
the Biblical Text', in P.M. Cross and S. Talmon (eds.), Qumran and the History of
the Biblical Text (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974), pp. 278-92.
14. Cross, 'Contribution', pp. 290-91.
15. Cross, 'Contribution', p. 282 n. 21.
16. S. Talmon, Textual Study of the Bible', in P.M. Cross and S. Talmon
(eds.), Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974), pp. 321-400; Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, p. 152.
80
use at the same time, which 'progressively lost their lease on life and
ultimately crystalized in a restricted number of Gruppentexte'.ll Also E.
Tov warned against an establishment of an Urtext and a too rigid
grouping of texts, which were more likely related to each other 'in an
intricate web of agreements, differences and exclusive readings'.18 Tov
argued further that the designation 'proto-Samaritan' should be avoided
and replaced by 'pre-Samaritan', since
SP was largely based on a textual tradition that was extant in ancient
Israel the descriptive name 'Samaritan' is almost irrelevant. The content
and typological characteristics of this text were already found in preSamaritan texts found in Qumran, that is, in the ancient non-sectarian
texts upon one of which SP was based.19
The discussion was related to the debate of Second Temple Judaism

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

Qumran written in palaeo-Hebrew as Samaritan, although their content
did not agree with the SP. The early opinions about 4QpaleoExodm,
written in palaeo-Hebrew and with full orthography and text expansions, but without any sectarian readings which could be related to the
SP, offer clear examples of this tendency.20 Of importance for the relationship between pre-Samaritan and Samaritan texts is the absence of
any so-called sectarian readings in pre-Samaritan texts. The designation
'pre-Samaritan' is therefore based on script, expansionism, harmonization and linguistic features. Expansionism and harmonizing tendencies,
which in pre-Samaritan texts do not bear the same characters, however,
are found in several other DSS texts and should perhaps more precisely
be labelled expansionist texts. I think it proper to argue against Tov21
that the Samaritans cannot be said to have chosen such a text, but rather
continued to use the text-type they were accustomed to. This statement
of course implies a different view of the Samaritan origins as well as of
whether texts have been expanded or shortened. It should not go unnoticed that we do not find any Masoretic texts at Qumran and that some
of the texts called proto-Masoretic bear close similarities to so-called
expansionist texts in a manner hardly to be distinguished from the MT
Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel.22 This in fact was confirmed also by E.Y.
Kutscher, who, in his study of IQIsa23 detected a great degree of similarity between the IQIsa, LXX and SP. All three text-types intended to
remove linguistic and theological ambiguities and seemed more suited
to popular use.
Similarly the palaeo-Hebrew still in use for Samaritan writings can20. Thus P. Skehan, 'Exodus in the Samaritan Recension from Qumran', JBL
74 (1955), pp. 182-87; Skehan changed his opinion a few years later and declared
that the text was not Samaritan because of its lack of space for sectarian readings
and its compatibility to 4QTest. Cf. P. Skehan, 'Qumran and the Present State of
Old Testament Text Studies: The Masoretic Text', JBL 78 (1959), pp. 21-25; M.D.
McLean, The Use and the Development of Paleo-Hebrew in the Hellenistic and
Roman Period (PhD dissertation, Harvard University, 1982), and J.E. Sanderson,
An Exodus Scroll from Qumran, p. 306, who, for text-critical reasons, maintained
that the text was proto-Sam., although the text had no room for the SP reading of
the Decalogue.
22. Cross, 'Contribution', p. 289.
23. E.Y. Kutscher, The Language and the Linguistic Background of the Isaiah
Scroll (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1977), p. 77.
82
not convincingly be argued to give evidence for any Samaritan origin

and/or related text revision during the Hasmonaean period, as J.D.
Purvis has argued,24 since this script never ceased to have been in use.25
The findings of coins from the Hasmonaean period, minted with palaeoHebrew, might indicate that for national purposes the square script had
not reached a status beyond the palaeo-Hebrew. Except for a single coin
dating to the time of Alexander Jannaeus, all coins with Hebrew text,
before and after up to the Bar Kochba revolt, are written in palaeoHebrew.26 In addition we do not have any sure knowledge of a development of specific Samaritan script features before the third century CE,
and it cannot be safely said that Samaritans did not also use square
script for profane purposes.27 Given this wide range of about four hundred years of scriptural identification for an origin of a Samaritan community, we end agreeing with Tov's suggestion that 'this dating does
not necessarily have implications for their Torah. The non-Samaritan
(pre-Samaritan) substratum could have been created prior to the establishment of the community or, alternatively, the Samaritan text could
have been created much later.'28
Lacking in this discussion about whether pre-Samaritan texts are to
be found among DSS is the entire question about what tradition the
DSS actually represents. This question has become more pivotal in the
past ten years of scholarship, because of the ongoing breakdown of the
Essene hypothesis. Are the DSS sectarian texts of the Essenes, Sadducees or Pharisees? Were they brought into the caves in the second or
first century BCE, or even as late as the first century CE? Do they come
from one place, as has been suggested: from libraries or a geniza in
Jerusalem, and either brought to the caves at one or more times,29 or
24. Purvis, Samaritan Pentateuch, p. 86: '[I]ts script developed from the paleoHebrew; its orthography is the standard full orthography of this time; the textual
tradition it represents is not only known from this time, but completed the development of its characteristics during the Hasmonean period.'
25. R.S. Hanson, Taleo-Hebrew Scripts in the Hasmonean Age', BASOR 175
(1964), pp. 26-42.
26. A. Kindler, 'Coins and Currency', EncJud, V, pp. 696-72.
27. R. Pummer, 'Samaritan Material Remains and Archaeology', in A.D. Crown
(ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 135-77
(136-38).
29. A theory vigorously defended by N. Golb. See reference to his works discussed in F.H. Cryer and Th.L. Thompson (eds.), Qumran between the Old and
83
have they been produced at Khirbet Qumran? Are texts written in the
'Qumran system' written in Qumran in contrast to 'non-Qumran system' texts, which had been imported?30 With these questions unanswered, it is necessary to keep in mind that the SP, with its specific
features, could have existed contemporaneously with these text bodies,
but not have formed part of them, and should not be expected to be
found among DSS. This negative evidence can therefore only be used
with great caution in the context of Samaritan history.
Manuscripts
Not unlike Masoretic texts, 'original' Samaritan texts of the Pentateuch
are not available from before late mediaeval times. Pietro della Valle's
manuscript dates from 1345-46, Von Gall's Exodus E from 1219, and
the famous Abisha scroll from 1149.31 The datings are based on a deciphering of cryptograms in the texts, giving information about the name
and family as well as the dating of the scribal work. With a single
New Testaments (CIS, 6; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 101; 19495, 202-204, 252-55, 292.
30. As suggested by Tov, 'Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts', pp. 33-36; E. Ulrich,
'The Paleo-Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts', in D. Dimant and L.H. Schiffman (eds.),
Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995), pp. 103-29,
argued for a recognition of the use of 'Qumran-orthography' outside of Qumran as
evidence for a 'traditional' versus 'contemporary', or 'conservative' versus 'modernizing'depending upon whether the scribes continued to copy the Persian period
texts in the old orthography or modernized them in accord with contemporary practices of the Hasmonean-Roman period (p. 127).
31. Possibly the oldest scroll of the Pentateuch. It is greatly honoured by the
Samaritans and kept in custody in the synagogue of Nablus. Gaster, Samaritans,
pp. 110-12, advocated a much earlier dating of the scroll. Implicit to the Abisha
scroll, is that it has been written by Abisha ben Phinehas in the thirteenth year after
the entrance to Canaan. This made Gaster assume a very early original, eventually
from the time of Ezra, since the cryptogram could not have been changed by later
copyists. The problem of dating the origin of cryptograms in the text (peculiar to
Samarian literature) makes Gaster's argument rather hypothetical. P. Kahle, 'The
Abisha Scroll of the Samaritans', in F. Hvidberg (ed.), Studia Orientalia loanni
Pedersen (Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard, 1953), pp. 188-93, gives an account of the
confusions about the various Abisha copies; he argues that the fragment, published
by Fr. Perez Castro ('El Sefer Abisha', Sefarad 13 [1953], pp. 119-29; repr. 'Das
Kryptogramm de Sefer Abischa', VTS1 [1960], pp. 52-60), could have been written
centuries before the oldest known Pentateuch manuscript. Perez Castro dated the
scroll to the twelfth-thirteenth century CE.
84
exception of a text from the ninth century, most texts date to the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries and represent about 150 more or less fragmentary texts. Most of the manuscripts come from Damascus, Egypt,
Shechem and Sarepta,32 and are now in custody of the Synagogue of
Nablus, the John Ryland's Library at Manchester,33 the British Museum,
the Bibliotheque Nationale at Michigan State University34 and a few
private collections like the Sassoon Collection.35
It has been argued that the Samaritan text had not been copied quite
as carefully as the MT. B.K. Waltke, in his study of texts from the thirteenth to the sixteenth century, has detected an increasing deviation
from the MT based on scribal errors.36 This study of course is very
important for the evaluation of the published editions of the SP. A.F.
von Gall's classical edition, Der hebraische Pentateuch der Samaritaner31 suffered from not having respected such developments. Although von Gall presented the available manuscripts and also made use
of them in his text critical apparatus, he, for unknown reason, chose a
manuscript, which had several errors, had been reconstructed on the
basis of the MT and did not contain the Abisha scroll.38
Later editions made by A. and R. Sadaqa, Jewish and Samaritan Version of the Pentateuch39 and L.F. Giron Blanc, Pentateuco HebreoSamaritano-Genesis,40 sought to meet these problems. The former used
32. R.T. Anderson, 'Samaritan Pentateuch: General Account', in A.D. Crown
(ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 390-96.
33. E. Robertson, Catalogue of the Samaritan Manuscripts in the John Rylands
Library, Manchester (2 vols.; Manchester: n. pub., 1938-62).
34. R.T. Anderson, Studies in Samaritan Manuscripts and ArtifactsThe
Chamberlain-Warren Collection (ASOR Monographs; Cambridge, MA: American
Schools of Oriental Research, 1978).
35. D.S. Sassoon, Ohel David: A Descriptive Catalogue of the Hebrew and
Samaritan Manuscripts in the Sassoon Library (2 vols.; London: n. pub., 1932).
36. B.K. Waltke, Prolegomena, pp. 42-64.
37. A.F. von Gall, Der hebraische Pentateuch der Samaritaner (repr.; Berlin:
Alfred Topelmann, 1966 [1914-18]).
38. J. Hempel, 'Innermassoretische Bestatigungen des Samaritanus', ZAW 12
(1934), pp. 254-74.
39. A. and R. Sadaqa, Jewish and Samaritan Versions of the PentateuchWith
Particular Stress on the Differences between Both Texts (Tel Aviv: n. pub., 196165).
40. L.F. Giron Blanc, Pentateuco Hebreo-Samaritano-Genesis (Testos y estudios Cardenal Cisneros, 15; Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1976).
85
a manuscript from the eleventh century for the Tetrateuch and the
Abisha scroll for Deuteronomy and had the MT in parallel columns.
Blanc's edition was based on MS Add. 1846, written early in the twelfth
century CE and now kept in the University Library Cambridge. This
edition records variants from fourteen additional sources.41
Translations
The SP was early translated into Greek, Aramaic and Arabic. As support
for the understanding of the Hebrew versions as well as a documentation for an early standard text, these translations have considerable
value for research. The earliest reference to a Greek translation is given
with Origen's Samareiticon. Only very few fragments have been found
and no clear consensus of whether they actually are Samaritan has yet
been reached.42 The Giessen fragment, which was acquired in 1910,43
consists of Deuteronomy 24-29, including the so-called Samaritan
readings of Deut. 27.4: Hargerizim instead of Ebal. Other text variants
could support a Samaritan origin, but the manuscript's close agreement
with the Samaritan Targum makes it difficult to see it as stemming from
Origen's hand. Later text findings44 have not offered more secure evidence for an early Greek version of a work by the Samaritans for the
Samaritans. Both Tov and Pummer have argued against any assumption
of a text being Samaritan because it has Gerizim in the right place. So
has Vetus Latina, at least in Codex Lyon. This variant reading is not
necessarily Samaritan,45 but could be an original reading, which was
later changed.46
42. See the discussion in S. Noja, 'The Samareitikon', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The
Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 408-12.
43. Published in 1911, in P. Glaue and A. Rahlfs, 'Fragmente einer griechischen
Ubersetzung des Samaritanischen Pentateuchs', NKGW Phil.-Hist. Klasse 2 (1911),
pp. 167-200.
44. A. Rahlfs, 'Bin weiteres Fragment der griechieschen Ubersetzung des Samaritanischen Pentateuchs', NKGW Phil.-Hist. Klasse 2 (1911), pp. 263-66; B. Lifshitz and J. Schiby, 'Une synagogue samaritaine a Tessalonique', RB 82 (1975),
pp. 368-78; Kippenberg, Garizim und Synagoge, p. 148, dates the inscription to the
fourth century CE.
45. E. Tov, 'Pap. Giessen 13, 19, 22, 26: A Revision of the LXX?', RB 78
(1971), pp. 355-83.
46. R. Pummer, 'Agarizin: A Criterion for Samaritan Provenance', JSJ 18.1
(1987), pp. 18-25.
86
The Samaritan Targums (Sam. Tg.) have become the standard designation for the translation of the SP into Western Aramaic,47 which possibly did take place some time between the end of the first century BCE
and the eleventh century CE.48 Because of poor translations of the Hebrew texts, the Sam. Tg. have not been considered to offer much of interest for research on the SP,49 and they have only recently been investigated thoroughly by A. Tal. In a huge study, published from 1980 to
1983, Tal was able to show that most of the mistakes were linguistic
related to geography and chronologyand were not to any serious
extent theological.50
The Arabic translations date to the tenth century CE. They underwent
revisions in the thirteenth century CE. Harmonizing various manuscripts, these revisions created text editions, which both linguistically
and theologically differed from their original texts. Although Arabic
became an everyday language for many Samaritans in the tenth century
CE, Hebrew was kept for liturgical purposes and probably prevented of
these Arabic texts from becoming authorized as a standard version.51
47. See, A. Tal, 'Samaritan Literature', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans
(Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 413-67, pp. 446-47, for the linguistic considerations.
48. Macdonald, Samaritan Chronicle No. II, p. 41, dates the Targum to the time
of Baba Rabba. A. Loewenstamm, 'Samaritans', EncJud, XIV, pp. 754-57 (754),
argues for a dating between the first and fourth century CE based on lingustic concords with Defter and Memar Marqah, together with several grascicisms in the text.
49. The first edition published in Paris and London polyglots was, according to
P. Kahle, Textkritische und lexikalische Bemerkungen zum samaritanischen Pentateuchtargum (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1898), 'the worst known manuscript of the
Samaritan Targum'.
50. Tal, 'Samaritan Literature', p. 448. In a comparative study of MS, Or. 7562
from the British Museum and MSS 3 and 6 from the the Shechem synagogue, Tal
demonstrated that MS Or. 7562 reflects Samaritan Aramaic from the pre-Talmudic
period (the time for the occurrence of the Palestinian Targum), revealing earlier
stratas, which are seen also in Tg. Onkelos and Aramaic documents from DSS. MS
6 from the Shechem synagogue represents the period for the occurrence of Talmudic Arabic, from around fourth century CE and used as a proof text for MS Or.
7562. MS 3 is a result of scribal inability in a period where Aramaic no longer was
in use. See, furthermore, the introduction in A. Tal, The Samaritan Targum of the
Pentateuch: A Critical Edition (3 vols.; Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 198083).
51. H. Shehadeh, 'The Arabic Translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch', in
A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989),
87
The Special Features of the Samaritan Pentateuch

The examination of the deviations between the MT of the Pentateuch
and its Samaritan counterpart, numbering about 6000, have been dealt
with by other scholars and will not be repeated here in detail, since this
examination is based on readings of mediaeval texts and not on their
ancient Vorlage.52 E. Tov,53 in his examination of such assumed Vorlagen (named pre-Samaritan texts found among DSS), sought to distinguish between this 'pre-Samaritan substratum and a second, Samaritan
layer added in the Samaritan Pentateuch'. From his examination, it
seemed 'that the Samaritans added but few ideological and phonological changes to their presumed base text. All other characteristics were
already found in the early texts'. However, attention needs to be given
to the inconsistency with which these characteristics occur in the preSamaritan texts. Given their rarity it is difficult to make precise statements about their implications. The following sections briefly discuss
Tov's results.
Harmonizing Alterations
These involve alterations to remove contradictions in the text. They are
far from being thorough, but represent a tendency that is more dominant
in the SP than in pre-Samaritan texts of DSS. The formalism with which
these harmonizations are made includes a consistent use of names,
which makes the SP reading of, for example, Num. 13.16 impossible:
'Moses named Joshua son of Nun Joshua', a name that he is given
already in the calling in SP Num. 13.8. This reading goes against all
other witnesses, including the pre-Samaritan texts, all of which resemble
the Masoretic reading: 'Moses named Hosea son of Nun Joshua.' However, this lectio difficilior of the Samaritan text, I think, should not be
too quickly understood as a harmonization, since it might be argued that
Num. 13.8 in other texts has been harmonized to fit Num. 13.16. Text
pp. 481-516. The article is a summation of the author's dissertation from 1977,
The Arabic Translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch, Prolegomena to a Critical
Edition' (Hebrew).
52. Casellus (1657); Gesenius (1815); Luzatto (1851; repr. 1970 by R. Kirchheim); Purvis (1968).
53. E. Tov, 'Protosamaritan Texts and the Samaritan Pentateuch', in A.D.
Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989),
pp. 397-407; idem, Textual Criticism, pp. 80-100.
88
variants to the SP either suggests a deletion of Nun Joshua or of Joshua,

which means that *? K")p should be translated as 'called at' or 'read
to'.54
Changes on the Basis of Parallel Texts, Remote or Close
Remote alterations most often relate to harmonizations between the
Tetrateuch and Deuteronomy, which, because of its status as 'repetitive
Torah', apparently had to correspond, especially in the narrative parts
of the book.55 This led to an insertion of Deut. 1.9-18 in the middle of
SP Exod. 18.25, thus repeating the command to Moses about appointing judges on Deuteronomy's terms. According to MT and SP Exod.
18.21 these judges should be 'capable men, who fear God, trustworthy
men who hate a bribe', but according to Deut. 1.13 be 'men who are
wise, understanding and experienced'. The same feature is found in
4QpaleoExodm. In fact this 'harmonization' of the Exodus text with that
of Deuteronomy undermines what was said about harmonization in the
former paragraph, since we now have two variant stories about the
appointment of judges in the same text, and we thus should expect the
qualifications to have been adjusted according to the rules of harmonization.
According to Tov other adjustments are found in, for example: Num.
10.10 with an addition of Deut. 1.6-8; Num. 12.16 with an addition of
Deut. 1.20-23; Num. 13.33 with an addition of Deut. 1.27-33. Similar
features are found in DSS manuscripts without being entirely consistent
with the SP. The number of harmonizations differs in a remarkable
way, so that, for example, 4QpaleoExodm has less harmonizations,
while 4QNumbhas more than the SP.56 Evidence for this last remark is
not given by Tov since the examples mentioned are also found in the
SP.
Tov's five examples of close harmonizations (i.e. alterations based on
context or related verses) cannot be sufficiently compared to pre-Sama54. Cf. the apparatus in von Gall, Der hebrdische Pentateuch (Num. 13.16).
Attention must be given to the fact that von Gall in several instances adapted the
text of the Samaritan Pentateuch to the MT.
56. Tov, Textual Criticism, p. 98: Exod. 32.10 add. based upon Deut. 9.20; Num
20.13 add. based upon Deut. 3.24-28 and 2.2-6; Num. 21.12 add. based upon Deut
2.9, 17-19); Num. 21.20 add. based upon 2.24-25; Num. 27.23 add. based upon
Deut. 3.21-22.
89
ritan manuscripts because of lack of material, and it is only Exod. 8.20's

addition of ~INQ to the heavy swarms of insects that has a known parallel in 4QpaleoExodm:
E.g. SP Exod. 8.20 reads IRQ "DD miJ for MT 133 ITII>, an alteration
based on 9.3, 18, 24 and agreeing with Tg. O.J.; 4QpaleoExodm and Vulgate but against Tg.N.
As can be seen from the two examples below, the agreement with other
text witnesses differs, and nothing can be safely concluded from these
few examples.
E.g. SP Gen. 7.2. reads TOp31 H3T for MT inp] 2TK, an alteration based
on Gen. 1.27; 6.19; 7.3, 9 and agreeing with LXX, TG.O.N.J., Syr. Pesh.
and Vulgate.
E.g. SP Num. 27.8 reads DHH]! (assign) for MT Dll-niJm (transfer), an
alteration based on vv. 9, 10, 11 and agreeing with Syr. Pesh. but in contrast to LXX, Tg. O.J. and Vulgate, all reading the verse as in MT.
Alongside tendencies of harmonization, the Samaritans are believed

to have added 'sources for a quotation' in their Scripture. Here again
this is done because of the assumption that
Deuteronomy is expected to 'repeat' the content of the preceeding four
books, the technique of inserting verses from Deuteronomy into the earlier books can also be described as providing 'source' for a quotation.
This technique was also applied to relatively small details in sections that
are not parallel.57
E.g. SP Exod. 20.2 l b containing Deut. 18.18-22, which has been added
in retrospect to give cause for Deut. 18.16. This addition is also found in
4Q158andin4QTest.
E.g. SP Exod. 6.9, anticipating the people's murmuring in Exod. 14.12.
E.g. SP Gen. 30.36, which has an addition describing the content of
Jacob's dream and thus anticipating Gen. 31.11-13, whereas the MT is
lacking any reference to the mentioned dream. This reading is attested in
4Q364 ( = 4QPP). A similar addition is found in the SP after Gen. 42.16,
anticipating Gen. 44.22.
To Tov's list, we should add that the addition to SP Exod. 20.17b,

containing the Samaritan tenth commandment and the erection of the
altar on Mt Gerizim, anticipates the erection of the stone altar in Deut.
90
27.2-8, which in both instances is supplied with the explanatory remark

that this 'is facing Gilgal at Elon Moreh facing Shechem'. Of the four
examples offered by Tov, two do not fall within the expectation of
Deuteronomy's superiority as a reason for the addition. Furthermore,
there seems to be a problem in that the additions do not really clarify,
and in some instances conflict with, the text of the Deuteronomy. The
arbitrariness of the retrospective language in Deut. 18.16 and 27.1, 8
does not match the 'additions' in SP Exodus. Neither does the anticipation of Jacob's dream fit any need for clarification in the MT. It is thus a
moot point whether one is correct in assuming that the texts of the
Tetrateuch have been altered on the background of Deuteronomy. The
expansionist character of the Samaritan and pre-Samaritan text seems
rather to have given reason for the clarification and removal of conflicting (Deut. 18.16 [27.2, 8]) or superfluous (e.g. the 'addition' to SP
Gen. 30.36) material in the Tetrateuch.
Repetition of Commands
According to Tov, 'it is characteristic of the style of the biblical narrative to relate commands in great detail, while their fulfilment is mentioned only briefly, with the words "...and he (etc.) did as...'".58 In the
SP on the contrary, commands are not only given but also executed in
verbatim repetitions of the commands. So when the MT says that the
Lord demanded so and so and ends with the remark that it had been
done, the SP variant adds the command and might say, 'Moses and
Aaron went to Pharaoh and said...', with a repetition of what the Lord
had told them to say. These additions are most clearly brought out in
Exod. 7.18, 29, 8.19 and 9.5, 19, agreeing with 4QpaleoExodm.
Linguistic Corrections
It appears that most of the linguistic corrections of the SP were already
found in its pre-Samaritan substratum, since they resemble the harmonizing changes described above. Some of them are indeed found in the
pre-Samaritan text 4QpaleoExodm.59 Orthographic peculiarities in MT
have often been changed in the SP. Pronominal suffixes of third person
masculine singular, which in a few places in the MT is written with n
(e.g. Gen. 9.21; 12.8; 13.3; 49.11; Exod. 22.4; 22.26) were almost
always corrected to 1. Similarly the qere form of MT Gen. 3.12, 20 and
91
7.2 is in the SP written in the ketib form similar to the writings of

4QpaleoExodm (22.26; 31.13), 4QDeutn(5.5) and the proto-Masoretic
manuscript 4QLevc (5.12). The use of matres lectionis has traditionally
been considered to be more dominant in the SP than in the MT. R. Macuch and M. Cohen, however, have independently demonstrated that this
assumption is wrong. They have shown that matres lectionis in fact are
more related to categories of words than to specific texts.60 Some DSS
manuscripts, including 'non-Samaritan' manuscripts as well as such
pre-Samaritan manuscripts as 4QpaleoExodm and 4QDeutn have a high
use of matres lectionis, while other pre-Samaritan manuscripts are written with a more defective orthography than the SP.
Phonological interchanges of gutturals are common in DSS manuscripts. In pre-Samaritan texts, this phenomenon relates especially to V/
n and is as frequent as in Galilaean Aramaic.61
Unusual (often archaic) forms are replaced by common forms and
grammatical incongruencies are often corrected. Most of these 'corrections' are noted in the critical apparatus of BHS.62
Some disagreements are simple scribal errors, such as the frequent
reading of ~l in the MT for 1, in the SP. Given this support of the SP
spelling in pre-Samaritan texts, one must conclude that the SP reading
in these instances is original, contrasting with the often meaningless
text of the MT, for example, Gen. 14.14; 47.21 and Num. 24.17.
Alterations Related to Content and Ideology
The question of where to worship form the central part of these alterations. Hargarizim, usually in one word, is employed in all instances
where Jerusalem is alluded to in the Pentateuch.63
60. R. Macuch, Grammatik des samaritanischen Hebrdisch (Berlin: W. de
Gruyter, 1969); M. Cohen, The Orthography of the Samaritan Pentateuch. Its Place
in the History of Orthography and its Relation with the MT Orthography', Beth
Miqra 64 (1976), pp. 50-70; 66 (1976), pp. 361-91 (Hebrew).
61. Tov, Textual Criticism, pp. 95-96, offers a few examples with references to
Macuch, Grammatik des samaritanischen Hebrdisch, and Z. Ben-Hayyim, The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic amongst the Samaritans (5 vols.;
Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1957-77) (Hebrew).
62. Which misleadingly has punctuated the Samaritan variant according to the
Masoretic tradition!
63. Tov, Textual Criticism, p. 95: 'The reading hargarizim in SP is usually
taken by scholars as tendentious, but since it is also found in Vetus Latina it should
probably be taken as an ancient non-sectarian reading.' See also Pummer, 'ARGA-
92
That Yahweh is to be worshipped on Hargarizim is also stated in the

Decalogue of SP Exod. 20.lib and Deut. 5.18b, which has the MT first
commandment as a headline to the Decalogue. The Samaritan tenth
commandment records Deut. 11.29a; 27.2b-3a, 4a, 5-7 and 11.30 (in
this order). Deut. 27.4, which forms part of the commandments, reads
'Gerizim' for MT 'Ebal', in agreement with Vetus Latina, reading 'Garzin'. The qualifying note to the placement of Gerizim and Ebal in SP
Exod. 20.17b and Deut. 5.18b, stressing that this 'is facing Gilgal at
Elon Moreh facing Shechem', also in SP Deut. 11.30, solves the confusion in the MT by the addition DD2) 'TIQ. Interestingly it finds support
in rabbinic literature.64 None of these readings are found in pre-Samaritan texts, since the sections are either missing or the text is corrupt.
The often-mentioned SP formulaic rule of writing "IPD, 'chose', in a
past form when pertaining to 'the place, Yahweh will choose' (future
form) in MT Deut. 12.5, 11, 14, is not given any further consideration in
Tov's study.65 It seems to me that the matter is not quite as clear as
scholarship has traditionally argued. Since SP Deut. 12.21, 26 and
15.20 employs a future form, agreeing with MT, and the Samaritan
Chronicle Kitab al-Ta'rikh, written by AbuT-Fath (AF pp. 71-76).
employs both tenses in its theological discourse about the placement of
the temple, one has to reconsider the question. The consistent use of the
past form ^"ira (1st person sing.) in MT 2 Chron. 7.12, 16, when Yahwehin an answer to Solomon's prayerdecides to 'dwell' in the
house Solomon has already built, could be witness to a conscious
redaction of the MT of Deuteronomy. The underlying ideology in
Chronicles, however, might not be related to place so much as to cult
RIZIN: Samaritan Provenance?'. The 'Samaritan' reading, without space between
the words, occurs also in a Masada fragment written in the 'early' Hebrew script,
see S. Talmon, 'Fragments of Scrolls from Masada', Erlsr 20 (1989), pp. 286-87
(Hebrew with English summary). However, the Samaritan nature of that fragment is
contested by E. Eshel, 'The Prayer of Joseph, a Papyrus from Masada and the
Samaritan Temple on ARGARIZIN', Zion 56 (1991), pp. 125-36 (Hebrew with
English summary).
64. Cf. m. Sot. 1.5, dealing with the blessing on Gerizim and the cursing on
Ebal, and stating that these are in Samaria, 'near by Shechem, beside the oaks of
Moreh, as it is written, Are not they beyond Jordan (there is written, and Abram
passed through the land unto the place of Shechem unto the oak of Moreh); as there
the oak of Moreh that is spoken of is at Shechem, so here the oak of Moreh that is
spoken of is at Shechem'.
93
centralization and to the rejection of other 'houses' in Israel.66

Another special feature in the SP compared to the Masoretic Pentateuch belongs to chronology relating to the first generations in Genesis.67 Of interest is the reading of 'the sixth day' in Gen 2.2. agreeing
with LXX, Syr. Pesh and Jubilees but against MT, Tg. O.N.J and Vulgate, which all read the 'seventh day'. The stay in Egypt in MT Exod.
12.40, reckoning 340 years in both the SP and LXX, includes the stay in
Canaan in this reckoning, which of course conflicts with the following
verse that relates that after this 430 years' stay in Egypt, the armies of
Yahweh went out of Egypt. The SP is also seen to have slight variations
related to the synchronic use of words and phenomena that are not seen
in the MT.
Summing up, we must conclude that the SP reflects a text type found
in Qumran, which, because of its 'various additions and expansions', is
labelled as an expansionist text. This text type is not restricted to
Samaritan texts, and the above-mentioned features common to so-called
pre-Samaritan texts and the SP does not convincingly prove that any
texts among the DSS should be labelled 'Samaritan'. The so-called second stratum of the SP, belonging to ideological variants, is still unproven, since none of the DSS texts contains the material needed for
that examination. The common assertion that Samaritans expanded
their texts with harmonizations of various sorts is unfounded, because it
has not been proven that these 'additions' meet any need of clarification. In some instances they conflict with the text of Deuteronomy that
they are thought to anticipate. On the premise of lectio difficilior, the
Samaritan text should be considered prior to its Masoretic counterpart,
while on the premise of lectio brevior it should be considered to be
later! Such conflicting premises require a reconsideration of our understanding of techniques of expansion, and raise further questions about
whether we are after all correct in speaking of 'extensive editorial rewriting' of the type of texts to which the SP also belongs.68
66. Cf. Chapter 5 below.
67. R. Weiss, Studies in Text and Language of the Bible (Jerusalem, 1981)
(Hebrew), pp. 63-189, cit. Tov, 'Protosamaritan Texts', p. 403 n. 10.
68. Tov, 'Protosamaritan Texts', p. 407: 'It is similarly reflected in the protoSamaritan texts allowing for extensive editorial rewriting.' Just having received
Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1999), I am pleased to be able to quote his conclusion on the matter: 'In
sum, except for their script, the palaeo-Hebrew biblical manuscripts from Qumran
94

Samaritan Theological Literature
Although the Samaritans recognize only the Pentateuch as their sacred

text, this does not imply that no other literature could be given a certain
authoritative status. How early this happened is difficult to state. It
might belong to the development of a certain distinctiveness in Samaritan theology in the third century CE, as suggested by Crown.69 In the
Samaritan Chronicle Kitab al-Tarikh by Abu'1-Fath (see p. 000 below)
such a reason is given for the rejection of other Jewish Scriptures: they
disrespect the commandment given in Deut. 4.2 and 13.1 (12.32) that
'you shall not add to it or take from it'.70 Thus the criticism is intrinsic
and independent of the rejected literature's potential pro-Judaean or proSamaritan preferences. In the same manner, the Prophets are rejected
because 'no prophet like Moses arose in Israel' (Deut. 34.10), judging
this literature as untruthful and not stemming from God.71 These statements form part of a discussion about who is the true Israel in a context
of who made the correct translation of the Pentateuch into Greek
required by Ptolemy I (Soter) or, according to Josephus, Ant. 1.10 and
12.13, Ptolemy Philadelphia. Both Samaritans and Judaeans participated and each made their own version, differing both in content and
size.72
The of ten-stated 'critique' of the Samaritans' rejection of the Hebrew
Bible and of their recognition of only the Pentateuch needs a clarifying
remark. The Samaritan rejection of the Hebrew Bible does not imply
that they did not develop their own traditions of chronicles and
halakhah. As Jews did not consider the Pentateuch to give answers to
all matters of life, so the Samaritans gave a certain credit to tradition
and to the interpretation of the Pentateuch. This is explicit in the Arabic
Cave 4 do not appear to form a group distinguishable from the other biblical scrolls
in either physical features, date, orthography, or textual character. Moreover,
though certainty is even more elusive for this contrast, there seems to be no great
distinction in any of those four categories between manuscripts copied outside
Qumran (or predating Qumran) and manuscripts copied at Qumran.'
69. Crown,'Redating the Schism'.
70. Stenhouse, Kitab al Tarikh, p. 136: p. 109 'our copy of the Law, and theirs
as well, would forbid accepting it, as in the verse, "You shall add nothing to it, nor
take away from it" which is to say that the law is complete (in itself)'.
71. Stenhouse, Kitab al Tarikh, p. 135.
72. Stenhouse, Kitab al Tarikh, p. 129.
95
tractate Kitab al-Tabbakh from late mediaeval times, as well as in several hymns dated to the third to fourth century CE. The passages of
interest for the discussion are presented and discussed by Ruahiridh
Boid,73 cleared of earlier misunderstandings by Gaster74 and Halkin.75
What differs between the Samaritan and Jewish understanding is the
view of the later traditions as given by God. The oral Torah of rabbinical Judaism, considered to have been given to Moses (cf. m. Ab. 1.1)
and thus having authority besides and at times beyond the written
Torah, could never achieve such a status in Samaritan belief. The Pentateuch alone, written by Moses,76 was the only legitimate Torah. What
developed from this Torah remained rooted in the Pentateuch. It could
never replace the Torah as such because it was already inherent in it.
Nevertheless, since only Moses understood all the implications of the
Law, it is necessary to have some written halakhic rules deduced from
the Torah and related to tradition.
Since the Pentateuch embraces life, tradition and theology, all literature, including commentaries, historical books, philosophical books,
grammars, midrashim and halakhot, were written purposely to give
insight into the commandments of the Pentateuch and to offer advice on
how to live in accordance with them. This is clearly seen in Memar
Marqah, probably written in the third to fourth century CE. Based
entirely on the Pentateuch it totally lacks contemporary references.
Language
Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic and Arabic were the languages of the Samaritans. Several texts are thus written in polyglots with Hebrew, Aramaic
and Arabic in parallel columns. To offer some help with the reading of
these texts, a glossary (Ha-Meliz) was made in the tenth to eleventh
73. Ruahiridh Boid (M.N. Saraf), 'Use, Authority and Exegesis of Mikra in the
Samaritan Tradition', in M.J. Mulder (ed.), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and
Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity
(CRINT, 2.1; Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), pp. 595-99.
74. Gaster, Samaritan Escatology (London: Search, 1932), pp. 55-59.
75. A.S. Halkin, 'The Relation of the Samaritans to Saadia Gaon', in Saadia
Anniversary Volume (American Academy for Jewish Research, Text and Studies, 2;
New York: n. pub., 1943).
76. Samaritan tradition agrees with Jewish tradition in stating that not only
Moses but also 6000 Israelites heard God speak from the mountain, when giving
the Decalogue (b. Mak. 23b-24a; Sam. Hymn 16, lines 81-85); Kitab al-Tabbakh
has 600,000 Israelites.
96
century. It included Hebrew and Aramaic, and in the eleventh to fourteenth centuries it was supplemented in Arabic, as Hebrew was used
only for ritual purposes at this time. A full manuscript from 1476 is presented by Z. Ben Hayyim. Under the influence of the expansion of
Arabic in late mediaeval time superseding the Aramaic, Hebrew came
once again into use in everyday language.77
Memar Marqah (Tibat Marqah)
This is a collection of six books that exhibit great differences in language and content. In the first five books Memar Marqah offers a
midrashic rewriting of the Pentateuch in an epic setting of bene Yisrael's wandering in the desert up to the death of Moses. The sixth book
is a midrash of the 22 letters of the alphabet, understood to have originated at the time of creation. The language of Memar Marqah is fourth
century CE Aramaic, with some development into later 'Samaritan'
influenced by Arabic.78 The work is considered to have been written by
the great Samaritan theologian Marqah from the third to fourth century
CE and thought to be the most important early text dealing with Samaritan theology. J. Macdonald made an English translation of the work in
1963.79 Unfortunately, this did not use our best manuscript as its foundation and did not recognize many of the text variants, thereby losing
many characteristics of the text.80
Liturgical Works
The oldest work, called Defter, contains hymns attributed to Marqah's
father Amram Darah and to his son Nanah. In the ninth century CE new
additions were made, including prayers, confession, advice on liturgical
77. Loewenstamm, 'Samaritans', EncJud, XIV, pp. 752-53.

78. Tal, 'Samaritan Literature', pp. 462-45.
79. J. Macdonald, Memar Marqah, the Teaching of Marqah (BZAW, 84;
Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1963). For earlier editions, see the introduction, pp. xxiixxiv.
80. Tal, 'Samaritan Literature', p. 463, basing himself on Ben-Hayyim's review
of Macdonald, Memar Marqah, in BO 23 (1966), pp. 185-91. His opinions were
supported by Boid (Saraf), 'Use, Authority and Exegesis', p. 598 n. 11, who does
not even mention Macdonald's work.
97
practices and psalms. The edition of Cowley from 1909 is still the standard English version.81
Chronicles^2
Asatir (The Secret of Moses)
A work in Aramaic, probably from the eleventh to twelfth century, containing haggadic material from the Old Testament and the Pseudepigrapha. The Samaritans credited the writing of this work to Moses and
held it in great honour. M. Gaster, who was the first to publish it, dated
it to around 250-200 BCE.83 According to language and content, Macdonald argued for a dating in Byzantine times. If any relationship to
Memar Marqah could be established, this seems to be the oldest one.84
The latest translation with commentaries was made by Z. Ben Hayyim
in 1943^4.85
81. A.E. Cowley, Samaritan Liturgy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1909); See Tal,
'Samaritan Literature', pp. 450-62, for a detailed examination of the material and
Cowley's work.
82. I here follow the numbering system of J. Macdonald (Theology, pp. 44-49;
Samaritan Chronicle No. H, p. 225) without engaging in the discussion and the critique raised against his system in A.D. Crown, 'The Date and Authenticity of the
Samaritan Book of Joshua as Seen in its Territorial Allotments', PEQ 96 (1964),
pp. 79-100; idem, 'A Critical Re-evaluation of the Samaritan Sepher Yehoshua'
(unpublished PhD dissertation; 3 vols.; University of Sydney, 1966); idem, 'New
Light on the Inter-Relationships of Samaritan Chronicles from Some Manuscripts
in the John Rylands Library', BJRL 54 (1971-72), pp. 1-32; 55 (1972-73), pp. 281313 (283), which did not agree with Macdonald in this classification, but regards
the Samaritan Joshua tradition as the basis of all chronicles. He understands Macdonald's classification as being 'a description of the finished product and does not
indicate the process by which these chronicles were enlarged or composed. Nor
does it show their true relationship'. See also P. Stenhouse, 'Samaritan Chronicles',
in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck],
1989), pp. 218-65.
83. M. Gaster, The Asatir, the Samaritan Book of the 'Secrets of Moses' together with the Pitron or Samaritan Commentary and the Samaritan Story of the
Death of Moses (London: Oriental Translation Fund, 1927).
84. Macdonald, Theology of the Samaritans, p. 44.
85. Z. Ben Hayyim, 'The Book of Asatir, with Translations and Commentary',
Tarbitz 14 (1943), pp. 104-25, 128, 174-90; 15 (1944), pp. 71-87 (Hebrew).
98
Sepher ha Yamin or the Samaritan Chronicle No. II

This work is possibly later than Abu'l Path's Kitab al-Tarikh (see
below), which it seems to be dependent on. No standard text, like the
historical books of the Hebrew Bible, was ever attempted. The collections of chronicles belonged to the great families, who to some extent
wrote their own versions of history. A comparison of Sepher ha-Yamin
manuscripts with Sepher Yehoshua and Kitab al-Tarikh clearly demonstrates this. Macdonald characterized the work thus:
Sepher ha-Yamin as a title refers to a work which exists in more than one
version, e.g. 2 Chronicles or the Jos. part of 2 Chronicles. 2 Chronicles
may have existed originally as a book of Joshua, which is in no way connected with Sepher Yehoshua (4 Chron.), but may have contained large
tracts of the Masoretic text. 2 Chronicles, as represented by MS HI is
basically a very old chronicle of unknown date, possibly derived from a
pre-MT version of the biblical text possessed by one or more North
Palestinian (Samaritan) families. There are several clear indications that
it is fundamentally a substantial excerpt from the biblical text which
could have been held by northern as well as southern Israelites... To the
original text underlying 2 Chronicles as we now know it, was later
added, perhaps after the fourth century CE reorganisation of life and worship, some of the material in non-biblical classical Hebrew.86
Macdonald used a manuscript from 1616 for his translation, belonging to the Danufi family and copied by Tobiah ben Phinehas from
Shechem. The language is classical Hebrew with few Aramaisms or
Arabisms, and the composition, exposing lacunae in the text, reflects a
later reworking of older material with insertions of secular sources containing heroic material and priestly sources dealing with cult, genealogies, facts, figures and names, and being severely anti-David and anti86. Macdonald, Samaritan Chronicle No. H, pp. 7-8. Not everyone agreed to
Macdonald's conclusions about the originality of the manuscript. Pummer, 'Samaritan Studies, I', refers among others to 'Kippenberg (Garizim und Synagoge, p. 61 n.
4), who calls for "Eine eingehende Priifung von Macdonalds Aufstellungen"; Gese
(review of Macdonald's edition in O.L.Z. Ixix, 1974, p. 156) accepts it as "die
altesten von den uns heute zuganglichen erzahlenden Chroniken", whereas BenHayyim (Leshonenu, xxxv, 1970, pp. 292-302) considers it as the most recent one,
dating from 1908.' This late dating has also been argued by J.D. Purvis, The Samaritans and Judaism', p. 83: 'I have been informed by several members of the Samaritan community that the document was put together in the late 19th century. It is
essentially a modern forgery of an alleged ancient document.' See also M. Baillet,
'Review of Macdonald, Samaritan Chronicle no. //', RB 1 (1970), pp. 592-602.
99
Solomon.87 The tone is polemical against the MT, and it is generally

accepted that the chronicle has changed the MT. However, since the MT
is no less polemical, one should not too quickly judge the material on
this criterion. The hypothesis of lectio brevior would, in this case, judge
the Samaritan material to be older than the Masoretic material in questions of both content and composition, but younger in questions of specific additions about cult places or geography. This reductive principle,
therefore, only partly supports a conservative scholarly view on Samaritans as breaking off from Judaism and rewriting their history to fit the
new circumstances. A comparison with the LXX does not reveal any
direct dependency, although a great many of the variants in ST Joshua
are in accord with the LXX, supporting a Shechem/Gerizim tradition
clearly disagreeing with the MT.88 The discussion will be raised again in
Chapter 6 in the presentation of Samaritan historiography. Here it is
enough to quote Macdonald: 'But even if the ST is a later work in
extenso, it may contain genuinely ancient traditions which antedate
some polemical MT passages.'89
Ha-Tolidah (Genealogy)
This text is predominantly written in Hebrew in 1149 by Eleazar ben
Amram with additions in 1346 by Jacob ben Ismael and a follow-up on
the genealogies in the following centuries. A section of the book is in
Aramaic, dealing with the question about the height of Mt Gerizim.
With an introduction to the calendar system based on Jubilees, the book
enumerates the genealogies from Adam until the entrance into Canaan,
together with genealogies of important Samaritan families. A. Neubauer's translation is based on a manuscript from 1859 written by Jacob
ben Harun.90 J. Bowman later published a manuscript that he considered original.91
87. Macdonald, Samaritan Chronicle No. II, p. 8, who bases his divisions on
content and language.
88. Macdonald, Samaritan Chronicle No. II, pp. 36-37, 208-209.
89. Macdonald, Samaritan Chronicle No. II, p. 15.
90. A. Neubauer, Tolidah, Based on MS Or. 651' (Bodleian Library, Oxford) =
A. Neubauer, 'Chronique samaritaine', JA 14 (1869), pp. 385-470.
91. J. Bowman, Transcript of the Original Text of the Samaritan Chronicle
Tolidah (Leeds: University of Leeds, 1954).
100
Sepher Yehoshua
This is usually considered not to be the Old Testament book of Joshua92
but an Arabic work from the thirteenth century CE acquired by Scaliger
and translated into Latin with comments by T.G.J. Juynboll in 1848.93
O.T. Crane made an English translation in 1897.94 The book consists of
legendary materials dating from the time of the biblical Joshua until the
fourth century CE. The earlier versions cover only the period until the
coming of Alexander the Great. Only after 1513 were additions concerning later periods made. M. Gaster published a text in 1908 that he
considered to be a Hebrew version dating from the exilic/early postexilic period.95 Gaster made this suggestion on the basis of linguistic
agreements with the last parts of Ezekiel, parallels with Ezra-Nehemiah
and Chronicles, and Josephus's agreement with them. The critique of
his suggestion,96 which argued that the work was part of another chronicle and written around 1900 by Jacob ben Harun, made Gaster strengthen his arguments. On the basis of J. Kennedy's work on the Paseq,91
Gaster gave a more detailed argumentation in his 1924 book98 for a
Samaritan proto-Joshua that was earlier than or contemporary with the
MT. The markings of text variants in the MT with a Paseq, agreeing
with the Samaritan text, and the support of the LXX for the Samaritan
reading in the same instances, proved the primacy of the Samaritan text
92. The discussion has engaged such scholars as D. Yellin, 'Das Buch Josua der
Samaritaner' (Jerusalem: A.M. Lunen, 1902), pp. 138-55 (Hebrew); M. Gaster,
'Das Buch Josua in hebraisch-samaritanischer Version', ZDMG 62 (1908), pp. 20979; idem, 'On the Newly Discovered Samaritan Book of Joshua', JRAS (1908),
pp. 795-809; idem, The Samaritan Hebrew Sources of the Arabic Book of Joshua
(1930), pp. 567-99; Crown, 'Date and Authenticity', pp. 79-100, who advocates for
a dating before the end of the second century CE; Crown, 'New Light', p. 32.
93. T.G.J. Juynboll, Chronicon samaritanum, arabice conscriptum, cui titulus
est Liber Josue. Ex unico codice Scaligeri nunc primum edidit, latine vertit, annotatione instruxit (Leiden: Luchtmans, 1848).
94. O.T. Crane, The Samaritan Chronicle (New York: Alden, 1897).
95. Gaster, 'Das Buch Josua', pp. 209-79.
96. P. Kahle, 'Zum hebraischen Buch Joshua', ZDMG 62 (1908), pp. 494-594
(550-51); D. Yellin, 'A Book of Joshua or a Sepher Hayamim', Jerusalem Yearbook 7.7 (1908), pp. 203-204; S. Yahuda, 'Uber die Unechtheit des Samaritanischen Josuabuches', Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie des Wissenschafts 39
(1908), pp. 887-914; Stenhouse, 'Samaritan Chronicles', p. 220.
97. J. Kennedy, The Note Line in the Hebrew Scriptures, Commonly Called
Paseq or Pesiq (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1903).
101
to Caster's satisfaction. J. Macdonald agreed with Gaster on the variants with the MT, but could not confirm the LXX variants." No further
conclusions have yet been reached on the matter and may not be possible in further study of the MT. It is necessary that studies of textual
variants of biblical texts among DSS and their presentations in early
Jewish 'historiographies' around the beginning of the common era be
compared with Samaritan historiographies. For such purposes it can be
useful to know that Caster's manuscript could be earlier than the Arabic
Yoshua manuscript that Scaliger had acquired in 1629, as has been suggested by A.D. Crown.100
Shalshalah or Shalshalat ha-Kohanim (Chain)
This is a current genealogy numbering the high priests from the time of
Adam until the present, beginning with Eleazar ben Phinehas and for
the time being ending with Jacob ben Harun in the twentieth century.
Kitab al-Tarikh (Annales)
This work is the great chronicle written by Abu'1-Fath in the fourteenth
century. An annotated translation was made by P. Stenhouse in 1986.101
According to Stenhouse's foreword this chronicle is believed to be the
oldest Samaritan historiography. However, the first safe mention of a
manuscript of the work, now known as Ms Bodleian-Hunting don,102 is
the one mentioned in Bernhard's Chronologiae from 1691, almost 50
years later than Joannes Hottinger's103 mention of a Samaritan book of
Joshua in his dispute with Morinus. Abu'l-Fath's introduction lists the
sources underlying the work: Sepher Yehoshua,104 ha-Tolidah plus three
incomplete chronicles written in Hebrew. These chronicles had been
either lost or damaged providing Abu'1-Fath his reason for compiling a
new chronicle at the request of the high priest Phinehas, who left him
his collection of old chronicles written in Hebrew and Arabic.105 Abu'l99. Macdonald, Samaritan Chronicle No. II, p. 7.
100. Crown, 'New Light', pp. 1-32.
101. Stenhouse, Kitab al Tarikh; Stenhouse, 'Samaritan Chronicles', pp. 218-65.
102. MS Huntingdon 350 in the Bodleian Library, Oxford.
103. J.H. Hottinger, Exercitationes Antimorianae: de Pentateucho Samaritano,
ejusque authentia (Tiguri: n. pub., 1644).
104. Stenhouse thinks it possible that this is the manuscript Scaliger mentions,
and used for Juynboll's Chronicon from 1848, cf. Kitab al Tarikh, p. iii n. 28.
105. AF pp. 1-2. This is the internal indication of page numbers in the chronicle
and does not refer to the page numbers of Stenhouse's book.
102
Path's introduction, however, seems to be speaking with different

voices and offers yet another reason for compiling the work. On p. 4:
As to why the slave undertook this taskthe reason is that he found
himself in a particular country, and its ruler asked him about their Chronicles, and sought them from him; so he compiled the above mentioned
Chronicle for him, and presented it to him.
By and large, the foreword seems to have some parallels to the forewords of Ben Sira, 2 Mace. 2.19-32 and the Letter ofAristeas, claiming
adherence to the tradition and implying some authorial freedom. P. Stenhouse's introduction offers a brief discussion of the historicity and the
authenticity of Abu'l-Fath's 'old chronicles'.
Scholarly tradition has placed itself in two distinctive groups. One
group considered the chronicle to build on a very old and genuine tradition (M. Gaster; S. Lowy). Another group considered the chronicle to
be worthless for understanding the tradition's prehistory (J.W. Nutt;
E. Vilmar; J.A. Montgomery).106 Stenhouse's own judgment relates to
Abu'l-Fath's 'old chronicles', which, if they had really existed, should
have led to a new copy and not to a new 'compilation'. Stenhouse
regards the origin of the chronicle as related to a growth of hope in the
Samaritan community at that time. He agrees with Vilmar that 'the
Samaritan community at the time of Abu'1-Fath regarded the return of
the Radwan (also named Rahuta)107 as imminent, and that the Abisha
Scroll played an important part in bolstering these expectations. Vilmar
considered that it was more than coincidence that the codex of the Pentateuch (allegedly written by Abisha son of Phinehas, son of Eliezer,
son of Aaron in the thirteenth year after the entrance of the Israelites
into Canaan) should have come to light precisely when it did. Stenhouse, however, does not see it necessary to call the chronicle a forgery
as Vilmar had. He rather sees the chronicle as a text produced by necessity of circumstances, having as its purpose to salvage 'what was left of
Samaritan traditions'.108
106. Stenhouse, 'Samaritan Chronicles', p. 240.

107. The time when God again blesses his people after the time of wrath (danuta),
which began when Eli left Gerizim.
108. Stenhouse, 'Samarian Chronicles', p. 263.
103
Chronicle Adler109
Written in Samaritan Hebrew by Abu-Sakhva ben Asad Hadanfi in

1900. It is mainly based on ha-Tolidah and Abu'l-Fath's Ta'rikh and
can hardly be regarded as older.
Halakhic Literature
This consists of several works from late mediaeval time. It is written in
Arabic with the purpose of arguing against the halakhic literature of the
Karaites, the Rabanites and Islamic legal material.110 The aforementioned Kitab al-Tabbakh belongs to this group. It never achieved and
developed a systematic form comparable to what is found in Rabbinic
literature. Kitab al-Fara 'id from the thirteenth and fourteenth century is
the most important of these; it includes 613 commandments, of which
365 (the days of a year) are prohibitions and 248 (the number of the
parts of the body) are prescriptions.111
Commentaries on the Pentateuch
These are all from mediaeval times and written in Middle Arabic. With
the exception of lexicographic and grammatical material, they exhibit
traits of mediaeval thought in philosophy, astronomy, astrology and
medicine.
109. After E.N. Adler and M. Seligsohn, 'Une nouvelle chronique samaritaine',
REJ 44 (1902), pp. 118-222; REJ 45 (1902), pp. 70-98, 160, 223-54; REJ 46
(1903), pp. 123-46.
110. G. Wedel, 'Halachic Literature', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans
(Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 468-80 (471).
111. EncJud, XIV, pp. 754-55, offers a list of the various works.
Chapter 4
SAMARITANS IN JEWISH, CHRISTIAN AND HELLENISTIC LITERATURE
Rabbinic Judaism in the Light of the Samaritan Question1

An increasing anti-Samaritan attitude developed in the course of rabbinic discussions in the early centuries of this era. From some of the
more nuanced discussions and views put forward in texts from the
Mishnah to the fourth century CE's Babylonian Talmud, Samaritans
underwent the fate of being not only formally excluded from this selfdefined post-biblical Judaism, but eventually were likened to heathens.
In the Mishnaic literature, they are termed Cuthaeans, but they are not
to be confused with either 'am ha'ares (a different group) or with
heathens, who are mentioned separately from both Cuthaeans and 'am
ha'ares.2 Because of an increasing association of Samaritans as hea1. On the basis of the following sources: Mishnajot, Die seeks Ordnungen der
Misnah, Hebrdischer Text mit Punktation (translated with a commentary by von E.
Baneth et al.\ Leipzig: J.C.B. Mohr, 1927); H. Danby, The Misnah, Translated from
the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Explanatory Notes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991 [1993]); the Talmudic tractate Masseket Kutim, translated by
J. Montgomery from J.W. Nutt, Fragments of a Samaritan Targum, Edited from a
Bodleian Ms., with an Introduction, Containing a Sketch of Samaritan History,
Dogma and Literature (London, 1874; repr.; Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1980).
2. Toh. 5.8; Ter. 3.9; Dem. 6.1, 3.4: 'If a man brought his wheat to a miller that
was a Samaritan or to a miller that was an Am-haaretz, its condition (after grinding)
remains as before in what concerns Tithes and Seventh Year produce; but if he
brought it to a miller that was a gentile (after it has been ground) it is accounted
demai-produce. If he gave his produce into the keeping of a Samaritan or an Amhaaretz, its condition remains as before in what concerns Tithes and Seventh Year
Produce; but if into the keeping of a gentile, it is accounted like to the gentile's own
produce (which is not subject to tithes). R. Simeon says: It is accounted demai-produce.' The discussion in fact is about how one can avoid to pay the tithes by grinding or depositing one's wheat by one of the groups mentioned. As it can be seen the
Gentiles ranked lowest.
4. Samaritans in Jewish, Christian and Hellenistic Literature 105

thens, all of these groups come to be commonly called Cuthaeans in
Talmudic literature. Prior to this stage, the Misnah as well as the Talmud bear the characteristics of necessity. Religious as well as social
coexistence demanded a clear definition of conditions and a demarcation of Samaritans from heathens, who generally had been understood
to be different from Samaritans. The literature, without doubt, has
clearly defined opinions of the basic distinctions between rabbinical
Judaism and Samaritanism. The debatable questions do not deal with
identity or theology as such, but concentrate on how these groups, with
their different opinions, relate to each other in a practical way on an
everyday basis according to food,3 marriage,4 cult practice, religious
feasts, trade, circumcision, collection of tithes, and so on. These are the
questions that were of greater importance before the fourth century,
when Samaritans were still considered to belong to 'the children of
Israel'. They are comparable in many instances to those regarding Sadducees and eagerly discussed by the rabbis Akiba, Meir, Simon ben
Gamaliel and Eliezer. After a final exclusion of the Samaritans by the
rabbis Ame and Assis5 in the beginning of the fourth century such concerns held less importance, and the Samaritan question became related
to those regarding Jewish relations with heathens.6 In no period, however, does the discussion reach a consistent agreement concerning the
Samaritans. While Rabbi Akiba (second century CE) expressed a liberal
attitude in his consideration of the Samaritans as 'genuine converts',
whose priests are understood to be as legitimate as the Jewish priests,
his contemporary Rabbi Ismael considered the Samaritans to be 'lionconverts', designating that they only adhered to Judaism by necessity,
and therefore were considered to rank lower than the Jews.7 The
3. Ber. 7.1, which permits a Samaritan to participate in a Jewish cultic meal
and Ber. 8.7, which permits a Samaritan participant in a cultic meal to recite the
blessing when it is said in toto.
4. b. Qid. 75a, b; m. Nid. 4.1, 2, 7.4; Mass. Kut. 6, 27.
5. m. Hul. 6.a.
7. b. Qid. 75a-76a; b. Kam. 38b; b. Sank. 85b; b. Hul. 3b; b. Nid. 56b. Mass.
Kut. 27. m. Seb. 8.10, which refers to R. Akiba what R. Eliezer has said: 'Moreover
they declared before him that R. Eliezer used to say: He that eats the bread of the
Samaritans is like one that eats the flesh of swine. He replied: Hold your peace; I
will not say to you what R. Eliezer has taught concerning this.' R. Akiba was a
former pupil of R. Eliezer (first-second century CE) and he did not want to speak
with disrespect about his teacher, as the continuation in m. Seb. 8.11 clearly shows.
106
accusation of having been forced to convert is in itself ambiguous,

since, during the Hasmonaean period, conquered people had been circumcised by force and forced to 'live by Jewish customs' (cf. Ant.
13.257-58; 13.318-19). The problems of acceptance created by this is
given expression in the various parallels to Genesis 34 (see below), as
well as in Josephus's calling Herod the Great a half- Jew because of his
Edomite origins (Ant. 14.403). The rabbinic accusation against the
Samaritans for being 'lion-converts' takes its point of departure from
2 Kings 17, which, similar to later rabbinic literature in its search for
aetiologies, considers Samaritans to be schismatics from Judaism. Since
no legitimite accusation for heretical behaviour as such was formulated,
the explicit judgment based itself on questions of loyalty rather than
theology, as can be seen from rabbinic, Christian, Jewish (esp. Josephus) and Samaritan sources. It is interesting to notice that rabbinic literature, no less than Josephus, has its main interest in clarifying the
principles for rabbinic Judaism, using the various comparable groups as
counterparts in the discussion. It must therefore be kept in mind that
specific discussions might not have any reality behind them, but rather
belong to interpretative activities of the rabbis, which include the intention of making rules for every imaginable situation. This makes it
highly debatable whether questions of heresy and loyalty can be separated or whether 'to confess Jerusalem' implies more than a move of cult
place and relationship. The rabbinical tractate Masseket Kutim (About
the Samaritans), which is a tosefta to the Babylonian Talmud, illuminates these problems of ambiguity.8 The tractate contains independent material mixed with Talmudic material and baraita of which some
were originally applied on heathens, but have here likely become
addressed to Samaritans.
Masseket Kutim
Issues related to disagreements over Gerizim, cult and calendar form
the backbone of the tractate. In this respect the question of whether a
Samaritan may or may not circumcise a Jew is not explicitly related to
questions of clean/unclean, legitimate/non-legitimate, but to confession
as the formulation 'in... the name of Mount Gerizim' expresses more
than a relationship:
8. Montgomery, Samaritans, pp. 196-203, presents the full translated text with
an indication of its Mishnaic and Talmudic parallels in italics.

Mass. Kut. 12: An Israelite may circumcise a Samaritan, and a Samaritan
an Israelite. R. Juda says: A Samaritan is not to circumcise an Israelite
because he circumcises him in nothing else than the name of Mount Gerizim (also in b. 'Abod. Zar. 26b-27a).
The parallel Mishnaic discussion on this theme is not quite as distinctive as this of the tractate. The discussion about 'genuine converts',
maintained by R. Meir against R. Juda's opinion that 'they are lion converts' leads R. Juda to prefer a heathen to a Samaritan, since the former
would not cryptically include the Jew in his own congregation, as could
be a risk if a Samaritan performed the circumcision. The underlying
theological implications might not be so simplistically rejected as
Montgomery has done in his treatment of the material: 'It was not
therefore as heretics, or false Israelites, except in minor points that the
Samaritans were condemned, but rather as schismatics, who held themselves aloof from the Institute of God's Kingdom.'9 As said before, the
rabbinic discussion did not restrict itself to a discussion with those who
became understood as schismatics. It in fact included a rejection of all
Jewish, Christian and heathen groups that did not submit themselves to
the theology put forward in 'pre-canonical' Scriptures outside of the
Pentateuch. With an interpretation of the 'old lost Israel', it created a
future for the new Israel governed, at least from the second century BCE
onwards, by the Pharisees and later by their heirs the rabbis. Thus
Judaism's self-assertion of being the 'righteous Judaism', implicitly
provided with the authority of control, expresses itself clearly when it is
stated:
Mass. Kut. 28: When shall we take them back? When they renounce
Mount Gerizim, and confess Jerusalem and the resurrection of the dead.
From this time forth he that robs a Samaritan shall be as he who robs an
Israelite.10
With a reversal of the biblical narrative's chronology, the latter

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

10. It must be noted that Mishnah mentions Gerizim only once (ra. Sot. 7.5),
mentioning the blessing and the curse on Gerizim and Ebal, referring to Josh. 8.33
and correcting MT Deut. 11.30, which is brought into accord with the SP (see above
Chapter 3).
108
the success of the youngest is given further reference in b. Sank. 21b's

statement that 'the Samaritans/'am ha'ares kept the old law written in
Hebrew character, while the true Israel with Ezra got the new Law
written in "Assyrian" characters'. A mediaeval reference to Ezra's participation in the exclusion of the Samaritans falls within the line of this
same theme, which with the killing or 'offering of the firstborn' leaves
room for the second or younger in line to take the leading role. The
mediaeval text, however, does not leave room for a Samaritan return to
Jewish beliefs or resurrection, and Judaism's self-assertive role of being
the final judge reached its highest level. We shall come back to this discussion in the concluding remarks of Chapter 7. Now we will discuss
the tractate keeping the theological implications of the above-mentioned paragraphs 12 and 28 in mind.
Calendar issues as such are especially related to the celebration of the
pesach as the following passage shows:
Mass. Kut. 24: 'We do not buy "bread" from a Samaritan baker at the
end of the passover until after three bakings, nor from householders until
after three sabbaths, nor from villagers until after three makings. When
does this apply? When they have not celebrated the Feast of Unleaven at
the same time with Israel, or have anticipated it by a day: but if they celebrate the Feast with Israel, or are a day later, their leaven is permitted.
R. Simon forbids it (in general), because they do not know how to
observe the feast like Israel' (the text in italic is found also in t. Pes. 2;
y. Or. sub. ii, 6).
This calendar disagreement might have an indirect reference in Hezekiah's double celebration of the pesach (2 Chron. 30.18-23). With the
invitation of 'a multitude of people from Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar
and Zebulon...who had not cleansed themselves and did not know the
sanctuary's rules of cleanness' both special permission and a doubling
of the feast were required for this symbolic ritual of reconciliation. The
disagreement over the calendar as such is neither in 2 Chronicles, nor is
it given special interest in Masseket Kutim, but seems to be an accepted
fact. The use of the lunar calender by both Jews and Samaritans seems
to be of high antiquity, and it is only the calculation of days that brings
up problems. The counting of the omer is not related to this, but is a
matter of interpretation of the underlying text of Lev. 23.15 that 'you
shall count from the morrow after the sabbath', which is understood by
Samaritans and Sadducees to be from the Sunday after the sabbath
during the week of Unleavened Bread, but which the Jews understand

to be the first day of Passover, interpreting 'sabbath' as 'feast day'.
The main concern in the text of the tractate is therefore, as in
2 Chronicles, a matter of purity. Indirectly, it is said here as in other
paragraphs of Masseket Kutim that Jews and Samaritans can share food
and meals if Samaritans show no laxity in observing common purity
laws:
Mass. Kut. 15: 'These are the things we may not sell them: carcasses not
ritually slaughtered, or animals with organic disease; unclean animals
and reptiles; the abortion of an animal; oil into which a mouse has fallen;
an animal that is mortally ill, "or a fetus" although Israelites eat them
both, lest the sale lead them into error. And as we do not sell these things
to them, so we do not buy from them, as it is written (Deut. 14.21): For
thou shalt be a holy people to the Lord thy God. As thou art holy, thou
shalt not make another people holier than thyself.' J '
and if food is not prepared in vessels normally used for wine and vinegar.12 The rabbinic point that the Israelites eat what is forbidden for the
Samaritans to eat, according to Lev. 7.24, has, along with the added
concern about holiness, revealed itself to be a concern of rightousness.
If the Samaritans keep their law strictly, the Jews must surpass the
Samaritan lawkeeping by not transgressing the Samaritan law in regard
to the Samaritans, who, with reference to Deut. 14.21, must be understood to have observed the law against the eating of 'anything that dies
of itself. The rabbinic commentary on the metaphorical expression
'You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk' illustrates this implicit
self-understanding: that Samaria is Judaea's mother.13
If we are to take these discussions seriously we must conclude that
rabbinical literature's dealing with these matters of food, meal, trade
11. The parallels in b. Qid. 76a; b. Ber. 47b; b. Git. lOa all refer to R. Simon
ben Gamaliel, 'Every command the Samaritans keep, they are more scrupulous in
observing than Israel'. See further y. Ket. 21 a; y. Dem. 9, 'a Samaritan is like a full
Jew'. Against this, however, we observe m. Nid. 7.4; Mass. Kut. 16: 'This is the
principle: they are not to be believed in any matter in which they are open to suspicion'.
12. This law was originally applied to Gentiles (cf. Mass. Kut. 20, 21, 25).
13. This interpretation in fact is in line with Maimonides' interpretation that 'the
command is levelled against idolatry and superstition'. See J.H. Hertz (ed.), The
Pentateuch and Haftorahs: Hebrew Text, English Translation with Commentary, II
(5 vols.; London: Humphrey Milford; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1931), ad
loc. which also presents some of the more traditional views that the prohibition concerns dietary matters as such.
110
and work14 points to a widespread coexistence, and we must be careful

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

both territories, and that Samaritan residents probably are to pay the
Judaean priest if they live 'on Israelite territory'. If, however, the Samaritan priest were allowed to do the same this would give him a recognition that would in fact put him on the same footing as the Israelite
priest.
Again, the laws here are dealing with questions of religion, and any
possible problem of staying or travelling in Samaritan areas, is not
within the focus of the text. In fact this seemed not to have been a problem at all. Several rabbinic stories related to discussions between Jews
and Samaritans 'while the Jew was on his way and had just passed
Shechem' deny that any such problem ever arose. The obvious metaphorical use of the expression holds implicit that 'passed Shechem' is a
passing of the Shechem tradition and thus undermines any geographical
interest, similar to Mt. 10.5-6's prohibition against going to Samaria
(see the following paragraph).
Explicit criticism of confession, as in the Mishnaic prohibition of
14. Mass. Kut. 13: 'We may lodge a beast in a Samaritan inn, or hire a Samaritan to go behind our cattle, or hand over our cattle to a Samaritan herdsman. We
commit a boy to a Samaritan to teach him a trade. We associate and converse with
them anywhere, which is not the case with the Gentiles' (cf. b. 'Abod. Zar. 15b).

Samaritan and heathen participation in the New Year Offering, by not
accepting the payment for it (m, Seq. 1.5), is not mentioned in Masseket
Kutim 2, which only indirectly brings this prohibition:
We do not accept from them the bird-offerings of men or women having
issues, nor the bird-offerings of women after child-birth, nor sin-offerings or guilt-offerings. But we accept from them 'vows and freewill
offerings'.
The vows and free will offerings could be given by everyone; they were
not part of the prescribed offering rules. As in Mass. Kut. 22 and 23, an
acceptance of any of the prescribed offerings would have implied a
recognition and an acceptance, which, as is clearly expressed in m. Seq.
1.5, was out of the question:
This is the general rule: All that is vowed and freely offered is to be
accepted from the givers; all that does not come through vow or freewill
offering is not to be accepted from them. And so it is laid down according to Ezra, as it is said (Ezra 4.3): There is nothing in common between
you and us in building of a house to our God [ITS nl]^!1? ^} U^7 $b
irnX?].
This authoritative voice given to Ezra is given full expression in Pirke
de Rabbi Eliezer, c.38:15
Ezra, Zerubbabel and Joshua gathered together the whole congregation
into the temple of the Lord, with 300 priests, 300 trumpets, 300 scrolls of
the Law, and 300 children, and they blew the trumpets and the Levites
were singing. And they anathematized, outlawed and excommunicated
the Samaritans in the name of the Lord, by a writing upon tablets, and
with an anathema of the Upper and Lower Court (i.e. of heaven and
earth) as follows: Let no Israelite eat of one morsel of anything that is a
Samaritan's; let no Samaritan become a proselyte, and allow them not to
have part in the resurrection of the dead. And they sent this curse to all
Israel that were in Babylon, who also themselves added their anathema.
Although this anathema is late, it well illustrates that, also for rabbinical
literature, well-known techniques of interpretation that antedate an
actual problem and authorize the earlier literature for a specific purpose.
While most of the paragraphs in Masseket Kutim do not include any
such situation of animosity, a few statements deal with question of
reliability, as in 17 and 16:
15. A haggadic work from the eigth century CE, also called Baraita de-Rabbi
Eliezer or Haggadah de-Rabbi Eliezer. Translation from Montgomery, Samaritans,
p. 194.
112

A Samaritan may be relied upon to say whether or not there is a tomb (in
afield), or whether an animal has had its firstborn or not. The Samaritan
is to be relied upon concerning a tree whether it is four years old or is
still unclean, and concerning gravestones, but not with the cleanliness of
overhanging boughs or protruding boughs; nor concerning the land of
Gentiles, nor concerning the bet-peras, because, they are open to suspicion in all these things. This is the principle: they are not to be believed
in any matter in which they are open to suspicion. (For the uncircumcised tree, cf. Lev. 19.23; 'overhanging boughs' etc., make precincts that
can harbor uncleanliness. Bet-peras is an area of land rendered unclean
by the presence of bones.) (The text in italics is found also in m. Nid. 7.4
and Gem. b. Nid. 57a.)
Gemara considers this principle to apply to rules of sabbath and offering of wine. b. RoS. Has. 2.2 relates that it is no longer possible to use
chains of torches to signal the appearance of the new moon, but that
the messengers 'after the wicked deeds of the Samaritans [DTllDil
l^p^p&Q], have to go all the way up to bring the message'. Some Samaritans probably had given wrong messages and the feast began at a
wrong time. The purpose of the chain was to signal from Jerusalem via
the mountain hills to Babylonia, so that the feast could be inaugurated
at the same time. This accusation in fact was not only related to Kutim.
In the same text, b. RoS. HaS. 2.1, the same accusation is directed
against the Minim QTQn) and Boethusians (DÔirT'O). Any mistrust
concerning weapons, which in m. 'Abod. Zar. 1.5 is applied to Gentiles
only, in b. Gem. 15b comes to include Samaritans: 'lest they may sell
them to the gentiles'. In Mass. Kut. 5 the statement that 'we do not sell
them weapons, nor anything that can do damage to the people' is seen
in contrast to Mass. Kut. II, 1 6 'which allows a Samaritaness to deliver a
Jewess and suckle her son in her quarters'. The prohibition of the
Jewess for delivering and nursing a Samaritan son clearly takes this
question in a different direction, and is much better seen as a dealing
with problems of support and recognition than with questions of trust.
Montgomery's wonder that 'it is strange that with all the hostility
between the two sects, the Samaritans were not reckoned as enemies of
Israel by formal legislation, this passage (b. Gem. 15b) showing that
they came to be legally included among the classes hostile to society
only by a process of indirection' 17 needs a remark. Such a formal legis-


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

impurity as does m. Nid. 4.1, which states, 'The Samaritan women are
menstruous from the cradle. And the Samaritans defile a bed both
below and above, because they have connection with menstruous
women, and the latter sit upon every kind of blood', and m. Nid. 7.4:
'The dwelling of the unclean women of the Samaritans defile after the
manner of an Ohel, because they bury there their abortions' (Ohel is an
unclean place that makes everyone staying there unclean). R. Juda,
however, in the same Mishnah article states 'they do not bury'. These
statements are in contrast to what we otherwise know about Samaritans'
observance of purity laws. It thus seems reasonable to consider the
18. The expression brought by R. Goldenberg, Jewish-Gentile Relations in
Antiquity: The Rabbinic Evidence, SBL Annual Meeting, New Orleans, 1996, 'the
texts cannot lead to sociological conclusions' and the judgment of the material must
seek a distinction between the world of the rabbis and the real world.
19. E.P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief: 63 BCE-66 CE (London: SCM
Press; Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1992), p. 471: '...the genre of
early rabbinical legal material becomes clear. It does not consist of set rules that
governed societies. It consists of debates.'
114
metaphorical character of the language and the implication that the

rules about purity/impurity applied on Jewish women are not to be
taken into consideration here. Samaritan women are impure par excellence and sexual intercourse with any man would render him unclean
anytime. The argument in the Mishnaic discussion in fact falls within
the lines of Masseket Kutim, which the conclusion of m. Nid. 7.4 clearly
shows, when it reckons Samaritans together with Moabites, Egyptians,
Edomites and Nethinim, all of whom are peoples a Jew can not marry.
Even more clearly is the expression given in m. Qid. 4.3's placement of
Samaritans in a highly improbable context: These are of doubtful stock
(i.e. with whom one may not marry): those of unknown parentage
(shetuki), foundlings (asufi), and Samaritans (kuti).' The Mishnaic reference to the daughters of the Sadducees as being
like the Samaritans when they undertake to walk in the ways of their
fathers; if they separate themselves to walk in the way of Israel, then
they are like the Israelites. R. Jose said: They are always like women of
Israel, until they separate themselves to walk in the way of their fathers'
(m. Nid. 4.2)
is expressive of the whole discussion and argumentation against nonpharisaic groups. Montgomery, in his treatment of the question, argued
that marriages between various Jewish 'castes'20 would break down the
barriers set between them. In fact it would be easier for a Jew to accept
a marriage with a proselyte than with a Samaritan, since 'he would
become wholly a Jew, whereas the Samaritan in his pride would feel he
had no spiritual benefit to receive from the alliance'. Further, as a 'sinful schismatic' he could infect the 'Jewish church' with his sin.21 These
conditions become explicit in Mass. Kut. 27, with its reference to cult
syncretism, which is denied, so as to allow an accusation of the children
being bastards (mamzer). The addition 'that they do not marry the
brother's widow' must have been added to save the whole argument,
since the law of Levirate marriage of Deut. 25.5-10 is one of the few
instances where Samaritans maintain an opinion that deviates from the
literal reading of the biblical text. The importance of this 'saving'
argument is noted in b. Qid. 75a's excommunication of the Samaritans:
20. Hor. 3.7: The priest is before the Levite, the Levite before the layman, the
layman before the Mamzer (i.e. a bastard, or one of uncertain parentage), the Mamzer before the Nethin (The descendant of the ancient temple-slaves or hierodules),
the Nethin before the proselyte, the proselyte before the freedman.'
21. Montgomery, Samaritans, pp. 180-81.

'If the Samaritans be genuine converts, nevertheless they have been
excluded because they practice Yibbam only with the betrothed.'
The final question in Mass. Kut. 28, 'When shall we take them back?'
has showed itself to be a much more complicated matter than the given
answer gives reason to believe. The implied disagreements concerning
cult place, confession, calendar and genealogy show that 'confess
Jerusalem' implies more than a geographical movement. Similarly the
rejection of Jerusalem is a rejection of rabbinic Judaism and for
Sadducees and Samaritans implicitly an adherence to the 'ways of the
fathers'. This is not so much a Kulturkampf between Israel and the
nations. This is a Kulturkampf between the 'written' and the 'oral'
Torah. The lack of explicit cult criticism in rabbinic, Jewish and New
Testament literature reveals the embarrassment of the discussion: that
the Samaritans are not accepted because they do not accept rabbinic
Judaism, which they have accused of having moved the cult, changed
the Pentateuch (by its biblical and non-biblical additions) and instituted
the oral Torah. Rabbinic literature's attempts to avoid this discussion
creates a problem that needs explanation. A concession to the actuality
of this discussion, bringing up the disagreements of the authority of the
Pentateuch, would have turned rabbinic Judaism's weapons against
itself. We do not know whether Samaritans and Sadducees in fact
agreed at some early time to Pharisaic interpretations, but that a calf is
younger than its mother we do know.
Christianity in the Light of the Jewish-Samaritan Question
This concentrates on the New Testament sources for two reasons. First,
because the early Church Fathers of the first to second centuries do not
add much to the discussion. Their concentration on clarifying principles
for Christianity does not include any participation in Jewish controversies over cult and scripture as such. Jesus' conversation with the
Samaritan woman in John 4 seems to be reflective of a theology that
replaces both Judaism and Samaritanism with Christianity. Christianity's use of the LXX as its foundational source for theological reflection
suggests that Christianity forms a variation on the rabbinic disputes
over the proper interpretation of biblical Judaism. It is a dispute that
takes place within the context of rabbinic-Christian disagreements presupposing a common literary heritage, including the Scriptures that
later became canonized by both these groups. Only when gnosticism
116
began to influence Christian communities did the Church Fathers make

an effort to identify the various Jewish and Samaritan sects. This, however, was often done in so confusing a way that we gain nothing but
implicit information of the difficulties of separating religious groups,
when theyfrom an audience's viewpointseem fundamentally to
belong to the same religious sphere.22 Justin Martyr (from Neapolis,
second century CE) illustrates this well when he stated:
All the other human races are called Gentiles by the spirit of prophecy;
but the Jewish and Samaritan races are called the tribe of Israel and the
House of Jacob. And the prophecy in which it was predicted that there
should be more believers, from the Gentiles than from the Jews and the
Samaritans, we will produce.
In the following I give a brief comment on some of the New Testament texts that relate explicitly to Samaria and Samaritans and partake
in the discussions of 'Christian' relationship to Jews and heathens. The
New Testament's only reference to Ephraim, Jn 11.54, seems unimportant for this study. No reference is made to Gerizim; Sychar is mentioned in Jn 4.5; and Shechem in Acts 7.16.
Matthew 10.5-6
These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, 'Go nowhere among the
Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost
sheep of the house of Israel.'
The interpretation of this charge usually states that Jesus accedes to a

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

The focus of the text lies within the expression 'the lost sheep of the
house of Israel', and here Samaritans belonged no more than the Canaanite woman in Mt. 15.22-28.24 Literarily we are dealing with the
same groups we found in rabbinic literature, and theologically Matthew's argumentation is addressed to those who, standing within the
same tradition, rejected Jesus' message and ended up killing him. They
are the 'lost sheep', who need education. Only after the final rejection
not in crucifixion, but in lying about the resurrection (Mt. 28.11-15)
does the gospel bring out the commandment of going to the Gentiles
(Mt. 28.16-20).
The parallel accounts in Mark and Luke do not give the prohibition
of Mt. 10.5-6. Luke's possible pro-Samaritan perspective has given reason to discuss whether the gospel has a Samaritan provenance or
whether it addressed itself to Samaritan communities. Such a provenance would be at variance with Samaritan theology, which does not
accept any other prophet than Moses, and we are probably far better off
when we understand that Matthew and Luke are engaged in a dialogue
about the Samaritan question, and that Lk. 10.30-37 (the parable of the
Good Samaritan) and Lk. 17.11-19 (the cleansing of the ten lepers),
together with Lk. 9.51-56, show that the hostile Samaritans form part of
this dialogue (belonging to Luke's material). Luke's portrait of the
Samaritans is not of those rejecting Jesus because he brings the gospel,
but because he is on his way to Jerusalem:
When, the days drew near for him to be received up, he set his face to go
to Jerusalem. And he sent messengers ahead of him, who went and
entered a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him; but the
people would not receive him, because his face was set toward Jerusalem
(Lk. 9.51-53).
Jesus' rebuke of the disciples, when they want to destroy the village,
must be seen in contrast to his curse of those cities that did not receive
the disciples when they brought the kingdom of God (Lk. 10.13-15).
The good Samaritan's act, set in contrast to the priest and the Levite,
who might have loved God but had forgotten to be a neighbour, is no
more reflective of pro-Samaritanism than the Samaritan leper's return
'to praise God' (Lk.17.15-16). The primary function of these stories is
to illustrate the stubbornness of the Jews, and, using the most fitting
24. eiq id npoftam id dKoXcoôia oi%oi) 'Iopar|X is found only in these two
New Testament texts.
118
comparable group, they form the strongest accusation. Calling to mind

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

Long before the establishment of David's cult in Jerusalem, the fathers
offered sacrifice to the idols and 'rejoice in the works of their hands'.
Stephen, however, does not speak with any other voice than the voice
of the Old Testament prophets, Amos, Isaiah and Jeremiah. Replacing
Damascus in Amos 5.27 with Babylon in Acts 7.43, Stephen addressed
his accusation against Jerusalem's priesthood, not for having built a
temple as such, but for not having kept the Law 'delivered by angels'
(v. 53). If this looks Samaritan to us, it is because Samaritans formed
the same accusations, so did writers of Dead Sea Scrolls, and we must
now state that Christianity used the same languagea language inherent in the tradition itself.27 It would be hard to argue for a Samaritan
context in the use of Old Testament prophets or the defence of those
prophets who had 'announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous
one'. The quotations from Amos and Isaiah, the most hated prophets in
Samaritan tradition, seems unthinkable in this context.28
The character of the speech as a literary discourse based on wellknown texts, which are composed in a way as to present the correct
chronology and context, reveals the hand of the author as the creative
source of the speech. Any argumentation for a Samaritan provenance
must take into consideration the perspective of the whole material and
include an examination also of the Gospel of Luke's use of Old Testament material and its relation to the LXX. It is noteworthy that the theological discussions in Kitab al-Tarikh (AF) and Memar Marqah (MM)
are based entirely on the Pentateuch. Although these works are later,
they might give some information about the context of Samaritan
discussions in Luke's days.
Acts 8.1-25
The consequence of Stephen's speech is a dispersion of 'the church'
from Jerusalem to the villages of all Judaea and Samaria. Acts 8's story
about the acts of Simon and Philip in 'a city of Samaria'29 is partly a
27. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, pp. 141-42; R.J. Coggins, 'The Samaritans
and Acts', NTS 28 (1982), pp. 423-33, where Coggins rejects Albright's premises
of composition, language and content for assuming a Samaritan origin. The article
brings a good oversight of the scholarly positions.
29. The definite article is missing in some manuscripts, for example, C.D.E.
Ypsilon and Mehrheitstext, but is found in: Sin. A B, pap. 74. Some scholars
believe that 'the city' is Shechem and not Samaria/Sebaste.
120
confirmation of authority and partly a correction of where, from and to

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

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

the Shechem valley. It probably became the new centre of the Samaritans after
Shechem's destruction in the second century BCE (cf. H.M. Schencke, 'Jacobsbrunnen-Josephsusgrab-Sychar', ZDPV84 [1968], pp. 159-84 [159]).
33. Interesting because rabbinic sources seek to advise how the relationship
should be dealt with. A possible late redaction is supported by the missing of the
sentence in Sin* D abej, but is contradicted by the presence of it in pap. 63, 66, 75,
76 rell (second-fifth century CE), cf. Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Grecae,
26th edn. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 159 n. 14, refers to the work of J. Lightfoots
from 1684: 'the verb sunxrasthai (Joh. 4.9) corresponds to the Talmudiq histappeq,
which is used by Rabbi Abbahu in the 4th century in admitting that in earlier days
the Jews had dealings with the Samaritans.' Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, p. 139,
prefers the translation 'use together with' which would designate that Jews and
Samaritans do not use vessels in common.
122
place where men ought to worship' (v. 20).34 Jesus' answer is reflective
of both Judaism and Christianity, because the place where to 'worship
the Father' in the future, expressed by 'the hour is coming',35 is 'neither
on this mountain nor in Jerusalem' (v. 21). By this a future equivalence
is expressed that does not include the past, since the continuation bears
the characteristics of well-known Jewish accusations: 'You worship
what you do not know, we worship what we know, for salvation is from
the Jews' (v. 22). The continuation points to Christanity's abolition of
past disagreements, which has the ability to include Samaritans in this
prophetic claim for true worship: 'But the hour is coming, and now is,
when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth. For
such the Father seeks to worship him' (v. 23).36 The fulfilment we find
in v. 39 that 'many Samaritans believed in him because of the woman's
testimony, "He told me all that I ever did'". It is important to recognize
this composition to understand that the story's primary goal is not to
judge between the theology of Samaritans and Jews. This discussion is
like an Hegelian thesis/antithesis that allows a new synthesis to sprout
from the encounter. The setting of the encounter at Jacob's well as symbolic for the tradition of the fathers is given expression in v. 12's question, 'Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and
drank from it himself, and his sons, and his cattle?' When Jesus tells the
woman that the water he has to give her for ever will bring her thirst to
an end (v. 14), and she therefore asks for some of it, Jesus' answer is
not given straightforwardly, but refers to another inequity: her relation
to the Law, symbolized by her five husbands and a rejection of her sixth
'husband' (read: law) as not being legal. Thus deprived of both tradition
and law, the woman finally sought to attain some clarity about the place
of worship. Jesus' answer leads the woman beyond the question and the
disagreement, which in a reconciliative context have lost their
importance.
The same view has been brought forward by E.D. Freed in two arti-
34. oi jccrcepet; fiudov ev TOO opei -coma) TipoaeKiJveaav KOI \)u.ei<; êyete on
ev 'lepoaoMuoic; ecmv 6 TOTICK; onov TipoaKvveiv 5ei. Note the missing object in
both sentences.
35. epxeiai (bpa.
36. Although this sounds like an Old Testament prophetic saying it is not. Nowhere does this expression occur in the Old Testament. Truth, TON, appears several
times together with ion, esp. in Psalms and Proverbs, but never with m~l.

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

expected their messiah, but certainly did not share opinions of the characteristics of that messiah. A messiah like Elijah would never have been
accepted by the Samaritans. It is noteworthy that this question is settled
right at the opening of John's gospel by the Baptist's testimony that he
is neither Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet (1.19-28). Also noteworthy
is John's silence about John the Baptist's connection with Elijah raised
in Mt. 11.13-14, which makes the prophets and the Law42 prophecy that
'he is Elijah who is to come', thus forming a contrast also to Lk. 7.2930's avoidance of this question. Jesus' incorporation of Moses and
Elijah in the theophany scene is shared by the synoptic gospels (Mt.
17.3-13; Mk 9.2-13; Lk. 9.28-36), but only Matthew and Mark bring
37. E.D. Freed, 'Samaritan Influence in the Gospel of John', CBQ 30 (1968),
pp. 580-87; idem, 'Did John Write his Gospel Partly to Win Samaritan Converts',
NT 12 (1970), pp. 241-56, the last-mentioned work is based on Macdonald, Theology, and Gaster, Samaritans.
38. J. Bowman, 'The Fourth Gospel and the Samaritans', BJRL 40 (1958),
pp. 298-308.
39. A. Spiro, 'Stephen's Samaritan Background', in J. Munck, The Acts of the
Apostles (revised by W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann; AB, 31; Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1967), pp. 285-300.
40. W.A. Meeks, The Prophet-King Moses Traditions and the Johanine Christology (NovTSup, 14; Leiden, EJ. Brill, 1967).
41. Cf. Meeks, Prophet-King Moses, cit. in Freed, 'Samaritan Influence', p. 584.
42. A few manuscripts do not have KOI 6 vouoq.
124
the discussion about Elijah's precursor role in the form of John the
Baptist. The close connection of this discussion to Jesus' misunderstood
shout as a cry echoing (Ps. 22.2-3) for Elijah in the crucifixion scene
(Mt. 27.47; Mk 15.34-35) is made clear by the fact that Elijah does not
appear, thus signifying that 'his time is over'.
Conclusion
It has now become clear that the Samaritan question is not an independent issue for the single evangelist. It partakes in their internal dialogue
about the Christian movement's involvement with both Judaism and
Samaritanism. In this dialogue, Matthew represent the severest criticism
of Judaism as those 'who are the lost sheep of the House of Israel'.
From those and to those, salvation is determined. It is not until the very
rejection of the resurrection that salvation is determined for the nations.
The 'anti-Samaritanism' inherent in this criticism is the neglected state
of the Samaritans: they are not the 'chosen people'. Mark does not
actively engage himself in this discussion, of which he might not have
had any knowledge. The absence of geographical or ethnic terms related to the issue could point in that direction.43 Luke both knows and
engages himself in the question. He does not share Matthew's 'antiSamaritan' attitude,44 which to some extent he abolishes, while still
arguing critically against the rabbis. He does not go as far as John does
in his direct criticism of Jewish anti-Samaritanism, explicated in the
question of whether Jesus is obsessed by a demon (Jn 8.48-59): 'The
Jews answered him, "Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?" ' 45 Jesus' answer gives the Jews reason to
43. If the gospel is written about 70 CE, the question might not have had any
special importance. The testimony of the question's greater importance in Josephus's writings of the nineties CE, rather than of the seventies CE, should be kept in
mind here (Chapter 5).
44. This does not necessarily involve a dependency on the Gospel of Matthew,
but on its views. The conclusion does not imply a statement about the question of
dating, although much can be said in favor of Luke's dependence on Matthew.
45. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 155, makes connection between Sir. 50.25's
'foolish people in Shechem', T. Levi 1: 'From this day will Shechem be called the
city of fools' (TCO/VK; dcruveTCOv) and Jn 8.48: 'Are we not right in saying that you
are a Samaritan and have a demon?' all playing with the term 'fool'. That the Jews
consciously played with this mockery Montgomery found attested in Mt. 5.22's use
of (icope ('fool') as a pun on the place name Moreh in the neighbourhood of
Shechem paralleling shikkore ('drunkard'; exact Greek uncertain) as a pun on the

decide that he has a demon, but not that he is a Samaritan (v. 52). The
following question about authority, "Are you greater than our father
Abraham?" 46 (v. 53) echoing Jn 4.12, "Are you greater than our father
Jacob?" expresses that in the Gospel of John Jesus does not only supersede Moses but also the ancestors of both Samaritans and Jews. These
two stories' equation of Jews and Samaritans not only brings the Samaritan woman to exclaim, 'Sir I perceive that you are a prophet' (Jn.
4.19), which implies that he is a prophet like Moses,47 but it also brings
the Jew born blind (immediately after the discussion in Jn 8) to claim,
'He is a prophet' (Jn 9.17). Compositionally, the feeding of the crowd
with five loaves and two fishes (Jn 6.1-15) is placed between these
stories. Only the Gospel of John ends this story with the testimony that
he 'is indeed the prophet' (6.14). The story is hereby given a typological function that differs from the synoptic gospels' use of it. The
five loaves must be understood as representative of the Law of Moses
and the two fishes are the two forms of Judaism, which as interpreted
by the true prophet are enough to fill the 12 tribes of Israel (and the
nations with the leftovers). As the water in Jacob's well could not stop
the thirst, so the bread from heaven could not hinder that the fathers
who ate died (Jn 6.58). Only in Christ could these necessities become
transformed to living water and living bread.
The Request for an Identification of Simon the Just
and Ben Sira 50.25-26
With two nations my soul is vexed, and the third is no nation: those who
live in Seir48 and Philistea, and the foolish people49 that live in Shechem.
place name Sychar. The weakness in Montgomery's argumentation lies in the interpretative insecurity, since the Gospel gives no literary evidence for Montgomery's
claim.
46. lot) naipoq fiuxov is missing in some manuscripts. Could that reflect a wish
to avoid a Samaritan terminology? See Freed, 'John's Gospel and Samaritan Converts', pp. 247, 242, who, however, is not aware of the apparatus.
47. AF p. 108: Deut. 34.10.
48. So the Hebrew text according to H.L. Strack, Spriiche Jesus, des Sohnes
Sirachs (Leipzig: Georg Bohme, 1903); LXX reads ev opei Za|iapeiac;.
49. Hebrew ^ â, cf. also Deut. 32.2land Deut. 32.6 ^33 DJJ; in both instances
the allusion is that of a godless people; Sir. 49.5 renders the same wording in the
Hebrew text, but is usually translated 'foreign people' because of LXX's eGvei
DSFDGF
1 26
This utterance following the praise of the high priest Simeon ben Yochanan in Sir. 50.1-24 has given scholarship difficulties in identifying
both the people mentioned and especially the circumstances that could
have brought forward such a statement of hatred. Could it be possible
that we here have the first genuine testimony of the hatred between
Jews and Samaritans that Josephus so often refers to? Are these Samaritans the same Samaritans as in Josephus' s writings? The placement of
the verses between the doxology and the author's epilogue has given
reason to doubt its genuineness.50 However, since no texts, neither
Greek nor Hebrew, witness any variant readings of the composition as
such, its genuineness cannot be seriously challenged. Coggins's suggestion that the placement fulfils the need of drawing a contrast between
the glories of Simeon and the wickedness of those here condemned51
can be given further weight if we accept the Hebrew reading of v. 24:
'May his love abide upon Simon, and may he keep in him the covenant
of Phinehas; may one never be cut off from him; and as for his offspring, (may it be) as the days of heaven.' Although almost all translators here follow the Greek variant52 they agree with the exegetes in
accepting the Hebrew reading of v. 25 's VIHD for LXX's Eauxxpeiac;,
since this is believed to give historical meaning and can also be argued
on the basis of the Vulgate.53 According to this exegesis, vv. 25-26
bring a condemnation of the main enemies of Israel:
1. The people of Seir, usually understood to be the Edomites, are
condemned for being enemies since the return from exile. This assertion
is based on such texts as Obadiah 11-14; Ps. 137.7; Lam. 4.21; Ezek.
25.12-14; 25.3; Mai. 1.2-5; Jdt. 7.8, 18. According to 1 Mace. 5.65-68
and Josephus, Ant. 12.353, Hebron and nearby villages were ruled by
the Idumaeans in the time of Judas Maccabaeus. They probably had
conquered this fertile area during the Jewish exile. We probably also
Hebrew: DDBD (verb: 111) TIHB nr DP IDrK 'B^SOm 't0EH H^p Dâ ^BD
~nn ^33 '131 nefrsi; cf. Strack, Spruche Jesus.
LXX: 'Ev Svoiv eGveoiv rcpoocoxSiaev f] \)/vxri iioi), Kai TO TpiTOv DDK eoiiv
e9voq- oi KCtGfpevoi ev opei Eafiapeiat; Kai O\)A.ioTii(i Kai 6 Xaoq 6 (j-copoq 6
KaioiKrov ev ZIKI|J,OI<;.
50. G.H. Box and W.O.E. Oesterley in Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, p. 511, who consider it to be a late addition inserted at the final redaction of
the book.
52. 'May he entrust to us his mercy, and may he deliver us in our days.'

should add the accusation of 1 Esd. 4.45 that it was the Edomites who
burned the temple 'when Judaea was laid waste by the Chaldeans' and
that they held illegally 'the villages of the Jews' (1 Esd. 4.50). To the
complexity of the picture, however, belongs the fact that in Ezekiel's
oracles against the nations (chs. 25-37), only Edom and Philistea are
mentioned together with Ammon, Moab, Tyre, Sidon and Egypt. Samaria, on the contrary, both shares a fate with Judaea and takes part in a
restoration and re-unification under Davidic rule (cf. Ezek. 37.15-28).
Neither does 1 Maccabees nor Josephus speak of any Judaean conquests of Samaria in the time of Judas Maccabaeus. This conquest,
according to Josephus, takes place in the time of John Hyrcanus and his
sons some decades later.
2. The Philistines are considered enemies because of their increasing
Hellenization since the Macedonian takeover.
3. 'But the most hated of all were the people of Shechem, i.e. Samaritans, as is well known; they were as Smend54 points out, especially
dangerous to their neighbours at this time, because the Seleucidae had
made common cause with them against the Jews.'55 These views were
also put forward by Di Leila,56 who, paraphrazing Ezra 4.1-24, claimed
the Samaritans to be even more hated than the heathens because of their
opposition to the temple-building activities and their relationship to the
Seleucids. Di Leila based himself on Purvis,57 who dated the original
edition of Ben Sira to 180 BCE and the translation to 132 BCE. Purvis,
however, did not agree on the Seleucid relationship as a reason for Ben
Sira's remark about 'the foolish people', since neither Samaritan nor
Jewish policy at that time (before the Maccabaean uprising) proved to
be particularly consistent, but rather shifted according to circumstances
and benefits.58 Maintaining the early chronology for Ben Sira, Purvis
54. Smend, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, p. 491.
55. Thus the opinion maintained by G.H. Box and W.O.E. Oesterley in Charles,
Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, based on a reading of 1 Mace. 3.10 and Josephus,
Ant. 12.257-64.
56. Skehan and Di Leila, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, p. 558.
57. J.D. Purvis, 'Ben Sira and the Foolish People of Shechem', JNES 24 (1965),
pp. 88-94; repr. in idem, The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin of the Samaritan
Sect (HSM, 2; Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1968), pp. 119-29.
58. Purvis, Samaritan Pentateuch, p. 123: 'Just as Jerusalem experienced a
number of policy shifts, in pro-Ptolemaic/pro-Syrian policy, so too would Shechem
have undergone a comparable experience with the changing political climate of Palestine.'
128
rather stressed the importance of the utterance's relation with the praise
of the high priest Simeon, son of Onias. This Simeon has, since Zeitlin
and Moore,59 been considered to be the famous Simon II whom rabbinic tradition names Simon the Just and whom Josephus erroneously
calls Simon I.60 The rabbinic tractate Megillat Ta'anit, called the Fast
scroll,61 accounts that at the time of this Simon some Samaritans asked
permission from Alexander the Great to build a temple at Mount
Moriah. The real purpose, however, was to destroy Jerusalem's temple.
With the interference of Simon the Just, these plans were thwarted. The
Samaritan attempt turned into its opposite, and, as a punishment,
Gerizim was ploughed and sown with 'an undesirable plant'. Since then
the 21st of Kislev was celebrated as 'the day of Gerizim', a day on
which fasting and mourning is prohibited. The story builds on the wellknown motif 'he was hoist with his own petard'. It has close parallels to
Josephus's story about Alexander the Great's meeting with the Jewish
high priest Jaddua (Ant. 11.297-347) and to the Samaritan chronicles
Abu'1-Fath and Adler, which mention that Jerusalem was attacked at
59. Purvis, Samaritan Pentateuch, p. 123 n. 13: G.F. Moore, 'Simeon, the Righteous', in G.A. Kohut (ed.), Jewish Studies in Memory of Israel Abrahams (New
York: Jewish Institute of Religion, 1927), pp. 348-64; Moore, Judaism, I, pp. 3436; R. Marcus, The Date of the High Priest Simon the Just (the Righteous)', LCL
365, Appendix B, pp. 732-36.
60. That Josephus is mistaken here is argued on the background of the 'testimony' given in Ben Sira together with references to Onias, the builder of the
Egyptian temple, son of Simeon the Just in various rabbinic passages (t. Sot. 8.6-8;
y. Yom. 43c; b. Yom. 39a, b; b. Men. 109b). The list of high priests in the Hellenistic
period given in m. Ab. makes Simeon the Just the first high priest in a series of
seven generations of teachers of whom Jose ben Joezer, third in line, is datable as a
contemporary of Alcimus (161 BCE), Simeon ben Shetah, the fifth in line, is datable
as a contemporary of Alexander Jannaeus and Alexandra, and Hillel and Shammai,
seventh in line, is datable to the time of Herod the Great. This should statistically
place Simeon the Just around 200 BCE (see LCL 365, Appendix B).
61. H. Lichtenstein, 'Die Fastenrolle, eine Untersuchung zur jiidisch-Hellenistischen Geschichte', HUCA 8-9 (1931-32), pp. 257-352 (288, 339-40); b. Yom.
69a. Lichtenstein places the episode in the time of John Hyrcanus because of the
destruction of the temple at Gerizim. Schiirer, History of the Jewish People in the
Age of Jesus Christ (trans, and ed. G. Vermes et al.\ 3 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1973-87), I, pp. 114-15, dates the text to early second century CE. It is written in Aramaic (b. ab. 13b) and relates that the author was Hananiah ben Hezekiah
ben Garon. The scroll contains a list of the days on which it was forbidden to fast.
Cf. also Jdt. 8.6; m. Ta'an. 2.8; y. Ta'an. 66a; b. RoS. Has. 18b.

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

V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (New York: Athe1975), pp. 81-89.
Purvis, Samaritan Pentateuch, pp. 127-28.
Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, p. 85.
130
Greek version might differ from the underlying text, as it in fact does in
many instances, according to the old Hebrew fragments found in 1896
and among DSS in the 1950s, not to speak of the Syriac and Latin fragments. The using of the grandfather as authority for a manuscript is a
well-known pseudonymous device and should not be given too much
credit as an indication of authorial identity. Assuming that the grandfather wrote the book when he was young is another fallacy that cannot
be given any serious support and in fact is implicitly contradicted in the
foreword, when it relates that the grandfather acquired considerable
proficiency in the reading of the Law, the Prophets and the other books.
The stock motif of the teaching of the elders found in such various texts
as Egyptian wisdom literature, Greek philosophy and Old Testament
psalms and sermons (Pss. 44.2; 48.9, 14; Deut. 6.20-25, Qohelet)
should be taken into consideration here. The time span between manuscripts is only one of guessing and projecting, and the only 'certain'
date is the dating in the foreword (post 132 BCE).
The Megillat Ta'anit reference raises similar chronological problems.
Without any evidence for a dating of this passage, we are left to project
that the celebration of the 21st Kislev either occurs rather late or had
gone out of use in Josephus's time, since neither 1 Maccabees nor Philo
and especially Josephus bring any evidence of knowledge of this celebration. This is the more striking since other festival days mentioned in
the scroll are attested in this literature.66
Ben Sira's character as wisdom literature and the difficulties of
addressing it to any specific form of Judaism led Nodet67 to connect it
to the rabbinic mention of Simon the Just in m. Ab. 1.2. Nodet considered this Simon to have functioned as a mediator for the various forms
of Judaism that developed in the postexilic period:
Pirke Abot 1.1: 'Moses received the Law from Sinai and committed it to
Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the
prophets committed it to the men of the Great Synagogue. They said
three things: Be deliberate in judgement, raise up many disciples, and
make a fence around the Law.
66. 1 Maccabees: the 23rd of lyyar, the 23rd of Marcheschwan, the 25th of
Kislev, the 13th of Adar; Philo: the 22nd Schebat; Josephus: the 15th and 16th of
Siwan, the 2nd and 22nd of Schebat, the 17th and 20th of Adar (source: Lichtenstein, 'Die Fastenrolle' passim).
67. Nodet, Origins of Judaism.

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

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

69. The discussions about the great synagogue are concerned about whether it
was (1) a synodic institution, as the commentary to m. Ab. 1.1 (Tif. Yis.): 'A body of
120 elders, including many prophets, who came up from the exile with Ezra; they
saw that prophecy had come to an end and that restraint was lacking; therefore they
made many new rules and restrictions for the better observance of the law', and
b. Meg. 17b; m. Meg. 1.6. y. Meg. 1.5 counts 85 elders (the same as the numbers
signing the declaration in Neh. 10.1-28) and more than 30 prophets); (2) a popular
assembly whose authority is similar to that of the Greek polis system; (3) a single
generation that has become significant in tradition. Tradition has ascribed increasing activities to this generation in the writing of the Law. From being only heirs of
the Law they have become responsible for its formation (cf. Nodet, Origins of
Judaism, pp. 277-86). Schiirer, History of the Jewish People, II, pp. 358-59, gives a
detailed description of the history of scholarship on this subject. Taking up the
work of A. Kuenen, 'Over de mannen der groote Synagoge' (1876; reprint 1894:
'Uber die Manner der grossen Synagoge') which rejected the idea of a synodic
institution or any authoritative institution at all, the hypothesis about Simon the Just
as one of its remnants fell apart and Schiirer's conclusion could not admit Simon (II
probably) as more than a high priest praised for his piety.
70. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, pp. 271-77, 335, 381-84.
132
Abot, but in m. Par. 3.5 (the preparation of the red heifer, cf. Num.
19.1-11), he is instituted in a high priestly function that is given only to
the select few. Thus Simeon the Just, third in line, becomes the direct
heir of the Mosaic tradition and the first in line of the rabbis. Similarly
the third reference to Simon the Just in m. Sot. 13.5-6 when on the day
of atonement he goes into the holiest of holies, is a reference to a high
priestly function which combines law, purification and atonement.
Nodet's assumption of a connection between Ben Sira 50's Simon
son of Onias and rabbinic literature's Simon the Just, who should be
placed in the time of Antiochus III, is the well-established assumption
put forward by, for example, G.F. Moore:
The public work for which Simon is here lauded, the repairs on the
Temple and the strengthening of its fortifications and those of the city,
would fit very well with this date when Jerusalem had recently been
taken and retaken in the struggle between Syria and Egypt.71
It becomes clear, however, that Moore's assumption is not one of

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

people by refusing to pay the taxes to Ptolemy Euergertes (Ant. 12.15859) and who is the receiver of the letter from Areios, king of the Lacedaemonians (Ant. 12.225-26). It thus becomes more than conspicuous
that Josephus does not mention any high priest in the story about Antiochus Ill's war with Ptolemy Philopator and the decrees given to the
Jews (Ant. 12.129-53). This of course makes it possible to place Simeon
II in this period, if one accept Josephus's rather confusing chronology.
Placing Simeon I, son of Onias I (successor of Jaddua) in the time of
Ptolemy I Soter (367-283 BCE) followed by his brother Eleazar, who
becomes high priest in the time of Ptolemy II (282-246 BCE) because
of Simeon's son Onias's young age. Eleazar is followed by his uncle
Manasses. Finally, after his death, Onias II obtains the priesthood in the
time of Ptolemy III Euergertes (246-221 BCE) or perhaps more probably in the time of Ptolemy IV Philopator (221-205) and V Epiphanes
(205-180), an office he held as long as the Tobiad Joseph, the tax collector, was in service (22 years). Only hereafter do we meet Simeon II,
son of Onias II, and, in the time of Ptolemy V and Antiochus Ill's son
Seleucus IV Philopator (187-175) (cf. Ant. 12.224) (sic) after the time
of Antiochus III (223-187). Onias III, whose death caused the many
controversies we meet in the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164
BCE). This scheme's long time span of nearly 50 years between the
death of Onias II, who is said to have been in office for 22 years, and
Onias III makes it chronologically possible to place Simeon II the Just
in the time of Antiochus III. We simply have to ask why Josephus does
not do this and why none of Antiochus's decrees refers to any high
priest or high priestly office? If Ben Sira's praise of Simeon ben Yochanan is a praise of a high priest at that time, it is a wonder why it never
found its way into Josephus's writings, or is in any way reflected in his
list of high priests in Ant. 20.234. Rabbinic literature's re-use of the
Jaddua (Simeon)-Alexander story does not make this story more plausible. Quite the contrary! The confusion of names here should warn us
about how legends can be used to make up for the lack of historical
facts.
Should there, however, be any historical nucleus in the Simeon the
Just traditions, these might perhaps more convincingly become applied
to the Hasmonaean Simeon (high priest from 142-135 BCE), son of
Mattathias 'son of John, son of Simeon, a priest of the sons of Joarib
Jews and attain to them certain privileges. This story certainly disfavours Simeon
and honours Eleazar.
134
from Jerusalem' (1 Mace. 2.1). He is the one also praised for his high
priestly duties in 1 Maccabees 13-14. That rabbinic literature does not
make this connection might be seen in the light of this literature's generally anti-Hasmonaean attitude. This Simeon is surnamed jPDH "plTT p
in the Hebrew manuscript of Ben Sira. In its Greek form in the LXX, his
name is written EIJICOV Ovioi) mot; and here called iepeix; 6 iieyaq. It is
said about him that he 'hastened to complete the walls of Jerusalem,
and he fortified it on every side' (1 Mace. 13.10) and that he 'built up
the strongholds of Judaea and walled them all around, with high towers
and great walls and gates and bolts, and he stored food in the strongholds' (13.33). 'He strengthened the fortifications of the temple hill and
alongside the citadel and he and his men lived there' (13.52b); 'he fortified it for the safety of the country and of the city, and built the walls of
Jerusalem higher' (14.37); 'he made the sanctuary glorious and added
to the vessels of the sanctuary' (14.15). Against this Sir. 50.1b-2 sounds
almost an echo: 'who in his life repaired the house, and in his time fortified the temple. He laid the foundations for the high double walls, the
high retaining walls for the temple enclosure.' And Josephus in Ant.
13.202 states, '[H]e made haste to rebuild the city; and when he had
made it secure with very high and strong towers.'
In the praise of Simeon in 1 Mace. 14.4-14, it is related how
the land had rest all the days of Simeon. He sought the good of his
nation... They tilled their land in peace; the ground gave its increase, and
the trees of the plains their fruit. Old men sat in the streets; they talked
together of good things... He established peace in the land and Israel
rejoiced with great joy.
And in 14.16-24 it is said that the renown of this great high priest and
ethnarch of the Jews had reached as far as Rome and Sparta and that
they were pleased to renew their former leagues of friendship.
When the great assembly (1 Mace. 14.28) decides to honour Simeon
by making records on bronze tablets and put them upon pillars on
Mount Zion, they refer to his and his brothers' fight; to the offerings he
has brought; how he withdrew the heathens/foreign people (id e9vr|)
(14.36), not only from the country but also from the city of David in
Jerusalem,73 and fortified the city; and to the renown he had acquired.
The declaration is closed by a repetition of the appointment as high
73. Contrary to Judg. 1.21.

priest and ethnarch, supplied with royal privileges and given the charge
of the sanctuary. Thus in 14.35,
The people [6 Xaoq] saw Simeon's faithfulness [TTIV rcicmv] and the
glory which he had resolved to win for his nation [TOO e9vei OUTOU], and
they made him their leader [fryoiju.evov] and high priest [dp%iepea],
because he had done all these things and because of the justice [8iKcaocruvriv] and loyalty [ir|v TUOTIV] which he had maintained toward his
nation. He sought in every way to exalt his people [TOV Xaov]... And
therefore the Jews and their priests have decided that Simeon should be
their leader and high priest for ever, until a trustworthy prophet should
arise [eox; TO\> dvaoTfjvai npO(|>fiTr|V KIOTOv].74
That he is not one among several is clearly marked out when in v. 43 it

is stated 'that he should be obeyed by all, and that all the contracts in
the country should be written in his name'. This decree must be read on
the basis of 1 Mace. 13.41-42:
In the one hundred and seventieth year the yoke of the Gentiles was
removed from Israel, and the people began to write in their documents
and contracts, 'In the first year of Simeon the great high priest and commander and leader of the Jews'.
This is no less than being master in one's own house; no longer is it

necessary to legalize documents by writing under Seleucid or Ptolemaic
seal. That is the reason for the uniqueness for which he is praised by
Ben Sira.75 He is not appointed high priest but elected by the people and
legitimated by the people. This might have caused some disagreements
and certainly we know that Simeon's peaceful reign soon became
threatened by the surrounding enemies, especially the newly conquered
areas, Lydda, Ephraim, Ramathaim, Gazara, Bet Sur, and so on, which
Antiochus VII Sidetes fought hard to reconquer. Geographically and
74. In 4QTest. and in T. Levi 5.2 it is Levi who is appointed. Christianity's historisizing use of the Deuteronomic expression, 'until there arise a prophet like
Moses', should not in all instances lead us to the conclusion that Judaism or Samaritanism expected such a prophet to arise soon. In 1 Maccabees the titular use of the
expression seems to designate scribal piety rather than eschatology.
75. For the first time in 'postexilic' history it is not a king or a governor who
orders and brings out the rebuilding of the sanctuary. In contrast, the placement of
Simeon in the time of Antiochus III becomes problematic, since the high priest
would not have been given the honour for the rebuilding if this was done in accordance with Antiochus's decree.
136
politically the Seleucid dominion included those living in Shechem

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

2 Chronicles 28.1-27
This text offers a third possibility for identification. As the only biblical
text, it brings together Shechemites, Edomites and Philistines in a common attack on Judaea. This event's compositional connection with
Hezekiah's good leadership and high priestly merits in 2 Chron. 29.132.33 could have functioned as the literary pattern for Ben Sira 50's
praise of Simeon and the rebuke of 'the foolish people in Shechem'. In
the Samaritan Chronicle 2 (2 Kgs-2 Chron. JD*), they refused the
invitation of Hezekiah with the argument that the passover had to be
celebrated on Mt Gerizim. The details of the biblical story is somewhat
obscure and the information that Zikri (2 Chron. 28.7) from the tribe of
Ephraim is a member of the Samaritan Israelites is given only in the
Samaritan Chronicle ID*. This version also relates that the leaders of
the Samaritan Israelites are those responsible for the return of the captives, in both texts called brethren (DTTN). King Ahaz is attacked not
only from the ten tribes of Israel,79 but also from the Edomites
(2 Chron. 29.17) and Philistines (v. 18). The description of the temple
service in Sir. 50.11-24 has close parallels to 2 Chron. 29.30-36. In both
instances, we are dealing with a new situation that needs to be placed in
a cultic context. In both instances, the description is inserted in a
description of royal duties, such as the repair of the temple (Sir. 50.1-2;
2 Chron. 29.1, 5-19; 31.11) and the making of the conduit and water
pool (Sir. 50.3; 2 Chron. 32.3-4, 30). It is significant that Hezekiah's
reform of 2 Chronicles is inaugurated by the celebration of the passover. With the participation of some few from Ephraim, Manasseh,
Issachar and Zebulon, the aim is reconciliation or perhaps more correctly unification, expressed in the words 'that there was a great joy in
Jerusalem for since the days of Solomon, the son of David king of
Israel, no such thing had happened in Jerusalem' (2 Chron. 30.26). First
these national assemblies. This necessiated placing Simeon the Righteous a century
before his time, making him the contemporary of Alexander the Great, and therefore (according to his chronology) a younger contemporary of Ezra. Hence it came
about that in the Mishnaic tradition, Simeon the Righteous, whose name was inextricably associated with the second of the Great Assemblies, is described as "one
of the survivors of the Great Assembly", meaning the first (and for Talmudic sages,
the only) Great Assembly.'
79. Samaritan tradition counts eight northern tribes, independent of the Samaritan Israelites, who are believed to have originated from Joseph's Ephraim and Menasseh branches. See Chapter 6 below.
138
thereafter are the cult places torn down throughout all Judah, Benjamin,
Ephraim and Manasseh (2 Chron. 31.1). The high priest is remarkably
absent in 2 Chronicle 29's description of the temple rededication. The
priests maintain the conduct of the offerings and the king's role is
(together with the assembly, ^Tfp) to lay his hands on the he-goats
(2 Chron. 29.23), a function that is given to Aaron in Lev. 16.21. The
sequence of events in the Chronicler's description of Judaean-Samarian
hostilities, which with fatal conclusions for both areas brought in the
Assyrians, is in a different context similar to events of the GraecoRoman period. Thus it is quite appropriate to ask whether Ben Sira
'made use' of the Chronicler's material or whether these later events in
fact gave voice to both versions.
The Foolish People in Shechem: Who Are Theyl
In Prep. Ev. 9.22, Eusebius 'quotes' Alexander Polyhistor's reference
to Theodotius's poem about Levi's and Simeon's attack on Shechem
(the Shechem poem). This author who is mentioned also in Josephus's
Apion 1.216 is unknown, and it has long been assumed that he was of
Samaritan origin.80 This assumption, which based itself on the poem's
reference to the town of Shechem as 'holy' and to Shechem as being
the son of Hermes,81 has only recently been challenged by J.J. Collins.82
He established definitely that Theodotus was a militant Jew and that the
use of 'Hermes' must be ascribed to Alexander Polyhistor's transmission of the text, since Theodotius elsewhere consistently wrote 'Emor'
(the same as biblical Hamor). The outline of the poem follows closely
the similar story of Genesis 34. Yet it is remarkable that it represents
significant differences. The prelude to the events is more or less the
same as in the Genesis variant. The poem offers a description of the
city, which is declared holy. It is situated between two mountains and it
80. J. Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor und die von ihm erhaltenen Reste
juddischer und samaritdnischer Geschichtswerke (2 vols.; Hellenistische Studien, 1
and 2; Breslau: Skutsch, 1875), was the first to bring forward this hypothesis, which
remained unquestioned and has even gained widespread support (cf. J.J. Collins,
'The Epic of Theodotus and the Hellenism of the Hasmoneans', HTR 73 [1980],
pp. 91-104 [91-92]). Schurer, History of the Jewish People (rev. edn, 1986), III,
pp. 561-62.
81. Expressing the 'well-known' Hellenization of the Samaritans.
82. 'Epic of Theodotus', p. 102.

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

given as a commentary in Jub. 30.7-12, forms a midrash on the defilement inflicted on Israel because of marriage with foreigners/Gentiles.
The conclusion of the first part of this midrash in Jub. 30.12 is given
with a quotation of Gen. 34.14: 'we will not give our daughter to a man
who is uncircumcised because that is a reproach to us'. This quotation
is somewhat arbitrary since the question of circumcision is not raised at
all in the text or in the midrash, where the prohibition concerns Gentile
83. The dating of this wall, probably built during Alexander the Great's time
and destroyed/dilapidated in the mid-second century BCE, have been influential in
the dating of the poem. Cf. the discussion in Collins, 'Epic of Theodotus'.
84 Cf. also Gen. 34; Jub. 30; T. Levi 7; Jdt. 9.1-6; Jos. Asen. 2.23; PseudoPhilo 8; Josephus, Ant. 1.337-42.
140
origin as such. In Gen. 34.15-16's conclusion, circumcision is set as a

solution to the ethnicity problem:
If you will become as we are and every male of you be circumcised, then
we will give our daughters to you, and we will take your daughters to
ourselves, and we will dwell with you and become one people [DU1?
~WThis solution of the conflict must be seen in connection with Hamor's

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

falling into a dispute with a Samaritan at Shechem, accused the Samaritans of worshipping the idols hidden under Gerizim by Jacob on his
return from Haran. Certainly, the rabbi had to run for his life.85 Josephus might for the same reasons have found it necessary to state explicitly that it was the gods Rachel had secretly stolen that Jacob 'hid in the
ground beneath an oak at Shechem' (Ant. 1.342).
The question of blessing or cursing is combined with the question of
God's intervention and is given a more central role in the stories that
seek to justify the act. Thus Thodotius's Shechem poem tells that God
inspired Simeon and Levi. The same motif is found in Jub. 30.6. In Jub.
30.17, 18-19 and 23, their act is declared 'a righteousness for them...
written down on heavenly tablets...as a blessing'. Furthermore, because
of this act, Levi and his sons are chosen for the priesthood, an election
which, in the Pentateuch, is combined with Exodus's 'golden calf story
(see further below 'The Levites in Jewish Tradition').
The Testament of Levi brings a reference to the 'event', for the
understanding of which one needs knowledge of some of the more
elaborated stories. Combining various traditions, the reference mentions
the circumcision and Jacob's rebuke of his sons' acts. Jacob's opinion,
however, is corrected by the statement that his sons acted in accordance
with the will of God. Because of the evil of the Shechemites against the
nomads in the time of Abraham, the anger of the lord ultimately came
over them. As in the Shechem poem, the sin has become a condition
and is not entirely related to a single affective act. To Jacob the promise
is given that through him the Canaanites will be exterminated and their
land given to him and his seed: 'because from this day forward Shechem
shall be called City of the Senseless (7i6A,i<; dcruveicGv), because as one
might scoff at a fool,86 so we scoffed at them, because by defiling my
sister they committed folly in Israel' (T. Levi 7.2).87
The text stands in the same tradition as Genesis 34-37: 'he had
wrought folly in Israel fptnern rta nt2W] by lying with Jacob's
daughter, for such a thing ought not to be done'. The use of the term
85. I am indebted to Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 168, for this reference to
Gen.R. c.81; Deut. R. c.3.
86. TOV jicopov; cf. also Sir. 51.26: 6 Xaoq 6 uxopoq.
87. Jdt. 5.16 similarly counts the Shechemites among the enemies: 'and they
drove out before them the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Jebusites and the
Shechemites and all the Gergesites'. The Shechemites here replace Hivvites in other
lists, referring to Hamor in Gen. 34.2 called the prince of the Hivvites.
142
^33 ('futile/worthless/godless/foolish') has here a clear parallel to

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

killing, while 'the Shechemites were given up to indulgence and festivity'. Jacob is here not at all pleased with the acts of his sons, which
implicitly (although Josephus is careful here) is said to be in accord
with the will of God (Ant. 1.341). The rape is not given any special
attention in Josephus's story; and there is no mention of the people
being evil or having transgressed the law as in Jubilees, Testament of
Levi and the book of Judith. The reason for the act is the unlawfulness
in committing marriage with a foreigner. Making this the pivotal motif,
Josephus demonstrates his principal accusation against the Shechemites, 'that they are foreigners'. Since this accusation forms the leitmotif
in all of Josephus's Samaritan/Shechemite stories, and since Josephus's
justification of the act is in accord with Jubilees, the Shechem poem,
Testament of Levi and Judith (but goes against MT and SP Genesis
traditions), we are bound to consider whether these developments of the
various traditions are reflective of a historicizing interpretation of Genesis 34. This consideration must take into account the possibility that
not only the secondary stories, but also the story as it is presented in MT
Genesis 34 and SP Genesis 34, are reflective of the same event; or
whether Genesis 34 functioned as a 'carte blanche'90 for the destruction
of the Samaritan temple during John Hyrcanus (129-128 BCE) and the
later destruction of Shechem in 109 BCE. Accusations of syncretism
and Hellenization laid the 'legal' foundation for the destruction. The
impact of these accusations has been considerable in ancient as well as
modern historiographies of the Samaritans.91
It is noteworthy that neither the SP nor the Samaritan Targum nor
Memar Marqah give reason to believe that Genesis 34 in Samaritan
tradition is seen as reflective of Jewish-Samaritan hostilities in the second century BCE. If we consider, however, Genesis's conflict resolution, which Simeon and Levi destroyed against Jacob's will, the argumentation for any anti-Samaritan polemic in the story falls apart. There
should therefore be no reason for non-acceptance of the story as it
stands. The variant stories' omission of the circumcision, which in the
Shechem poem has led to the quite ironic composition that Jacob sets
the condition for the circumcision, while Simeon (and Levi) prevent it
from being conducted, offers a solution to the justification of the act
that avoids the embarrassing question held implicit in the Old Testament
90. What seems to be meant by Kippenberg's (Garizim und Synagoge, pp. 90,
93) 'MagnaCharta'.
144
tradition, 'were they brethen'. This, however, is not Genesis's question.

Here the story meets the question of syncretism. With the killing of the
Shechemites, although they had become circumcised, the story raises a
severe critique against Judaism's expansionist policy, which in the time
of the Hasmonaeans required all the neighbouring people's submission
to circumcision and Jewish customs, while formerly they had not been
reckoned as belonging to the Jewish race.
A re-reading of the Shechem poem now becomes illustrative. As
mentioned in the introduction, the poem has been preserved by Eusebius, who quotes Alexander Polyhistor. He, however, has given his
commentary to the poem, which is thus combined with some of the
traditions of the Genesis story. The quotations from Theodotius's poem
given by Alexander/Eusebius are as follows:92
1.
2.
3.
Thus the land was good and grazed upon by goats and well watered.
There was neither a long path for those entering the city from the field
nor even leafy woods for the weary. Instead, very close by the city
appear two steep mountains, filled with grass and woods. Between the
two of them a narrow path is cut. On one side the bustling Shechem
appears, a sacred town, built under (i.e. the mountain) as a base; there
was a smooth wall around the town; and the wall for defense up above
ran in under the foot of the mountain.
O stranger, Jacob came as a shepherd to the broad city of Shechem; and
over their kinsmen Hamor was chief with his son Sychem, a very
stubborn pair'
Jacob came to well-grazed Syria and left behind the broad stream of
the Euphrates, a turbulent river. For he had come there when he left the
sharp rebuke of his own brother. Laban, who was his cousin and then
alone ruled over Syria since he was of [native] blood, graciously
received him into his house. He agreed to and promised the marriage of
his youngest daughter to him. However, he did not at all aim that this
should be but, rather, contrived some trick. He sent Leah, who was her
older sister, to the man for his bed. In any case, it did not remain hidden
to him; rather, he understood the mischievousness and received the
other maiden. He was mated with both, who were his kinsfolk. To him
92. The French translation in Eusebe de Cesaree, Le preparation evangelique

(Sources Chretienne 369 [Paris], 1991) more clearly distinguishes between quotation and paraphrases than does the English version. It furthermore is presented with
its Greek Vorlage. Comparing this with the translation given in OTP, it must be
noted that the ending, 'When the other brothers learned of his deed, they assisted
them and pillaged the city; and after rescuing their sister, they carried her off with
the prisoners to their father's quarters', is not in the Greek text of Theodotius.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
there were born eleven sons who were exceedingly wise in mind and a
daughter, Dinah, who had a beautiful form, an admirable frame, and a
noble spirit.
For this is not allowed to Hebrews to bring sons-in-law or daughters
into their house from elsewhere but, rather, whoever boasts that he is of
the same race
Once (God) himself, when he led the noble Abraham out of his native
land from heaven called upon the man all his family to strip off the
flesh (i.e. the foreskin), and therefore he accomplished it. The command remains unshaken, since God himself spoke it.
For I have indeed learned the word from God, for of old he said that he
would give ten peoples to the children of Abraham.
God smote the inhabitants of Shechem, for they did not honor whoever
came to them, whether evil or noble. Nor did they determine rights or
laws throughout the city. Rather, deadly works were their care.
Thus then Simeon rushed upon Hamor himself and struck him upon the
head; he seized his throat in his left hand and then let it go still gasping
its last breath, since there was another task to do. At that time Levi,
also irresistible in might seized Sychem by the hair; the latter grasped
his knees and raged unspeakably. Levi struck the middle of his collarbone; the sharp sword entered his inward parts through the chest; and
his life thereupon left his bodily frame.'
In this text, there is no mention of Shechem's love for Dinah, no

rape, no immediate crime, which needs revenge, no mention of Jacob's
considerations and no explicit demand for circumcision. Simeon and
Levi kill Hamor and Shechem because they are hostile and do not
observe the laws. The plot line of the text (although some fragments
might have been lost) is meaningful. Thus v. 2 refers to a stupidity of
Simeon and Shechem that in v. 7 reaches criminal dimensions. The
mention of the virtue of Jacob and his beautiful and wise children is set
in contrast, and forms the background for God's promise to Abraham in
v. 6. By this, reason is given for the act of Simeon and Levi without
bringing in any conflict of ethnicity. With a clear justification of the
treatment of those who do not keep the laws, the act becomes a fulfilment of God's promise to Abraham: that he will give ten godless people
to his children (Gen. 15.18-21). This part of the poem might be the
Samaritan part, which calls the city holy, inhabited by those people that
was given in the hand of Abraham. The purpose of Theodotius's poem
is to tell how this happened and to give aetiology for the city's name. It
is Alexander Polyhistor's paraphrasing comments that brings up the
possible underlying Jewish-Samaritan conflict. For a more compre-
146
hensive treatment of this conflict it has now become necessary to examine briefly the traditions related to Shechem, and to the promises of
eternal priesthood given to the Levites.
Shechem in the Old Testament Tradition
The Genesis story, followed by the burial of foreign gods, the building
of the altar in Luzah (which is given the name 'El Bet-'El) and God's
blessing of Jacob, must be seen as an origin story describing how
Jacob's children became bene yisrdel. Previous to Genesis 34, we find
in Gen. 32.25-32 the story of Jacob's fight with 'God and man' (v. 29),
and the consequent recognition of Jacob as Israel, since he had prevailed. Jacob's request for the man's name is answered by another
question: 'Why is it that you ask my name?' and God blessed him.
When this scene is recalled in Gen. 35.9-15 after Jacob's second arrival
at Bet- 'El the changing of Jacob's name has the addition that he now is
told that it is 'El Shadday, who blesses him (v. 11). This scene is
repeated also in Gen. 48.3-4 (and 49.24-26). More interestingly, however, is 2 Kgs 17.34's quite remarkable reference since this text makes
a direct connection to Gen. 35.2-4's removal of the foreign gods. Here
the text is concerned with the foreign people placed in Samaria/Bet- 'El
(2 Kgs 17.28), who, although they had been taught to fear Yahweh are
accused of worshipping their own gods also:
They do not fear Yahweh, and they do not follow the statutes or the ordinances of the law or the commandment which Yahweh commanded the
children of Jacob, whom he named Israel. Yahweh made a covenant with
them, and commanded them, 'You shall not fear other gods or bow
yourselves to them or sacrifice to them' (2 Kgs 17.34-35).
As Shechem became defiled by the burial of the foreign gods in the

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

Jacob raised an altar (on the ground he had bought from the sons of
Hamor) that he called 'el-'elohe-yisrd'el (Gen. 33.20). Joshua gathered
the twelve tribes of Israel and asked them to decide whom to serve
(Josh. 24.1, 14-24). When the people declared that they had decided to
serve Yahweh (vv. 21, 24), they are told to put away the foreign gods
(v. 23, "D3n Tl^N). These include the ancestral gods from Mesopotamia
("irrcn "ai?) and Egypt (Dnsa) and the Amorite gods C"lQn sn^) of
the land in which they dwell (vv. 14-15).93 Joshua has already set himself in opposition to these gods in his declaration: 'Choose this day
whom you will serve...but I and my house will serve Yahweh' (v. 15).
Thereafter the covenant is made and written down in DTl'PN n~nn ISO,
and a great stone (n^HJ pK) is set up as a witness under the oak in the
sanctuary of Yahweh. Here the patriarchal narratives end, the transition
has taken place, and the past is recalled as a last gestus in the burial of
the bones of Joseph at Shechem in the same ground as Jacob had
bought from the sons of Hamor, Shechem's father, which became the
inheritance of bene Ydsef(Josh. 24.32).
These references to Shechem in the Hexateuch stand in sharp contrast
to Shechem's status as the faithless city in the later chronology. In the
time of the Judges, this faithless city chooses the kingship to the council
of the Elders (the 70 sons of Jerubba'al). This king, Abimelek, son of
Jerubba'al/Gideon and his Shechemite concubinepresented in contrast to Jerubba'al's legitimate sons (Judg. 8.30-31)whom the lords of
Shechem (DDE' "^lO) appointed at the oak of the 'stone' at Shechem
(DD&n H&N 3KQ ]V7R) (Judg. 9.6), they betray after three years' rule
(Judg. 9.22ff.). The text gives the impression that this stone, which was
raised as a witness to the people's covenant with Yahweh (Josh. 24.23)
becomes a witness to the double faithlessness of the people. They killed
here the legal heirs to the kingship 'upon one stone' (ni~IN pK "7D, vv. 5
and 18), after which they elect the illegal king (v. 6), who is said to
'serve the men of Hamor the father of Shechem' (v. 28).94 This betrayal,
93. This theme about the ancestral gods is missing in the Samaritan Chronicle II
Jos. UA*. Here it is the gods of the land that are set in contrast to Yahweh. Thus
the Old Testament text marks a new beginning that (similar to the reforms of Josiah
and of Ezra-Nehemiah) is set in the context of the new Israel's rejection of the past.
94. This might be an overinterpretation of PinK ptf ^tf. However, no doubts can
be raised against the importance of the 'stone' in the election scene (v. 6, p'PN'DU
3KQ). This expression is found here only. In Gen. 35.14 it is told that Jacob raised a
pK fQ^Q at the place where God had spoken with him. The importance of the stone
148
which is described as the evil of the Shechemites (DDE? ^N niH), God

(Elohim) reversed in a fulfilling of Jotham's curse (v. 57), when not
only their temple (El-berith) and its stronghold were set on fire over
them, but also Abimelek was killed by a woman's hand (vv. 46-55).
Similar critique is raised in the traditions related to the time of kingship. In 1 Kings 12, the people (^KHttT l?np~'pD) declare Jeroboam king
as protest against Rehobeam's harsh treatment. With the Israelite renunciation of 'portion' and 'inheritance' in David (12.16), the rebellion
of no return is accomplished (vv. 17-19). This, however, is in accord
with the will of Yahweh-elohe-Yisrael (cf. 1 Kgs 11.31-39; 12.15, 24).
What is not in accord with the will of Yahweh is the apostasy of the
people, the erection of the golden calves in Dan and Bethel (1 Kgs
12.28-29)95 with the purpose of preventing the people from going to
offer sacrifices in bet-Yahweh in Jerusalem and turn their hearts to
Rehobeam, n~niT "j^Q (vv. 26-29).96 The promise of a sure house like
David's and the allotment of Israel (11.38) are forfeited, and the final
exclusion is waiting right around the corner: '...and he (Yahweh) will
root up Yisrael from this good land which he has given to their fathers
and he will scatter them beyond the river (Euphrates)' (1 Kgs 14.14-16).
2 Chronicles' story about the destruction is composed as a parallel
story. In the first story Shishak attacks Rehobeam because of the apostasy of the people. When, however, they humbled themselves and recognized that 'Yahweh is righteous' (miT pHK), Yahweh decided not to
destroy them (2 Chron. 12.1-8). In contrast to this story, the story about
is described in more detail in Gen. 28.22, Jacob's dream in Bethel, where it is said
thatDTftK rrn rrrr m^Q TiQcn&K nKtn pm. Cf. also Gen. 31.13, 'I am the
God of Bethel, where you anointed a pillar and made a vow to me' (LXX and Targ.
Ps.-J., Pal. Targ. read, 'I am God who appeared for you at Bethel').
95. It is here worth noticing that Shechem has lost its religious importance here
and probably only serves as the main capital of the northern kingdom, cf. 1 Kgs
12.25,29,33; 13.1.
96. The erection of the calves is not mentioned in 2 Chron. 11.13, where it is
said that 'the priests and the Levites, who were in all Israel presented themselves to
him from all their territories. The Levites had left their common lands and their
holdings and had come to Judah and Jerusalem, because Jeroboam and his sons had
prevented them from serving as priests of Yahweh, and had appointed his own
priests for the high places, and for the goat-demons and the calves, he had made.'
The underlying irony of the text that Jeroboam erected the golden calves to hinder
the people in going to Rehobeam's Jerusalem (1 Kgs 12.26-27) should not go
unnoticed.

Judah's King Abijah's attack on Jeroboam (2 Chron. 13.1-18) is given.
In spite of Abijah's mocking speech, which elucidates the people's
apostasy that they follow after Jeroboam's golden calves and have
driven out the priests of Yahweh (i.e. the sons of Aaron and the Levites), the Israelites have no intention of humbling themselves. As a
result, the defeat and slaughter is inevitable: '[T]hus bene-Yisrdel were
subdued at that time and bene-yehuda were strengthened, because they
relied upon Yahweh the god of their fathers' (DiTrTQN TI^N). This language has previously been used only against the foreign nations.
The intertextuality of these texts expose an exceedingly well-composed structure aiming to demonstrate why and how the cult moved
from Shechem (Gen. 12.6-7) to Jerusalem (2 Chron. 11.13-17 and
2 Kgs 23.4-20), and why Jerusalem, in spite of the apostasy of its Jewish population, remained the true Israel that did not share Shechem's
fate to become defiled by the presence of foreign gods and peoples. The
reform of Josiah did not remove the uncleanness from Shechem, Bet'El, Samaria's and Judaea's towns; it rendered the places unfit for the
Yahweh cult (2 Kgs 23.8, 13, 14, 16, 20). Even the uncleanness from
Jerusalem added to this, when Josiah brought the idols from Jerusalem
outside the town to be burned there; and the ashes he brought to Bet-'El
(2 Kgs 23.4).97
In addition to this picture, the 'myth of the empty land' (2 Chron.
97. A similar paradigm is found according to other cult places of the Pentateuch, e.g. Bethel, where Abraham builds the second altar (Gen. 12.8), Jacob meets
God in a dream and is promised a splendid future in the country (Gen. 28.13), he
goes to Bethel after the events in Shechem and is given another revelation (Gen.
35.6). The place is the centre of the people's internal conflict (Judg. 19-21) where
the people goes to Bethel, where the ark is and where the priest Phinehas, Aaron's
grandson, is in service, and the people here inquire of Yahweh whether they should
once more go against the Benjaminites (Judg. 20.21, 22-23, 26-29; 21.2-4). Jeroboam places one of the golden calves in Bethel (1 Kgs 12.29) and he places priests
there (1 Kgs 12.32) and the place becomes the centre of the cult after the fall of the
northern kingdom (2 Kgs 17.28), and it is made unclean with the reform of Josiah
(2 Kgs 23.15-18).
Shilo obtains its days of glory during Joshua (Josh. 18-22) and its fall in the time
of Eli's corrupt priesthood and the defilement of the ark (1 Sam. 1-4). It is worth
noticing that the ark never is returned to Shilo, but is kept in custody in the house of
Abinadab in Kirjat-Jearim (1 Sam. 7.1-2) before it ends in Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6.119) and that the cry of Eli's daughter-in-law (1 Sam. 4.21-22) 'the glory [1132] has
disappeared from Israel, for the ark of Yahweh is taken' is given fulfilment in the
move of the cult to Jerusalem.
150
36.21) forms a theological metaphor for the purpose of keeping

Jerusalem free from defilement and creating the foundation for a new
beginning. This beginning takes its departure in creation, not in Gen.
1.2's emptiness as creation ex nihilo, but in creation's tohu wa-bohu
(irm inn), in its chaotic structures of emptiness and disorder. The city
is deserted: empty because it is filled with horror over the people's
apostasy (Lev. 26.32). It rests (ni"QC?) in one long sabbath rest of 70
years (2 Chron. 36.21) because it could not rest 'in your sabbaths when
you dwelt upon it'.98 The tohu wa-bohu prophecy of Jer. 4.23-27 echoes
pre-creation's empty chaos with the 'emptiness' of the exile, where the
earth was waste and void, the heavens had no light, the mountains were
quaking, and all the hills moving to and fro; where there was no man,
no birds; where the fruitful land was a desert, its cities laid in ruins
because of the divine wrath of Yahweh. Because of this wrath, 'the
whole land shall be a desert [ilQQtD], but I do not completely exterminate it [il^^K $b rfpDI], says Yahweh'. This wonderful anti-climax just
before the destruction of the whole creation takes Jeremiah away from
poetry and back to 'history's' implicit knowledge of the outcome. I 'do
not make a full end of you' (as SRV has it here and in Jer. 5.18) is the
conclusive comment that sets the stage for Jeremiah's prophecy in the
centre of Leviticus's self-fulfilling prophetic doom: 'If you will not
listen to me.. .if you walk contrary to me.. .if you spurn my statutes.. .if
your soul abhors my ordinances...if you break my covenant, the...'
(ch. 26 passim).
This myth's impact on Jewish self-identification is given full expression in Josephus's description of the deportation under Nebuchadnezzar:
Now when Salmanesses removed the Israelites, he settled in their place
the nation of Cuthaeans, who had formerly lived in the interior of Persia
and Media and who were then, moreover, called Samaritans because
they assumed the name of the country in which they were settled. But the
king of Babylonia, when he carried off the two tribes, did not settle any
nation in their place, and for this reason all of Judaea and Jerusalem and
the temple remained deserted [epr||j.o<; Siejieivev] for seventy years (Ant.
10.184).
For that reason, the return from exile is not a new conquest story. There
are no old or foreign gods (or people) to throw away. The cleansing of
the land and the people is no longer a human affair. The returnees are
98. Cf. also Lev. 26.34, 35, 43, which is the only text using the same form as
2 Chron. 36.21 (hophal inf. with suffix of fern. sing, of the root DQ2J).

those purified in exile who are given a paradise to guard. We are thus
given the story reversed, so to speak, the story about how to keep this
paradise clean, how to keep the idols and the foreigners out of it, outside the walls, outside the cult. The success of this story in the Old
Testament tradition is given preliminarily in the abrupt endings of the
Ezra and Nehemiah narratives. Here begins the period of the teachers of
whom Simeon the Just is the first in rabbinic tradition, comparable to
the righteous teacher of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Christianity's
teaching Messiah, all of whom have no other story to tell than that of
the rise and fall of the Jewish nation, the bene-Yisrael in past and present, presented in their personal singularity as well as their symbolic
national wholeness.
It is within that tradition that we must understand Jacob's pragmatic
reaction seeking a peaceful conflict solution in contrast to his sons'
militant reactions." In this Jacob tradition of the old Israel, there is
credited no promise of eternal priesthood. The Levites are those who,
dispersed among the cities of Israel, are ranked lowest. From here
sprouts reinterpretations of this tradition, which in Testament of Levi,
Jubilees and parts of the Old Testament became paradigmatic for the
zealous Israel, which in the Ezra-Nehemiah model denies 'am ha'ares
any participation in the building of the temple; and which raises a
fence, a wall around the city and the law. The historical reality that is
reflected implies a rejection of the Shechemites/Samaritans, who, as
'am ha'ares in rabbinic tradition, keep the old law written in Hebrew
characters while the true Israel100 is given the new law written in Aramaic by the hand of Ezra. This is the Judaea/Jerusalem alone policy
that, with the reform of Josiah, destroys the old cult places and does not
invite people from the outside to participate in the celebration of the
passover (2 Kgs 23.21-23).
In contrast to this tradition, the reforms of Hezekiah in Chronicles
stands as part of the old tradition. Like Jacob, Hezekiah seeks reconciliation and celebrates the passover twice. This suggests that he acknowledges the calendar disagreements with the northern tribes (those from
Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar and Zebulon, cf. 2 Chron. 30.18-20). The
aim is, as in Gen. 34.22, the unity of the people, expressed in the commentary that 'since the time of Solomon, the son of David king of Israel
99. So also Isaac in Gen. 26 and Jacob in Gen. 33.
100. b. Sank. 21b: 'He also had the Bible rewritten in "Assyrian" characters,
leaving the old Hebrew characters to the Samaritans.'
152
there had been nothing like this in Jerusalem' (2 Chron. 30.26), a commentary that is missing in the stories about the reform of Josiah, which,
in both instances (2 Kgs 23.22; 2 Chron. 35.18.), refers to the pre-monarchic period.
The Testament of Levi brings both of these traditions together. In carrying out the circumcision Jacob becomes 'concerned unto sickness'.
He certainly could not give his blessings to Simeon and Levi:
When my father heard of this he was angry and sorrowful, because they
had received circumcision and died, and so he passed us by in his blessings. Thus we sinned in doing this contrary to his opinion, and he
became sick that very day.
In contrast to this in the same text, God's blessing to Levi concerning

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

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

Levites serves quite a different purpose as the composition of Moses'
triparte ascent of the Mountain shows (Exod. 19.24, 24.1-14, 34.3). In
his first ascent Moses is accompanied by Aaron (Exod. 19.24) who
seems to stay with Moses on the mountain. The second time he is
accompanied by Aaron, Nadab, Abihu and 70 of the elders of Israel
(Exod. 24.1), and they 'saw 'elohe-yisrdel...and they ate and they
drank' (24.10-11). These companions, however, are not allowed to
come near to Yahweh. The third time nobody is allowed to join Moses
or even come near to the mountain (34.3). Here Moses' role as the righteous prophet has reached its climax. At his descent, not only the people
were 'afraid to come near to Moses because his face shone', but Aaron
participated equally in this fear (Exod. 34.30). Noticing that Yahweh's
commandment to Moses to appoint Aaron and his sons as priests (Exod.
28.1-2) takes place at the same time as Aaron is collecting gold for the
golden calf (Exod. 32.2-6), and that Aaron (together with Hur) is
appointed leader of the Israelites while Moses and Joshua are on the
mountain (Exod. 24.14), the dethroning of Aaron finds its fulfilment in
his shameful blaming of the people for having led him astray (Exod.
32.22-24). Failing to take up the responsibility that was given him, he
further accentuates the role of Moses as the only spokesman of Yahweh, who must be obeyed also by Aaron and his sons, who 'did all the
things which Yahweh commanded by Moses' (nKJQ'TS, Lev. 8.36).
The three attempts of rebellion in Lev. 10.1-5, 16-20, Num. 12.1-16 and
Num. 16.1-17.5 did not change these conditions. Neither did they
change the condition for the Levites, which in fact was the purpose of
the third rebellion. Ranking even lower than Aaron and his sons (Num.
1.48-53; 3.6-9, 32; 4.27-28, 33; 8.22; 18.1-2, 6), they were those
appointed to guard the tabernacle of the testimony to prevent anyone
uninitiated (i.e. anyone other than Aaron and his sons) from coming
near (Num. 1.47-53; 3.7-10; 18.2-7). As workers and guards of the
sanctuary (enpn mDCOQ '"OB, Num. 3.28, 32), they are set in opposition to Aaron and his sons, who are responsible for the temple service,
everything concerning the altar in the Holy of Holies and the bearers of
iniquity (Num. 18.1-3; 6-7). The stressing of this hierarchy is a consequence of the Levite rebellion's challenge in Num. 16.1-35:
the Lord', and Exod. 32.29, 'Ye have filled your hands this day to the Lord'. The
LXX in both texts reads eTiAipcoaaTe me, xeipaq vurov.
154

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

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

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

That we are dealing with purpose-fulfilling genealogies probably
becomes most clear in the way they are presented in the book of Chronicles. In 1 Chron. 27.17 (16-22) the number of the tribes of Israel is 12,
including both Aaron and Levi, but excluding Gad and Asher. They,
however, are included in the closely variant genealogical list of 1 Chron.
12.25-39, which places Aaron in the tribe of Levi (12.26-28). This is in
accord with 1 Chron. 5.27-41 (RSV 6.1-16), where Aaron is placed in an
unbroken genealogy of Levi's Amram line, as the purpose is to demonstrate the unbroken succession of high priests from the Egyptian exodus
until the Babylonian exile. In contrast to this line,103 the other Levitical
families are listed, representing those who served in the layman functions of the temple.
If these genealogiestogether with the various hierarchy conflicts in
Exodus-Numbershad as their underlying reality competing priestly
families (or perhaps a growing layman movement) who claimed a right
to share in the priestly duties, then this conflict seems to have found its
resolution in Deuteronomy's D^PI D^rDH the Levitical priests,104 who
combine synagogue and temple in their functions.105 In composition,
they are not mentioned until after the death of Aaron106 and Eleazar's
succession to the priesthood (Deut. 10.6). Their duties after settling in
the promised land are no longer connected with the tent or the desert
sanctuary. Conflating the differences between the Levites and the
priests, they share the same duties: the service before Yahweh and the
blessing in the name of Yahweh (10.8; 18.5; 21.5), court decisions in
accord with the word of Yahweh (21.5) and the reading of the Law at
103. 1 Chron. 5.49: 'but Aaron and his sons...'
104. Deut. 17.9; 18.1; 24.8; 27.9. Translation here is difficult because of the
grammar, which suggests that D^n stands as an apposition to D^HDH.
105. This is also characteristic of Ezra and Nehemiah in the appointment of
singers, gatekeepers and temple servants (Ezra 7.7; Neh. 7.1) which deprived the
Levites of their servant duties and transferred them to synagogal functions: the
teaching of the people (Neh. 8.7, 13). Neh. 9-10, where the confession of the
people is expressed by the Levites but only mentions priests and prophets (vv. 32
and 34), and where the signing of the contract mentions the Levites before the
priests (Neh. 10.1) but enumerates those in the usual way: officials, priests and
Levites (Neh. 10.2-28). This must be the rule confirming exception, as in both
books the hierachy is clear and unchallenged (cf. Ezra 6.16; 9.1; 10.5; Neh. 10.39;
12.47).
106. Who, with the exception of Deut. 9.20, 10.6 is remarkably absent in the
book.
156
the feast of the booths every seventh year (31.9-13). The blessing of
Levi in Deut. 33.8-11 refers to Aaron's doubt at Meriba and to the
zealous act of the Levites in Exod. 32.27-29. Num. 25.1-15's influence
here can be stated by implication only. However, it should not go
unnoticed that the Israelite killed by Phinehas is from the tribe of
Simeon and that this tribe is missing in the blessing of the tribes in
Deuteronomy 33. Deuteronomy's favourable attitude towards Levites is
shared also by the Chronicler, who, in the story about Hezekiah'
reform, states that the Levites were more 'upright in heart (DD^ "H2T,
2 Chron. 29.34) than the sons of Aaron, the priests (D^HDH pilN ^2,
v. 21) in sanctifying themselves'. Nevertheless, the priestly duties given
to the Levites are due to necessity (that there were not enough priests)
and they are temporarily helping their brethren, until...(cf. 2 Chron.
29.34). Maintaining a distinction, the Levites are not allowed to sprinkle
the blood, which they hand over to the priests (30.16). The skills they
showed in the service of Yahweh (30.22) do not lead to any other hierarchic system than that established by David (2 Chron. 31.2-19; cf.
1 Chron. 23.28-32) or Moses (Num. 3.5-9).
It becomes clear that Deuteronomy is exceptional in its attitude to the
Levites, who elsewhere rank lower than the Aaronides. Furthermore, in
Ezek. 44.10-31 they are decommissioned from priestly duties. As a
punishment, they are (re)instated in 'Levitical' services: overseeing the
gates of the temple; keeping charge of the temple107 and ministering
before the people. In contrast stand D^rpH D'l'pn pil^ "O?, the righteous priests of the Levitical stock: those 'who kept the charge of my
sanctuary ptinpQ n~IQ2?Q~nN 1~1Q^] when bene-Yisrdel went astray of
me' (v. 15). They are allowed to come near108 to Yahweh and minister
107. Philo's mention of the Levites gives them a similar status: 'Some of these
are stationed at the doors as gatekeepers at the very entrances some within front of
the sanctuary to prevent any unlawful person from setting foot thereon, either intentionally or unintentionally, some patrol around it by turn in relays by appointment
night and day, keeping watch and guard at both seasons. Others sweep the porticoes
and the open court, convey away the refuse and ensure cleanliness' (Spec. Leg.
1.156).
108. 13"lp\ Used also in Ezek. 40.46: pllK'^n HQH nDTQH rnOBQ notO D-3TO
THVb miT"^ "n^nD D^mpn, 'those are the sons of Zadok who alone of the sons
of Levi may come near to Yahweh and minister for him', and 42.13-14: D^ron
miT'1? D'mp ~I2?N, 'the priests who come near to Yahweh'; 43.19: D^n D^ron
^N trmpn -[UK mm an ~I2?N, 'the levitical priests who are of the seed of Zadok
can come near to me'.

to Yahweh (vv. 15-16); they shall teach the people the difference
between holy and unholy, clean and unclean (v. 23), they shall judge in
controversies (v. 24) and they shall keep Yahweh's laws, statutes,
appointed feasts and sabbaths (v. 24). Ezekiel echoes here the tone of
Numbers 18's clarification of the hierarchy as a reaction to the Levitic
rebellion in Numbers 16. Here the background is another rebellion,
namely the Levites' failure when Israel went astray and followed their
idols and (contrary to Exod. 32) the Levites served these idols (44.10,
12; 48.11).
If this accusation refers to the acts of the Levites in the time of Jeroboam, then we must state that it finds no support in Old Testament historical books.109 1 Kings 12.31; 13.33 tells that Jeroboam appointed
priests from among the people who were not the Levites. 2 Chronicles
13.9 states furthermore that Jeroboam 'had driven out the priests of
Yahweh, the sons of Aaron, and the Levites' (priK "nTIK mns ^HD'HS
D^m) and made priests for himself 'like the peoples of other lands'
(m:nsn ÛD). 110 M. Delcor111 understood this to be a reference to the
Samaritan schism since the ritual of ordination follows that of Exodus
29, which could mean that the priests mentioned were those 'Jewish'
priests who did not belong to the right lineage. In Delcor's interpretation m^-iNn s nu (2 Chron. 13.9) should not be compared with 1 Kgs
12.31 and 13.33's DVTi mupQ, who are the Canaanites mentioned similarly in 1 Chron. 5.25 and Num. 14.9. Following the reading of the LXX
Delcor interprets m^~)Nn "'QI? as being the same people as 'am ha'ares
mentioned in Ezra 4.4, which means that they are those Jews who did
not go into exile, and whose priests did not stand in the right lineage
and succession. It must be questioned if Delcor in fact muddles the
case. If 2 Chron. 13.9 refers to the Samaritan problem and succession of
priests, the Masoretic reading is to be preferred: that Jeroboam act
according to the practice of the Gentiles. The issue of the text is to
109. G.A. Cooke, The Book of Ezekiel (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1967 [1936]):
refers to Ezek. 7.19, 20.5 and 2 Kgs 23.9. W. Zimmerli, Ezechiel (BKAT; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2nd edn, 1979), in a consideration of Wellhausen's assertion that the polemic has as its purpose to get rid of unemployed
priests after the reform of Josiah in 622 BCE, does not support this assertion and
points to the argument's stereotypic character.
110. LXX (Syr.): EK TOti Xaou Tfjq yn<;.
111. M. Delcor, 'Hinweise auf das samaritanische Schisma im Alten Testament',
ZAW74 (1961), pp. 281-91.
158
question this practice112 and to declare those incorrectly appointed

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

reference to a high priest of the house of Zadok (pnirrTO). The confusion about the various genealogies, questions of their authenticity and
Zadok's relation to the established Aaronite lineage have led to several
hypotheses.113 Assumptions of a possible conflict of interests related to
two competing classes of priests, one from the line of Eleazar and the
other from the line of Itamar (cf. 1 Chron. 24.3-19), have not been
provable since we have no Itamar tradition and the references in the
biblical material are insignificant. The possibility of a priestly class,
originating from Zadok in Jerusalem and in an established genealogy
placed in the Eleazar-Aaron genealogy, can not be proven historically.
Traditionally and literarily, however, this is exactly what is claimed.
Eliminating possible competing lists, the biblical tradition asserts that
the high priest serving in the house of David is of the lineage of Aaron
and that this family can trace its pedigree in an unbroken chain of high
priests from the exodus to the exile (Yehoshua b. Yozadak), and in the
Ezra genealogy further on into the postexilic period. The importance of
this claim serves the Zadokite interests in a variety of DSS texts' legitimation of the true miT motDOTIK '"OB.
The Damascus Document
Taking up the visions of Ezekiel's new temple, the Damascus document
4.1's interpretation of Ezek. 44.15's "notD IBN -p-ra "on D^n D^ron
""ETIpQ rnQEJD'DK either includes or excludes the priests and the Levites
in the new covenant. With an insertion of the conjunction 1 CD reckons
113. See the discussion in Schiirer, History of the Jewish People (rev. edn, 1979),
II, p. 252 n. 56, and G.W. Ramsey, 'Zadok', ABD, VI, pp. 1033-36. The issues
dealt with in the discussion as presented in Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 163, are
as follows: 'The importance of the Zadokite priesthood seems very clear at Jerusalem, but it was not of levitical origin, its attachment to Aaron is historically
doubtful, and it is in no way proved that the high priests of the monarchical period
would have been of Zadokite ancestry: (J.R. Bartlett, 'Zadok and His Successors at
Jerusalem', JTS NS 19, 1968, pp. 1-18) it was therefore a matter of providing a
literary backing for the post-exilic high priests. On the other hand, if the Levites
before Deuteronomy had only been what was left of a category of "resident foreigners, they became at that time, and they alone, capable of being chosen for the exercise of priesthood at the unique sanctuary; in Deut. 17. 8f., they are called levitical
priests, and in Deut. 18.6, just Levites. Nevertheless following the reform of Josiah,
the high priests had to be Zadokites, at least gradually (Ezek. 40.45f.), and later on
this priesthood was connected to Aaron, became a Levite.' References are made to
J.R. Bartlett, 'Zadok and His Successors at Jerusalem', JTS NS 19 (1968), pp. 1-18,
and Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, pp. 92-93, 150.
160
three groups of which the sons of Zadok rank highest. Thus the 'priests
are the converts114 of Israel who left the land of Judah; and the Levites
are those who joined them. The sons of Zadok are the chosen of Israel,
those called by name who stood up at the end of days. Conflating Ezekiel with the traditions of the Levitical priests of Kings and Chronicles,
we are left to consider that the Zadokites are those chosen because they
remained steadfast. As in Ezekiel and for that sake also, Chronicles'
description of the reform of Hezekiah, the priests and the Levites did
not disappear after they had either gone astray or been captured. They
went into the new covenant, though their role had been changed. At the
head of the cult are now the righteous priests, the pT"[2 ""p whose task it
is to re-establish the priestly duties and the rank order of Leviticus and
Numbers.
The Manual of Discipline and the Community Rule
In spite of all attempts to understand the Damascus covenant, the
Manual of Discipline (1QS + parr.) and the Community Rule (IQSa) as
expressions of a Judaism that was led by a priest called Zadok and who
themselves 'sons of Zadok', as being a sectarian group opposing the
established Judaism at the temple in Jerusalem and the priesthood
there,115 this hypothesis never succeeded in documenting that this group
was in fact sectarian in regard to Old Testament Scripture. The various
references to Zadok and Aaron and their sons (i.e. the priesthood of this
tradition) deviates only from parts of the Old Testament material. The
interest in cult practice and the establishment of a holy society of priests
is a direct continuation of Old Testament prophetic literature and echoes
Ezra and Nehemiah's 'holy city'. 116 Thus the entering of the covenant
114. Charlesworth's translation (J.H. Charlesworth [ed.], The Dead Sea Scrolls):
'The priests are the penitents of Israel who depart(ed) from the land of Judah, "the
Levites" who accompany them and the "Sons of Zadok" are the chosen ones of
Israel, those called by name, who stand in the end of days.' B.Z. Wacholder, 'Historiography of Qumran: The Sons of Zadok and their Enemies', in F.H. Cryer and
Th.L. Thompson (eds.), Qumran between the Old and New Testaments (CIS, 6;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 347-77 (357), suggests that the verb
should be translated 'captives' on the basis of the 'exilic context of CD VI.5'.
115. So, already S. Schechter, Documents of Jewish Sectaries, I (2 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910), who only had the Damascus document
from the Cairo geniza at his service.
116. This view has been argued by S. Talmon, 'The Emergence of Jewish Sectarianism in the Early Second Temple Period', in P.O. Miller, P.D. Hanson and S.D.

after the recitation of Israel's sin in the Manual of Discipline (1QS) 12, clearly modelled after Nehemiah 9-10 and reckoning priests, Levites
and the people, seems with 1QS 2.18-22 to be a literary trope which
might not have any reality outside of this text. This is reflected in the
immediate mention of various groups and the lack of references to the
Levites in passages where they could be expected to occur. Thus in
1QS 5.2, 9 are mentioned sons of righteousness/Zadok, the priests as
those keeping the covenant and as the multitude of men who persevere
steadfastly in the covenant, but the Levites seem to have been forgotten.
Similarly, in 1QS 6.8's ranking of the community members, 'the priests
will sit down first, the elders next and the remainder of the people will
sit down in order of rank'. Col. 7's mention of punishment rules mentions only the punishment for having 'spoken angrily against the priests
enrolled in the book'. Col. 8.1's community counsel counts 12 men and
3 priests. According to 5.2, 9, these priests are bene sadoq who belonging to the 'holiness of Aaron' lead the whole community into this holiness (5.6, 21; 8.5-6, 8-9; 9.5-6). That we are here dealing with a
manifest prescribing the ideal society is traceable in several instances.
Thus 8.4: 'When these things exist in Israel'; namely, the formation of a
community council consisting of men who are
perfect in everything that has been revealed about all the law to implement truth, justice, judgement, compassionate love and unassuming
behaviour of each person to his fellow to preserve faithfulness on the
earth with firm purpose and repentant spirit in order to atone for sin,
doing justice, and undergoing trials in order to walk with everyone in the
measure of truth and the regulation of time.
When this has happened, then 'the Community council will be founded
on truth, like an everlasting plantation, a holy house for Israel and the
foundation of the holy of holies for Aaron'. Similar expressions are
found in 8.12ff. and 9.3-9, emphasizing, however, that only the sons of
Aaron will have legal authority. Conflating the relations between the
priests and the segregated multitude, who, together, freely volunteer for
McBride (eds.), Ancient Israelite Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987),
pp. 587-616 (606): 'In the Qumranian's vision of the "Age to come" the politicosocial and cultic institutions would be reinstated in accordance with their concepts,
customs and codified law. This vision was patterned upon the basically mis-worldly
conception of the Hebrew Bible, or at least of some major strata of that literature,
which put a premium on a good life, on family and kinship and on orderly social
structure.'
162
this truth (5.7-10; 8.10; 9.3), this distinction should not be stressed too
strongly, since it is the community as such that makes atonement for the
earth.
Community Rule (IQSa) more clearly reckons three classes: the sons
of Zadok, who serve as priests, the sons of Aaron, who are in charge of
legal and economical matters, and the sons of Levi, who serve under the
conduct of the sons of Aaronnot as guards of the temple but as
guards of the community members' 'going in and out' according to
their ranks.117 Here too the division seems more literary than real. When
in the following passage, IQSa 2.11-17, the entering of those who shall
eat and drink with the Messiah whom he shall bless, the priests, the
Aaronides and the people are numbered but the Levites are missing.
The Zadokite preference is clearly spelled out in the Rule of Blessing
(!QSb/lQ28b, 3.22):
bless] the sons of Zadok, the priest whom God has chosen to strengthen
the covenant, for [ever, to distribute all his judgements in the midst of
his people, to teach them in accordance with his commandment... For
you may he [re]new the covenant of [eternal] priesthood.
We now can conclude that in those texts of the DSS, Aaron and the
sons of Aaron are described on two levels. The one is the concrete
level, possibly referring to a group of priests who, together with the
community members are JT""Q3 D^p^nDil, those keeping the covenant
and "HTH/fT"):^ D^HTinQn, working freely for the community, together
with the sons of Zadok, who are the guards of the covenant, HQ2?
rr~Qn.118 The other level is the metaphorical level where the eschatological expectation is the community's sanctification in Aaron and the
coming of the Messiah from Aaron and Israel (1QS 9.11; CD 12.23).
The impact of this metaphor is demonstrated in rabbinic literature's
use of such concepts as 'disciple of Aaron' or 'doing the work of
Aaron' as synonomous with being the true people of God. Independently of genealogy and proselytism, this allowed laymen to become
rabbis and seekers of the hidden things.119
117. J. Liver, 'The "Sons of Zadok, the Priests" in the Dead Sea Sect', RevQ 6
(1967), pp. 3-20, reads this as if the Levites 'are to minister as "the chiefs, the
judges, and the officials" and stand under the authority of Zadoks'. The expression,
however, seems to be addressed to the community; cf. also cols. 1.27-2.1 and 2.2-3.
118. Liver, ' "Sons of Zadok" ', p. 14.
119. b. Yom. 71b; cf. M. Stern, 'Aspects of Jewish Society: The Priesthood and
Other Classes', in S. Safrai, M. Stern et al. (eds.), The Jewish People in the First

Similarly, the Levites are described in at least two strata. One stratum
that is connected with Genesis 34 and Jacob's rebuke and curse (Gen.
49), which, according to the prohibition against owing land, leads to a
dispersion of the Levites among the tribes of Israel in the cities of
refuge and the Levitical cities.120 This tradition ranks the Levites low:
among foreigners, widows and orphans, reduced to the mercy of their
neighbours121 and participating in the people's apostasy. This tradition
does not unambiguously count Aaron and his sons among the tribe of
Levi.122 The other stratum takes its departure from the blessing and
promise of eternal priesthood given to Levi in Jubilees 30 and Deuteronomy 33. This tradition clearly places Aaron in the tribe of Levi (cf.
Num. 17.18) and the genealogies supporting that. At the core of this tradition lies the deed of Aaron's grandson Phinehas in Numbers 25. His
zealous act for keeping the Israelites free from defilement turned away
the anger of Yahweh and supplied him and his sons with the eternal
priesthood. The development of this stratum finds its clarification in
Jewish literature from the second century and later.
Ben Sira
In Sir. 50.23, the praise of Simeon is closed with the following prayer:
'May His mercy be with Simeon and may He establish the covenant of
Phinehas with him, which He will not cut off from him and his seed as
long as the days of heaven.'123 This prayer, together with the doxology
Century, II (CRINT; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1976), pp. 561-630 (620). Ben Sira's
praise of the priesthood does not conflict with a praise of he who reads the Law and
seeks the hidden meaning of the text (Sir. 39.1-11). It is uncertain whether the
Hebrew version uses the term m~in03 (39.3; similar to Greek (m6pi><j)a). A variant
in Sir. 4.18 employs the form "HDOQ, participle with suffix for 1st sing.
120. Num. 18.20-24; Deut. 10.8; 14.28; Num. 35.6; Jos. 13.14, 33; 20.7.
121. Deut. 12.12, 19.
122. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, pp. 166-67, argued for a later interpolation of the
act of the Levites in Exod. 32 brought together with the mention of Aaron in 32. Ib6; 17-18 and 35b, which, if removed from the story, gives a more homogeneous
narrative similar to the Deuteronomic variant, which refers only indirectly to
Aaron's participation in the apostasy (Deut. 9.20).
123. This prayer hason the basis of the LXX and Cod. Sin.been translated as
a pious wish for God's care for his people. This reading according to Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, and Smend, Weisheit des Jesu Sirach, p. 490, was preferred in an effort to avoid anachronistic misunderstandings, which would make
Ben Sira contemporary with Simeon. The translation is based on Strack, Spruche
Jesus.
164
in ch. 51 (Hebrew version), places Simeon in the Zadokite priesthood.

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

By this he is connected to the Aaron-Eleazar-Phinehas-Zadok-genealogy of 1 Chron. 5.29-41; 24.7; 9.11 and Neh. 11.10-11. In the Old Testament Joarib usually is mentioned together with Jedaiah as those
priests who went to Babylon together with Jehoshua son of Yozadak
(Neh. 12.6, 19). In the organization of the priests in 1 Chronicles 24, the
first lot fell to Joarib, the second to Jedaiah. Regardless of these genealogies' uselessness in a historical reconstruction, they give the important information that this literary tradition places the Hasmonaean
priesthood in a 'correct' genealogy. This is given special weight in
1 Mace. 2.26's comparison of the zealousness of Mattathias with that of
Phinehas in Num. 25.7-8. In the same chapter, the Testament of Mattathias calls Phinehas 'our father', who 'received the covenant of everlasting priesthood' (1 Mace. 2.54). This covenant's transference to
Simeon is anticipated in the closure of the Testament with the appointment of Simeon as 'your father' (2.65), implicitly superior to Judas,
who is appointed leader of the fight (2.66). In the former mentioned
declaration of independence, Simeon's connection with the priestly line
of Joarib is stated (14.29). The praise of the fathers in 1 Mace. 1.51-61
also leaves out any tradition about Levi and Simeon and their 'Levitical
priesthood'. Neither do we find any references to Levites at all in 1 and
2 Maccabees, which is all the more striking as regards the frequency of
stories about temple cleansing procedure, the reinstatement of priests,
inauguration of the temple, assembly of the people, appointment of high
priest, and so on, events where one would expect to see the Levites
mentioned, especially in 1 Mace. 3.51; 4.42-43; 14.28, 41, 47; 2 Mace.
1.23, 31; 10.1-3.126 So what are these conflicts between various priests
Hasmonaean dynasty and thus an account from the Maccabaean point of view'
(p. 223).
126. Stern, 'Aspects of Jewish Society', pp. 561-630, understands this absence of
Levites in 'the basic sources of the Hellenistic and Hasmonean periods' as reflecting 'the relative decline of the Levites as a social class in the Hellenistic period in
contrast to the priests... There is not a single Levite who occupies a significant
position in the life of the period' (p. 597). The decree of Antiochus III (Josephus,
Ant. 12.138-44) contrasts this situation, as the Levites here are given privileges
alonside the members of the gerousia (council of the elders) and the priests (p. 598).
The mention of the Levites in the Antiochus III document can be argued to fall
within the same lines of immediacy as seen in some of the DSS. It is interesting,
however, to notice that Josephus, who almost entirely restricts his mention of
Levites to his presentation of biblical material, mentions the Levites in the documents of Antiochus III. This could support Nodet's thesis that the documents are
166
in 1 and 2 Maccabees about? Do they have anything to do with the

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

ary to buy the priestly office, Menelaus takes advantage of being sent
by Jason to the king with 'the money and to complete the records of
essential business' (4.23). Outbidding Jason with three hundred talents
of silver, he obtains the high priesthood 'without any qualification for
the high priesthood, but having the hot temper of a cruel tyrant and the
rage of a a savage wild beast' (4.25). Menelaus's 'rule' from 172 to 162
BCE is marked by cruelty and corruption. With the aid of his brother
Lysimachus and also his co-conspirator Andronicus (a general in the
army of Antiochus), he robs the temple of its treasures and has Onias
killed in Daphne near Antioch when he objects to the robbery.129 Summoned to the king because of these matters, he bribes Ptolemy son of
Dorymenes to persuade the king to acquit him of the charges against
him (4.45-50). Succeeding in doing so, he continues in the office. Jason,
however, who had fled to the country of the Ammonites, had not given
up hopes of regaining the priesthood. When false rumours arise that
Antiochus has died in Egypt, he hastens to Jerusalem with a small
army, makes a quick assault on the city and forces Menelaus to fly to
the citadel. When Jason, however, continues to slaughter his fellow citizens, his fortune is reversed. He is driven back and the result is a miserable ending. For the city and for the Jews, the event becomes a
catastrophe. Antiochus, who thinks that Jason is leading a general uprising, returns furiously. Aided by Menelaus, he massacres the population and defiles the temple and (not mentioned in 2 Mace.) withdraws
the city's polls privileges. In practice, this meant that the city came
under Seleucid political and religious administration. As a consequence
of this constitutional change he instates governors to afflict the people
at Jerusalem and at Gerizim. In Jerusalem the governor is a Phrygian
named Philip. At Gerizim, it is the aforementioned Andronicus.
(Schiirer, History of the Jewish People, I, pp. 147-48) increase of Antiochus's Hellenizing policy, which can not be supported in general (Grabbe, Judaism, I, pp. 24849), but coincides with Antiochus's rule only because of Jason's appointment and
his application for Jerusalem to become a Greek polis (2 Mace. 4.9), a status that
the city held until 168 BCE. Hellenization, as such, seems not to have caused any
great concern for the Jewish population, and it was not until Menelaus and his associates' plundering of the temple treasures that the people rioted (cf. Grabbe,
Judaism, pp. 280-81).
129. Who does not fly to Egypt as in Josephus's version (Ant. 12.387), building
the temple in Heliopolis. In 2 Mace. 4.33 he flies to Daphne at Antioch where he is
murdered. Jason, however, flies to the Lacedaemonians, but is shipwrecked and is
cast ashore in Egypt (2 Mace. 5.9).
168
Menelaus lorded over 'his fellow citizens worse than the others'. This
equalization of Gerizim and Jerusalem130 is given further weight when
the king sends an Athenian senator to compel the Jews to forsake the
laws of God and to pollute the temple in Jerusalem and call it the
temple of Olympian Zeus, as well as to call the one in Gerizim the
temple of Zeus, the friend of strangers, as is appropriate to the people
living there.
Contrary to Greek and Latin authors,131 the author of 2 Maccabees
had knowledge of a Jewish cult at Gerizim, and, contrary to what we
are wont to think, this author seems not to be burdened with any knowledge of cult centralization, apostate Jews or, and perhaps of greatest
importance, any Hellenization of Samaritans in contrast to Jews. Nor is
any assumed anti-Hasmonaean attitude among Samaritans inherent in
2 Maccabees. Should 1 Mace. 3.10 imply such polemic, this has not
found its way into the parallel stories of 2 Mace. 5.24. Those responsible for the opposition are the high priests Menelaus (5.23; 13.3-4) and
Alcimus (14.3-11).
This rendering is found also in 1 Maccabees, which does not mention
Gerizim and does not bring any Menelaus tradition or any stories about
struggles among the priests. The high priest Alcimus is mentioned
because he seeks to obtain the high priesthood together with lawless
and godless men from Israel (cf. 2. Mace. 13.1-8; 1 Mace. 7.5-25; 9.1,
54-57). Because he is of the line of Aaron, the Hasidim support him
though in vainas he betrayed their thrust and had 60 of them killed in
one day (1 Mace. 7.12-16). Now a pattern begins to emerge. The ungodly and lawless rulers, leading up to the rule of the Hasmonaeans, are
not Seleucids. They are faithless priests. They exploited political circumstances for personal purposes. After having killed the only pious
and legally elected priest (Onias III), no high priest lived up to the
requirements and expectations of the office. The accusations do not
involve genealogy, but conduct. They all are Aaronides rallying around
the temple in Jerusalem, but they certainly are not the 'sons of righteousness', the bene sadoq. Albeit part of the DSS belongs to a later
period, we can state that this is much to the point of their ideology. As
130. 2 Mace. 14.13: 'the main sanctuary' (TOU (leyicyiov tepo-u); perhaps we are
dealing with a ranking order.
131. See further below, 'Jews, Conflicts and Reputation'.

pointed out by J. Liver,132 it was not genealogy, 'priestly lineage, but
personal acts and outlook' that caused the sectarian wrath. Habakkuk
pesher (IQpHab 8.9-10) certainly gives wonderful illustration of this
disappointment, when it states that the wicked priest 'was called by the
name of truth at the beginning of his coming. However when he ruled
over Israel his heart became conceited, he deserted God and betrayed
the laws for the sake of riches'.133 It must not go unnoticed that the
accuser 'whom God has disclosed all the mysteries of the words of his
servants, the prophets' (IQpHab 7.4) is not a priest but a teacher who is
said to be righteous, pl^H miQ.
What is important to remember in this connection is that neither does
Josephus support any assertions of priestly conflicts in the pre-Hasmonaean and Hasmonaean period which can be related to what scholarship
has brought forward of 'source material' to prove that these led to the
formation of Jewish communities in either Qumran or Samaria.134 In
Josephus's writings, the conflicts led to the building of the temple in
Heliopolis! Ant. 20.238's vague expression, KaGiatdoiv, which in LCL
is translated 'resumed the tradition', gives no certainty about whether
he is referring to the office or to the lineage. Some hints may lay behind
his statement that the office was vacant for seven years after Jacimus/
Alcimus until the appointment of Jonathan in 152 BCE and that Herod
appoints priests who are not of 'the family of the Hasmonaens' (20.247).
132. Liver, ' "Sons of Zadok"', p. 29: 'Judean Desert writings moreover, whilst
containing severe recriminations against the priests of Jerusalem headed by the
wicked priest, contain no deprecatory statements on the issue of usurpation of high
priestly authority.'
133. See Chapter 6 for a further discussion about a possible historical background.
134. E.g. E. Qimron, '4QMMT, DID, X, pp. 120-21, who understood the utterance in IQpHab as a reaction against the usurpation of the high priesthood. Kippenberg, Garizim und Synagoge, p. 92: 'Die samaritanische Sekte scheint im wesentlichen im 2Jh.v.Chr. konstituert zu haben. Getragen wurde sie von israelitischen
Priestern, die sich als Eleasar-Sohne verstanden und Zadokiten, Eliden und Leviten
die Hohepriesterwiirde absprachen. Wahrend des 3Jh.v.Chr.scheint die Rivalitat
zweier Priesterschaften in Sichem und in Jerusalem noch nicht als endgiiltige
antitese verstanden worden zu sein. Erst im 2Jh.v.Chr., als die Jerusalemer Hohenpriestersukzession zerbrach, entstand Streit iiber den legitimen Kult. Jetzt beim Zerbrechen des einst einigen Israels, fu'hlen sich die Samar. veranlasst, ihre Hohepriestesukzession darzulegen und ihre heilige Schrift zu kanonisieren.'
170
This may put them in conflict with the 'blood of Aaron' prereqisite for
the priesthood in Ant. 20.226. Contrary to this, Josephus (in Ant 12.414)
relates that Judas was given the high priesthood by the people after
Alcimus's death who had had the office for four years (around 166-160
BCE).135 Antiquities 12.387 states that Alcimus is not of the high priestly
lineage, but was instated in the office by Lysias, who aimed at transferring the office to another house (eic; eiepov OIKOV), and that Onias
(IV), who should have inherited the office, fled to Egypt and built the
temple in Heliopolis (12.388). These circumstances are denied in Ant.
20.235, where Alcimus is said to be of Aaron's line but not of the
family of Onias, son of Onias, who is here said to be a nephew of
Onias/Menelaus, put to death at Beroea (cf. Ant. 12.385; 2 Mace. 13.5).
Indirectly, Josephus gives us reason to believe that there was no high
priest before Jonathan, and that the legitimate high priest had escaped to
Egypt without leaving any successor in Jerusalem. Josephus's summary
of the events leading up to the Hasmonaean uprising in War 1.31-32
could support such a hypothesis. The political disagreements in regard
to pro-Ptolemaic and pro-Seleucid elements are related to the inner
circles in Jerusalem, personified by Onias, 'one of the high priests',
who had expelled the Tobiads from the temple. These, however, fled to
Antiochus and requested him to invade Judaea. With a huge army, he
took the city by assault, killed a large number of Ptolemy's followers,
pillaged the city and the temple and interrupted the daily sacrifices for
three years and six months. Onias, fleeing to Ptolemy in Egypt, obtained a site in the nome of Heliopolis to build a temple resembling
Jerusalem's. This certainly raises some questions about the 'true'
temple and the succession of priests that Josephus ascribed to the
Judaean-Samaritan conflict. They might more correctly be attributed to
a Judaean-Egyptian conflict. Or is Heliopolis in fact Samaria? or vice
versa? I will deal with this question in the next chapter.
135. This tradition must be based on 2 Mace. 14.26, which relates that Alcimus
conspired against Nicanor, who had the goodwill of Judas Maccabeus, whom he
had appointed as the successor of Alcimus. This tradition is not related in 1 Mace.
9.54-57, which places the death of Judas before Alcimus's decease (cf. 1 Mace.
9.17) and does not mention any high priest before the appointment of Jonathan in
153-152 BCE (cf. 1 Mace. 10.21).
Jews, Conflicts and Reputation

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

and although he mentions the battle of Megiddo he does not use the term loudaioi.
See, M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (3 vols.; Jerusalem:
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974-84), for more details of this discussion and of Theophrastus's eventual 'sources'. The usual translation 'Jews'
might not be quite fit in all instances because of its religious connotation, which
does not regard its ethnic or geographic nuances.
172
Yahweh and El as theophoric elements in personal names are by far the

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

before, and the meal offering and incense to be made on its altar as it
used to be'.
A fragment of the request for assistance in the rebuilding of the
temple (pap. 33) is usually considered to give evidence for the cult centralization and its placement in Jerusalem, because the request points
out that 'n[o] sheep, goat or ox are offered there as burnt offering, but
(only) incense, meal offering and [drink-offering]'.139
H.L. Ginsberg,140 in a clarifying note to this statement, argues that
'the Mazdean Arsames was likely to react more favourably if no mention was made of burnt offering, since it involved the profaning of fire
by contact with dead bodies'. This, however, seems to be contradictory
to the letter of complaint (pap. 31), which states that
in the month of Tammuz in the 14th year of King Darius (410 BCE),
when Arsames departed and went to the king, the priests of the god
Khnub, who is in the fortress of Elephantine, conspired with Vidarang,
who was commander in chief here, to wipe out the temple of the god
Yahu from the fortress of Elephantine.
139. Kippenberg, Garizim und Synagoge, p. 43, sees the correspondence as

reflecting strives in the temple in Jerusalem, represented by Bagoas and his brother
Yochanan (cf. Ant. 11.298-99): 'Bagoses habe ein Bruder des Johannes (Johanan),
Jesus mit Nahmen, versprochen, ihm das Hohepriesteramt zu verschaffen. Doch bei
einem Streit habe Johanan sein Bruder erschlagen (K. Galling, Bagoas 164f. Eine
Genaue Analyse des Textes bei R. Marcus, Josephus VI. App. B: Josephus on the
Samaritan Schism 498ff.). Dieser Johanan war zugleich der Bruder des von Nehemia vertriebene Schweigersohns von Sanballat. Die Notiz des Josephus macht also
offenbar, dass es am Ende des 5Jh. im Jerusalemer Tempel weiter rivalisierende
Priestergruppen gab. Wahrend die eine Gruppe schroof an der Einzigkeit des Jerusalemer Tempels festhielt und jede Koexistens mit Nicht-Juden ablehnte, scheint
eine andere Gruppe auf ein Zusammenleben mit anderen Kulten und Nichtjudischen
Politikern hingearbeitet zu haben.' This seems to be an over-interpretation of the
material. The papyri reflect the religious situation in Palestine only indirectly. The
Jews in Elephantine are not seeking permission, but support of their rebuilding of
the temple. The letter presented is not sent to the priesthood in either Jerusalem or
Gerizim but to Persian officials in Judaea (Bagoas) and in Samaria (Delaiah and
Shelemiah). The letter sent to the priesthood is lost. We do not know its content or
the reason it has not been answered. However, it is not the priests who advise about
the burnt offerings, and we certainly are far better off in following Cowley's conclusion, cf. Aram. Pap., p. 124: 'Animal sacrifice was not to be offered, whether out
of consideration for Persian or Egyptian feeling.' Finally we need to be aware of the
material's fragmentary character and give credit for the insecurity of the reading.
140. ANET, p. 492.
174
This Arsames, who was an Egyptian satrap, seems to have been responsible for the Jewish garrison there, since in 419, according to pap. 21,
King Darius gives him commission to 'authorize a festival of unleavened bread for the Jewish garrison'. 141 It thus seems unlikely that
Arsames would be a person who would not accept holocausts. Since we
have no answer from the Jewish clergy, about whom we only know that
they did not answer a former letter, it can only be conjectured that the
reason should be related to cult centralization and prohibition of offerings outside of Jerusalem. The possibility that the Jewish and Samaritan
governors are expressing their own dislikes is incompatible with the
Persian policy of religious tolerance, which also seems to have been
authoritative for the Jewish garrison in Elephantine. According to
pap. 88, the Egyptians themselves offered burnt offerings, as Strabo's
account about Heliopolis also clearly shows. It could hardly be the
offerings as such that creates the problem. If we, however, turn to Hellenistic literature from about 300 BCE and later, we might catch some
glimpses of why offerings have anything to do with the rebuilding of
the temple as well as of why it was destroyed in the first place.
Hecataeus of Abdera (around 300 BCE), whose works are known
from Diodorus Sicculus (around 100 BCE) and from Josephus, who
dates Hecataeus to be later than the war between Ptolemy and Demetrius near Gaza in the 117th Olympiad (312 BCE, see Apion 184), is
describing a Judaism that in several instances is similar to what we find
in the Old Testament, although Moses is identified as the one who built
both Jerusalem and the temple.142 According to Hecataeus, the Jews
141. The text is fairly corrupt and the reading is construed on the basis of its
content as such and the finding of two ostraca containing the word FIOD.
142. Scholars usually agree on the genuineness of the texts found in Diodorus
Sicculus, Biblioteca Historica, from where this description of 'the Jews' is taken.
On the contrary, the citations of Hecataeus in Josephus, Apion 1.183-204, is
accepted with great reservation (see M. Stern, The Jews in Greek and Latin Literature', in S. Safrai, M. Stern et al. [eds.], The Jewish People in the First Century, II
[CRINT; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1976], pp. 1101-59). The argumentation is based on
the observance of a more neutral description in Diodorus against Josephus's
ideological description, which on one hand agrees pretty well with the respect for
Judaism presented in works contemporary with Hecataeus (e.g. Theophrastus,
Clearchus and Megastenes), so that 'scholars who argue against the authencity of
sections of Hecataeus in the Against Apion admit that these sections are very sober
compared to the usual Pseudepigraphic works of the day', but on the other hand

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

heathen altars in Judaea.
143. H. Niehr, Der hochste Gott: Alttestamentliche JHWH-Glaube in Kontext
syrisch-kanaanaischer Religion des l.Jahrtausend v.Chr. (BZAW, 190; Berlin: W.
de Gruyter, 1990), pp. 43-60, about the relationship between Baalshamem and
Elohe hashamayim. The discussion has no importance for this exegesis, which aims
to analyse texts that employ the term and relate to Persian authority.
176
Egypt also.144 No wonder the Egyptians took advantage of the absence

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

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

the temple in Ezra 6.16-22, which uses the same terminology as in the
chapters dealing with the delay of the building activities: bet hd'elohim, >elohe-yisrd'el, might be understood as a substitution of >elohe
ha-sdmayim for 'elohe-yisrd'el (Ezra 6.22). Another possibility is to
see Ezra 6.22 as a contrast to 1.2 and a demonstration of the success of
the rebellious people in Ezra 4.13, who ended up building a house to
the god of Israel.147 Both possibilities are implied in the reforms of
147. Th.M. Bolin, 'The Temple of Yahu at Elephantine and Persian Religious
Policy', in D.V. Edelman (ed.), The Triumph of Elohim (Kampen: Kok, 1995),
pp. 127-44 (128), argued that the Jews in Elephantine used a fitting term when they
addressed matters to Persian authorities and that the equalization between Yahu/
Yahweh and the supreme Persian god Ahura Mazda was the same as Elah
Shamayah in official documents, and had nothing to do with theological considerations 'but like Persian policy itself, is to be attributed to matters of political expediency'. The argument conflicts with various conditions; (1) Ezra's and Nehemiah's
connection with Elohe ha-Shamayim and their incorporation in the biblical material; (2) Ezra's connection with Torat Moshe in both biblical and rabbinical literature, whose god explicitly is Yahweh and who holds Elohe ha-Shamayim implicit
178
Ezra. In the first case the new community would demand an education
in the law of 'eld $emdyd in which the priest and the scribe Ezra is
trained according to the Persian decree (Ezra 7.12-26, esp. vv. 12, 21)
and that seems to be totally unknown to the people, although it is
named the Law of Moses (n2JQ min) and is given by Yhwh- 'eloheyisrd'el in the introduction to this decree (Ezra 7.6). In the second case,
the religious practice had to be corrected involving considerable reprisals for those who did not obey (Ezra 10.8).148
Also the god of Nehemiah is >elohe ha-Sdmayim, to whom he prays
three times (Neh. 1.4, 5; 2.4), and to whom he refers in his answer to
Sanballat, Tobiah and Geshem's questions of whether he had been
rebelling against the king (Neh. 2.20). And he replied to them, 'Elohe
ha-Shamayim will make us prosper, and we his servants will arise and
build; but you have no portion or right or memorial in Jerusalem'.
Notice here the echo of Ezra 4.3.
These references to 'elohe ha-Mmayim must be read on the background of the few occurrences of the term in the Old Testament and the
Apocrypha: Gen. 24.3, 7; Jon. 1.9, where he confesses that he is a
Hebrew, fearing >elohe ha-Mmayim who created the sea and the dry
land'; 2 Chron. 36.23; Ps. 136.26: 'el ha-Sdmayim; Greek equivalent in
Jdt. 5.8; 6.19; 11.7; Tob. 6.18; 7.13; 8.15; 10.11.149
The occurrence of Hecataeus's mention of the strange Jewish people
in Diodorus Sicculus might not be a matter of simple coincidence.150 In
in, e.g., Gen. 1.1; (3) Hecataeus of Abdera's utterance 'rather the Heaven that surrounds the earth is alone divine, and rules the universe'. It thus seems more reasonable to assume that the Yahweh worship became a part of Persian religion in a
transformation of Yahweh to the inclusive monotheism of Persian religion, which is
here given local expression. Elephantine could testify to such a process of development. Cf. also Th.L. Thompson, The Intellectual Matrix of Early Biblical Narrative: Inclusive Monotheism in Persian Period Palestine', in D.V. Edelman (ed.),
The Triumph ofElohim (Kampen: Kok, 1995), pp. 107-26.
148. Ahlstrom, Ancient Palestine, pp. 857, 886-88.
149. H. Niehr, 'God of Heaven', in Van der Toorn et al. (eds.), Deities and
Demons, pp. 702-705; Niehr, Derhochste Gott, pp. 49-51.
150. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, I, p. 20: 'It is noteworthy that there is a
conspicious difference between the "Jewish chapter" in the fortieth book of Diodorus, where the Jews appear as foreigners expelled from Egypt, and the first book
of Diodorus, where a voluntary emigration of Jews, who were originally Egyptians,
is implied. Cf. also F. Gr. His. Ilia, p. 50.'

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

how his predecessor Antiochus Epiphanes, in the innermost sanctuary
of the temple, had found Moses riding on an ass,153 with that book in
his hands that contained the xenophobic laws, and how Antiochus Epiphanes 'shocked by such hatred directed against all mankind, had set
himself to break down their traditional practices'. Offering swine on the
altar in front of the 'image of the founder,' he ordered 'that their holy
books containing the xenophobic laws should be sprinkled with the
broth of the meat'. Antiochus Sidetes, however, probably found it more
profitable to exact a double tribute, dismantle the walls and take hostages instead of following his friends' pressure 'to make an end of the
race completely'. This act, which, in Diodorus Sicculus characterized
him as 'magnanimous and mild-mannered', in Josephus supplied him
with the surname 'the Just' (Ant. 13.244).
As mentioned above, Jews seem be centred in later texts around Jerusalem. Agatharcides of Cnidus (around 200 BCE)154 tells that
151. Bibliotheca Historica, 34-35. 1.1-5; (cf. also Josephus, Ant. 13.8.2; 1 Mace.
15-16).
152. Diodorus is here influenced by the anti-Jewish literature emanating from
Manetho's history work and traceable in Egytian and Greek literature from the third
century BCE (cf. Stern, 'Jews in Greek and Latin Literature', pp. 1111-16).
153. Apion 2.112-14.
154. Apion 1.205-11 with a shorter version in Ant. 12.5-7.
180

the people known as Jews, who inhabit the most strongly fortified of
cities, called by the natives Jerusalem, have a custom of abstaining from
work every seventh day; on those occasions they neither bear arms nor
take any agricultural operations in hand, nor engage in any other form of
public service, but pray with outstretched hands in the temples [ev Tolq
iepoic;] until the evening.
This led to Ptolemy son of Lagus's155 attack on the city on a sabbath

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

reckon the inhabitants of Samaria, Galilee, Jericho or Philadelphia to
belong to the Jewish stock. They consisted of mixed stocks of people
from 'Aegyptian, Arabian and Phoenician tribes'. In contrast, the Judaeans living around the temple in Jerusalem, are said in most reports to
be descendants of Egyptians led by Moses. In Josephus's 'citation' of
Strabo in his account dealing with John Hyrcanus's campaign against
Samaria, Strabo does not mention Jews in Samaria or the existence of a
certain Judaism or any temple destruction. Neither does Strabo in his
Geographica refer to Samaritans. The whole of the interior is called
Judaea or Coele Syria and the population is Coele Syrians, Syrians and
Phoenicians mixed with Judaeans, Gazaeans and Ashdodites.158
As can be seen from this brief survey, Judaism, in the eyes of its nonPalestinian neighbours, seems not to have been a widespread religious
movement comprising the whole of Palestine, or to have had a continuous history as often is presumed to be presented in the Old Testament,
before Josephus wrote his Antiquities and, in Against Apion, made corrections to the various erroneous perceptions about Jews and Judaism.
If references should be made to a more widespread Judaism, those are
related to religious practices that the Jews shared with the Syrians,
probably in the fifth-fourth century BCE (Theophrastus) or to diaspora
Judaism in the second-first century BCE to the first century CE, centred
around Alexandria, Heliopolis, (Damascus) and Cyprus. While the
early Greek authors show a good deal of respect (although mixed with
astonishment) for 'Jewish' customs, the accusations of superstition, assworshipping, idleness because of the sabbath rules, and so on, increase
remarkably from the second century BCE. It is notable that, while Hecataeus has knowledge of some of the Pentateuch traditions, it is not until
the second century BCE that references are given to a monarchical
period, and then primarily concerning Solomon, king of Jerusalem, for
158. Geog. 16.2.2. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, I, p. 287 n.: 'this view on
ethnoi reflects a situation that existed before the twenties of the second century BCE,
since afterwards the Idumeans merged into the Jewish nation. As to Azotus
(Ashdod), it constituted an important administrative centre in the Assyrian, Persian
and Hellenistic periods. It was also one of the bases for military operations against
Judaea in the time of the Hasmonaean revolt. It cannot be stated positively when it
was annexed by the Hasmonaeans to Judaea, but it seems that it happened under
John Hyrcanus. Gaza was captured by Alexander Jannaeus around 96 BCE.'
182
example, in Menander of Ephesos, Dius, Theophilus159 and Laetus.160

Nicolaus of Damascus is the first non-Jewish writer who refers to
David.161 This of course is an argument ex silentio since we only have
what has come down to us and the material seems to suffer some interdependency. Lack of references to factional conflicts within Judaism,
the building of a Samaritan temple and later destruction of the very
same might be due to lack of literary sources about such events. This
'lack', however, is demonstrably confirmed in the writings of Josephus,
which not only correct non-Jewish but certainly also Jewish misconceptions. The problems of finding evidence in support of Josephus's
corrections and efforts of placing Samaritans in a heretical context has
become crucial for the establishment of a history of the Samaritans.
That Josephus gives voice to an anti-Samaritanism of his own day can
be forcefully stated. The ambiguity, however, of second century's
placement of Samaritans within Judaism (Letter of Aristeas; 2 Maccabees) and outside of Judaism (the Old Testament evidence; Ben Sira;
DSS) cannot be solved on the basis of non-Jewish sources in reference
to a Jerusalem-centred Judaism. The most that can be said is that this
'Nehemiah' Judaism seems to have flourished in the third-second
century BCE and that other Judaisms had to submit to it. By and large
this is exactly what all our sources tell us, including Josephus's various
stories about Samaritans, which we now will proceed to examine.
159. Who all speak about Solomon's relationship to King Hinum of Tyre.
160. Who is the first to mention the building of a temple by Solomon.
161. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, I, p. 236.
Chapter 5
SAMARITANS IN THE WRITINGS OF JOSEPHUS
General Introduction to Josephus's Works
Flavius Josephus, or Joseph ben Matthias, his name before he was
adopted into court of the Roman emperor Vespasian after the first Jewish-Roman war (66-73/74 CE), was born in 37/38 CE. He was the son
of one of the old priestly families of Jerusalem and probably a descendant of the Hasmonaeans from his mother's lineage. According to Josephus's own self-description in Life of Josephus, he had made remarkable progress early in his life in the knowledge of Jewish law and Greek
literature. Presenting himself as having consulted the major schools of
Jewish thought (Pharisees, Essenes and Sadducees), and spending three
years with the desert hermit Banus (Life 11), he decided to follow the
Pharisees 'a sect having points of resemblance to that which the Greek
call the Stoic school' (Life 12). In 63-64 CE, at the age of 26, he went
on an embassy to Rome. From that time, he seems to have had close
connections to leading circles of Rome. Back in Palestine he claims he
was forced by his own countrymen to take charge of Jewish troops in
southern Galilee who surrendered to the Romans in 67 CE after the conquest of Jotapata. Josephus was taken prisoner by Vespasian, whom he
accompanied shortly afterwards in 69-70 CE on a trip to Alexandria.
Although Josephus does not mention it, it is quite possible that he
acquired some knowledge of Philo's writings in Alexandria, judging
from his treatment of the temple (Ant. 3.181-82) and the Law (Apion
2.190-219).J After the fall of Jerusalem, Josephus settled in Rome,
1. E.M. Smallwood ('Philo and Josephus as Historians of the Same Events', in
L.H. Feldman and G. Hata [eds.], Josephus, Judaism and Christianity [Detroit:
Wayne State University Press, 1987], pp. 114-28 [128]), sought to judge the reliability of both authors by comparison of common material. The examination does
not explain the question of dependency. Josephus's assumed dependence on Philo,
argued by Thackeray (LCL, 242 [1930], p. xiii) has been rejected by H.W. Attridge
184
where he obtained Roman citizenship. He was supported by Flavius,

who provided him with a pension. His income was secured through
land in the coastal plain of Judaea, given to him by Titus and Vespasian. He was thus free to maintain his literary skills of which Jewish War
(75-79 CE), Antiquities of the Jews (93-94 CE) and Against Apion
(around 100 CE) are the most substantial products. Life, written somewhat after Antiquities, deals mainly with Josephus's behaviour in the
Galilaean uprising, supplemented with biographical notes before and
after. Josephus died around 100 CE.
H.W. Attridge2 has given an excellent discussion of the disagreements between Josephus's accounts in Life3 and War,4 relating Josephus's role as a military leader in the Jewish-Roman war in Galilee.
Being interested in defending himself against accusations from the contemporary historiographer Justus of Tiberias of having acted in a tyrannical and dishonourable manner in the Galilee, he attempts to portray
himself as a trustworthy leader of the Jewish people, free of any intention to betray the Galilaeans to the Romans. The 15-20-year time span
between these works fully confirms the basic methodological rule of
every historiographer: namely, that we know the present, but the past
changes every day. This problem also shows itself, when we compare
some of Josephus's stories in War with variants from his much later
work, Antiquities, from the early nineties which in 20 books describes
the Jewish 'history' from creation to the year 66 CE. Josephus's
intention to write another history about the war after finishing Antiquities might have just such apologetic motivation.5
'Josephus and his Works', in M. Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings of the Second Temple
Period (CRINT, 1; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984), pp. 185-232 (211).
2. Attridge, 'Josephus and his Works', pp. 187-92.
3. Composed as an appendix to Antiquities and probably written shortly after
94 CE as a defence against the critique of Josephus's actions in the Galilee during
the Jewish war presented in Justus of Tiberias's work. This work is mostly known
through Life.
4. Probably written in Rome between 75 and 79 CE and with a possible Aramaic edition in 70-71 CE, cf. War 1.3, 6. See the discussion in P. Bilde, Flavius
Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome (JSOTSup, 2; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988),
p. 79, who refers to Attridge, Feldman, Hata and Rajak.
5. Readers who have some interest in a different view of the issue and of Josephus's assumed apology in Life may consult Bilde, Flavius Josephus, pp. 43-52,
108-12.
5. Samaritans in the Writings ofJosephus
185
Jewish War
This work begins with Antiochus IVth's siege of Jerusalem in 170-169
BCE. After a short description of events in the Hasmonaean period, it
concentrates on the Herodian period and the Roman occupation up to
the end of the first Jewish-Roman war in 74 CE. The book was given a
certain importance in early Christian circles, because of its handling of
the destruction of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem (Books 5 and 6).
Favourable to the Roman leaders, especially the emperor's court, Josephus placed blame for the war entirely on the Jewish rebels, the Zealots
and the Sicarii, led by John of Gischala (a rival of Josephus in the
Galilee) and Simon bar Giora. Conflicting with the Jewish aristocracy
as well as with each other, they both caused a severe famine and set the
temple on fire after having plundered it, leaving the Roman soldiers to
finish its destruction and that of the city in order to end the Jewish
rebellion.6 It is no wonder that Josephus sought affirmation of his works
from the highest authorities on both sides: King Agrippa II and the
Emperor Titus,7 stressing that Titus was so anxious that 'my volumes
should be the sole authority from which the world should learn the
facts, that he affixed his own signature to them and gave orders for their
publication' (Life 363ff.-Apion l.SOff.).
Although Josephus put the blame on the Jewish leaders, he also gave
some afterthought to fate's disfavour, and to divine control, which, in
their own chronology, make things happen according to their destiny, as
it happened when the first temple had been destroyed (cf. War 6.43542; 6.268; 6.288-315). This theme is well known from, for example,
2 Mace. 5.11-20 and the New Testament. In this perspective, Josephus's
work also becomes a personal reflection, and the objective history
6. Bilde, Flavins Josephus, pp. 196-203. Attridge, 'Josephus and his Works',
p. 232 n. 76: 'Note the citations of Josephus in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History
1:1-3:10, where the Jewish historian serves as Eusebius' main source for his tendentious anti-Jewish account of the political history of the first century. Eusebius
relies heavily on the lurid accounts of Jewish suffering from the Jewish War in his
discussion of the fall of Jerusalem (Hist. Eccl. 3.5, 7.3-8.9) in order to illustrate
"how the punishment of God followed close after them (scil. the Jews) for their
crime against the Christ of God" (Hist. Eccl. 3.5, 7; cf. 3.7, 1-9).' For references to
rabbinic self-criticism, see Attridge, 'Josephus and his Works', p. 197 n. 23.
7. See, the introduction to War, LCL, pp. xix-xxii, for Josephus's dependency
on sources.
186
writing that Josephus claimed to strive for (cf. War 1.9-12; 5.20) did
not avoid tragedy's dramatic form or homily's theological reflection.8
Antiquities of the Jews
Since most of the material about Samaritans and their position in Judaism is to be found in this work, I give a more detailed introduction to its
content, purpose, sources and transmission. The entire work consists of
20 books covering the period from creation to the beginning of the first
Jewish-Roman war in 66 CE. It was originally planned together with
War, but was delayed for more than 10 years and finished in the thirteenth year of the reign of the emperor Domitian when Josephus was
56, that is, 93-94 CE (Ant. 20.267). The book's rather abrupt ending in
66 CE might be explained by Josephus's plans to 'once more compose a
running account of the war up to the present day' (Ant. 20.258-59).
Although the book is held in esteem by many theologians and seen as
evidence for the reliability of biblical and pseudepigraphical literature's
historiographies, it becomes clear that Josephus, in most parts of his
work, did not have other sources than those which need verification.
The use of Josephus as an authoritative voice does not meet the critique
of circular argumentation.9 This problem is especially clear in Books
10-14, covering the period from the Assyrian conquest of Samaria until
Herod the Great. The 'accounts' are based on the Prophets of the Old
Testament (Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Daniel), 1 Esdras (Ant. 11.1-158),
biblical Ezra (11.159-83, 197-303), the book of Esther with its apocryphal Greek additions (11.184-296), an unknown Alexander source
(11.297-47); the Letter of Aristeas (12.11-118), 1 Mace. 1.1-9.22
(12.337-434; 13.1-61, 80-170, 174-214), an unknown Tobiad source
(12.154-236), possibly an unknown John Hyrcanus source (cf. 1 Mace.
16.24)10 and a few fragments of other history works: Herodotus, Berossos, Agatharcides, Strabo, Polybius and especially Nicolaus of Damascus, whom Josephus both used and wrote against,11 together with reuse
of material from Jewish War.
8. See, further, Bilde, Flavius Josephus, pp. 73-75.

9. Bilde, Flavius Josephus, pp. 123-71, for a survey of 'main trends in modern
Josephus research' giving evaluation of the various positions.
10. See OTP, p. xxi. Josephus does not mention this source and W. Whiston's
note to Ant. 13.229 must have another foundation
11. Cf. Attridge, 'Josephus and his Works', p. 193.
187
In this respect, it is remarkable that while the pre-exilic history consists of Books 1-10, the postexilic Persian and Hellenistic histories,
until the Roman occupation in 63 BCE and the beginning of the reign of
Herod the Great, consist only of Books 11-13, leaving six books for the
Roman period until 66 CE. This composition implicitly reveals the difficulty of today's historians. Neither we nor Josephus have sufficient
sources for the period from the Babylonian conquest until the Maccabaean revolt. Moreover, neither Josephus nor we have sufficient sources
for Josephus's pre-exilic history, and only in glimpses do we get admission to a historical reality behind Josephus's paraphrase of biblical history. As in biblical tradition the Israelites come back from exile as
Jews; so also in Josephus!
These crucial problems have certainly bothered many scholars,
though most of them have not escaped using Josephus as a source. L.L.
Grabbe probably comes close to expressing the standard pragmatic attitude towards the use ofJosephus when he declares:
If it were not for his writings (sell. Josefus), our knowledge of Jewish
historyespecially in the Greek and Roman periodswould be drastically reduced. So much we know of persons and events central to Jewish
history comes from Josephus and is available from no other source. Even
when other sources refer to the person or event in question, it is still
usually Josephus who tells us the most. This makes his writings invaluable for much of the history of the Jews over the half millennium from
about 400 BCE to almost 100 CE. Nevertheless, Josephus is not necessarily a simple source to use. One of the most fundamental mistakes made
by students of this period is to take Josephus's account at face value and
repeat it in light paraphrase. To do so ignores the gaps, the biases, the
poor quality of some of his authorities, and the fact that his accounts frequently cannot be checked. One of the main reasons Josephus is so valuable is that his works are extant.12
When Grabbe speaks of the 'value' of the text, I would prefer to speak
of the 'popularity' of his text. It becomes painfully clear that Josephus
provides his readers with a historical continuity and clearness and uses
the Persian and Hellenistic periods to present unsubstantiated material.
That this material gives us valuable information about persons and
events 'central to the Jewish history' needs verification, since it is Josephus's clarity and coherence that makes us believe that they are
'central'. We must ask, for example: Is Josephus's Alexander story, so
12. Grabbe, Judaism, I, p. 4.
188
widely accepted as legendary, central to Jewish history? Is the long

story about the Jewish tax collector Joseph son of Tobias central to
Jewish history? Are the decrees of Antioch III, of which Josephus gives
three variations, but none fitting what is found on the stelae he raised,13
central to Jewish history? Are the stories about Esther, Daniel and others living at the Persian court central to Jewish history? I certainly
believe that all these stories are central to Jewish self-understanding,
even in Josephus's time, but not to history.
Grabbe seems to have been aware of this critique inherent to his
introduction to Josephus, since he, almost contradicting himself five
pages later, states:
Once he had finished with the biblical material, Josephus seems to have
been at a loss for good sources for a lengthy period of time. The Old
Testament literature extends as far as the Persian period, and Josephus
filled out his account of the Persian period with the Greek books of
1 Esdras and Esther. Concerning the next two centuries and more, he
seems to have had very little information, filling up the space with a few
bits and pieces of valuable material but largely with dubious, legendary
works. Only when he reached the second century and was able to draw
on 1 Maccabees does he seem to have had a reliable, connected source
again. This means that most of his account of the Persian period, the conquest of Alexander, and the Ptolemaic rule of Palestine is of little
value.14
Grabbe does not take this judgment as a principle for all of Josephus's
writings, but, placing himself between Moehring's overall scepticism
and Rajak's overall acceptance, takes the position of Cohen, arguing for
a differentiated judgment and examination of each section of Josephus's
history on its merits.15
13. Y.H. Landau, 'A Greek Inscription Found Near Hefzibah', IEJ 16 (1966),
pp. 54-70.
14. Grabbe, Judaism, I, p. 9.
15. Grabbe, Judaism, I, pp. 10-11. H.R. Moehring, 'Review of Josephus in
Galilee and Rome. His Vita and Development as a Historian (Leiden: E.J. Brill,
1969) by S.J.D. Cohen', JJS 31 (1980), pp. 240-42, who rejects Cohen's view that
it is possible to separate facts from fiction in Josephus and reconstruct the history.
The same has been argued by Bilde, Flavius Josephus, pp. 98-99: 'Once Josephus's
literary leanings and professional tendencies have been defined, it is not difficult to
separate his editing, and so to speak, extricate the main source from these layers of
"wrappings"', and T. Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and his Society (London:
Gerald Duckworth, 1983): 'While there are some features which are improbable,
5. Samaritans in the Writings of Josephus
189
Books 1-10 follow and interpret Old Testament Scriptures, dedicating Books 1-4 to Pentateuchal material and a paraphrase of the Law in
Book 3 (and 4), interestingly not avoiding the Deuteronomistic repetition (Ant. 4.196-301). Books 6-10, mainly based on the biblical historical books, fragmentary use of prophetic material, pseudepigraphical
books and citations of Jewish and Greek historians, probably known
through Alexander Polyhistor (Ant. 1.240) and Nicolaus of Damascus
(Ant. 1.94, 108, 159) paraphrase the remainder of biblical chronology
until the fall of Jerusalem in 587. Josephus did not simply translate or
present the biblical texts in their Greek form(s).16 He made an interpretation, following the 'rules' for the writing of the LXX. Not limiting
himself to the later canonical Scriptures, he made use of the 'historiography and political constitutions translated from the Hebrew records'
(Ant. 1.5) as well as 'our Scripture records', which he promised to 'set
forth, each in its place' without 'adding or omitting anything' (Ant.
1.17). This concept of 'translation' has close parallels in Ben Sira, 2
Maccabees, New Testament and Greek and Aramaic 'translations' of
Hebrew Scriptures. It was only the challenge of Christanity's polemical
use of the LXX that seriously questioned this greatly flexible concept
and required a 'faithful translation', such as Aquila's literal translation
of Hebrew biblical texts.17 Thus one might not, using our standards of
source criticism, really speak of Josephus garbling his sources, which
there are none which are impossible and, as long as what Josephus tells us is possible, we have no right to correct it.'
16. Attridge, 'Josephus and his Works', p. 211, argues for a use of Greek texts
only and ascribes Semitisms in Josephus's writings to derive from his native language. Thackeray (LCL, 242 [1930], p. xii) suggested a Semitic source for the Pentateuch, Joshua and Judges and a Greek source for historical books from 1 Sam. to
1 Mace.
17. Bilde, Flavins Josephus, p. 96, which made this the sixth suggestion for
incompatibilities between Josephus's text and the biblical texts. Others have suggested that (1) Josephus 'was lying' in Ant. 1.5-17 (Guttmann; Hoffmann; Peter);
(2) Josephus employed a well-known literary topos regardless of its content (Attridge; S.J.D. Cohen); (3) Josephus used this topos to emphasize his objectivity and
impartiability (van Unnik); (4) Josephus did not distinguish between the oral and
written Torah or 'Scripture' (Feldman, Goldenberg, Vermes); (5) Josephus adopted
an oriental historiographical tradition, where ancient sacral texts laid the foundation
for the history writing similar to Berossus, Manetho (Rajak); cf. Bilde, Flavius
Josephus, pp. 95-96.
190
even for the biblical texts, might well have been quite different from
our MT, SP and LXX, if we are to judge from the diversity of DSS
manuscripts, the writings of Eupolemus, and perhaps most illustratively
Jubilees' variant reading of the Pentateuch. Josephus's writings might
well be seen as a purposeful redaction (cf. Ant. 4.197), aiming at the
creation of a coherent work acceptable to his audience in the RomanHellenistic world for the purpose of furthering greater acceptance of the
Jewish people and its special character by references to its origin in
antiquity,18 its international reputation19 and the philosophical character
of its religion. Such purposes are served by Josephus's rhetorical eloquence, his novelistic sketches of figures like Joseph, Moses, David,
Solomon, Herod (among others), and his inserted speeches and documents (cf. Ant. 1.15; 14.186ff., 266, 323; 16.174-78). Both explicitly
and implicitly, it is demonstrated that the 'translated texts from the
Hebrew Scripture' and 'our documents' are not considered to be quite
fit in themselves and that they can raise interest in the Graeco-Roman
world only if they speak with the same tongue and are provided with
implicit guarantees from the great rulers of the world.20 Omission of
reference to circumcision in several instances and to the golden calf
episode in Ant. 3.99 serve these purposes as well.21
In the same manner as Vergil wrote his Roman history in an answer
to Homer's Greek history, so Josephus modelled and composed his
story as a response to the work of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who in
the time of Augustus wrote the Roman history (Roman Antiquities} in
20 books, referring to a glorious past with the purpose of making it
known in the Greek world. Surpassing Dionysius, Josephus carried his
18. Not only earlier than Greek and Roman peoples, but even earlier than the
Babylonians and Egyptians, from whom Abraham learned astrology and arithmetic
(Ant. 1.166-68).
19. Among others, Alexander the Great, Antiochus III, Julius Caesar and
Augustus's respect and admiration for the Jews leading to guarantees of privileges.
20. Bilde, Flavins Josephus, pp. 98-101, for a detailed description; Attridge,
Josephus and his Works, p. 266, for the reliability of the documents and their transmission; E.M. Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule from Pompey to Diocletians (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1981 [1976]), pp. 558-60.
21. A further study on Josephus's use of 'translation' as a term meaning 'interpretation' in various instances where he defends himself against accusations of not
being correct (e.g. Ant. 2.347; 9.208 and 214which frames the 'abbreviated'
Jonah story10.218; Apion 1.53-54) is needed.
191
story 'pure of that unseemly mythology current among others' (Ant.

1.15), past the mythological world of Roman origin to creation.22
Transmission
Like most of the literature on which we base our understanding of antiquity, we do not find any comprehensive collections of Josephus before
the ninth-eleventh century CE, and then only in few examples. Apion is
based on a single manuscript from the eleventh century (Codex L), of
which 2.52-113 is missing. The eleventh-fourteenth century brought a
few more manuscripts. A single Greek fragment from the third century
(pap. P. Graec. Vindob. 29810) comprising War 2.576-79, 582-84 has
survived the ravages of time. We are thus obliged for the Greek editions
to look to the use of Josephus among the writings of the early Church
Fathers: Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus,
Origin and especially Eusebius, who quotes long passages of Josephus,
not always quite verbatim. Hegesippus made a paraphrasing Latin
edition of War in the late fourth century, which is of little value for
reconstruction in comparison to Cassiodor's Latin edition from 570,
comprising all of Josephus's works. Niese's edition from 1885-95,
based on mediaeval manuscripts, is accepted as the most trustworthy
edition,23 and is used as the basic manuscript for the Loeb Classical
Library's editions from 1930 with several reprints. W. Whiston's
English translation from 1736, also with several reprints, certainly has
had a great impact on scholarship, although it 'is no longer accepted as
the best text. Nor was Whiston the best-equipped translator for the task.
The work has many deficiencies'.24 For the French-speaking audience,
as well as for studies in rabbinical parallels to Josephus's exposition of
the Mosaic code, the French edition from 1900, Oeuvres completes de
Flavins Josephe, has been very useful.
22. Attridge, 'Josephus and his Works', p. 217. H.St.J. Thackeray, Introduction
to Jewish Antiquities (LCL, 242 [1930]), p. ix. For recent discussions on Josephus's
dependency on Dionysius of Halicarnassus.
23. Bilde, Flavins Josephus, pp. 63-64. Schiirer, History of the Jewish People, I,
pp. 57-61.
24. From the foreword to the 1960 reprint. This study uses and quotes LCL
(recent editions). Critical deviations in Whiston's text will be noted.
192

Examination ofJosephus's Various Descriptions of Samaritans
As mentioned earlier, most ofJosephus's material about Samaritans is

to be found in Antiquities. Even important events, such as the destruction of the Samaritan temple on Gerizim, is not given any weight in the
parallel account in War. It seems reasonable to ask what urged Josephus
to insert small stories about a faction of Judaism, apostate Jews or nonJews, marked as Cuthaeans, Sidonians, Shechemites, Medes or Persians
in his Jewish 'history' written almost 20 years later. Does Antiquities
have a rationalized historiography that not only sought to place Judaism
in the Graeco-Roman world but also sought to define the correct form
of Judaism similar to the discussions in the New Testament, implicitly
revealing that this question was not entirely settled at the time. The
consequences of cult centralization brought about by the loss of the
Jewish temple in Jerusalem may well have enhanced discussions about
the proper role of the Jewish temple. As we shall see, this question is
raised by Josephus both before Alexander the Great and Ptolemy Philometor, securing that both the Greek and the Egyptian world had been in
agreement on this matter. The aforementioned variant reading of
1 Mace. 10.25-45 (see above, Chapter 2), which in Josephus has 'it shall
be in the power of the high priest to take care that no one Jew shall have
any other temple for worship but only that at Jerusalem' (Ant. 13.54),
could indicate that he had reason for what seems to be a deliberate
change. The stress on the one temple, found also in Apion 2.193, might
further indicate that cult centralization was still questioned, at least by
the non-Jewish world. The different weighting of this matter in Josephus's treatment of the temples on Gerizim and in Heliopolis in War
and in Antiquities, together with his use of Heliopolis for settling Samaritan matters, is revealing, as the following examination demonstrates.
Antiquities 9.277-21
Josephus's portrait of the Samaritans takes its point of departure from
2 Kgs 17.24-41 concerning the people removed from Babylon, Cuthah,
Ava, Hamath and Sepharvaim, who did not know how to worship the
god of the land, and who, according to the Old Testament, have no
intention of giving up their own gods, but had introduced a syncretistic
religion, using the temple(s)25 made by the Samaritans (2 Kgs 17.29).
25. MT: sing.; LXX, Luc., Syr, Vg: pi.
193
When asked to decide which god they will worship, they did not choose
to worship Yahweh alone (as did the Israelites in Josh. 24.21-24), but to
fear Yahweh and serve their own gods. It is central in the Old Testament text that they did not know how to worship the god of the land
(2 Kgs 17.26-27), and that to worship Yahweh is to keep his ordinances
(17.36-38). It is not said that they betrayed Yahweh in a manner similar
to the Israelites, causing their removal from the country (17.7-24). The
situation is the opposite. The Israelites knew how to fear Yahweh, as is
clearly said in this paragraph and reiterated in the midrash of the first
commandment, presented in the closing paragraph (2 Kgs 17.34-41),
but they failed to do so. In contrast, the foreigners did not know and
obviously were slow to learn, so these foreigners continued to 'fear
Yahweh' after their own manner, thus breaking the first commandment,
repeated thrice in vv. 35, 37 and 38. Indirectly, a critique is given of the
priest 'carried away from Shomeron', who had settled in Bethel (2 Kgs
17.28). He must be understood to belong to the same stock as those
who are claimed to be responsible for the idol worship in the opening
paragraph. They did not change at all, since the foreigners continue to
do so 'unto this very day', leaving the land as polluted as it was before,
anticipating the contrasting fate of Judaea in the time of Nebuchadnezzar.
Josephus's account of this story in 2 Kings is interpolated in his
Hezekiah narrative, using the pious acts of Hezekiah as a contrasting
motif to the impious acts of the Israelites, who did not accept Hezekiah's invitation to join the celebration of the Feast of Unleavened
Bread in Jerusalem. They not only laughed at the king's message, as
written in the biblical account of 2 Chronicles 30, but, in an elaboration
of this narrative, they 'poured scorn upon them (the prophets) and
finally seized them and killed them' (Ant. 9.265). This stock motif that
frames Josephus's views on Samaritans is reiterated several times in his
interpretation of historical events. It should not escape our notice that
he made purposeful use of this motif in his judgment of Manasseh's
crime, that 'imitating the lawless deeds of the Israelites' he 'killed all
the righteous men among the Hebrews, nor did he spare even the
prophets, some of whom he slaughtered daily' (Ant. 10.37-38).
In Josephus's account, we are first surprised to notice that he has
given specific status to one group of the removed people, namely the
Cuthaeans (Ant. 9.279), revealing the language of his own day, but
conflicting with the biblical account, which neither speaks of Cuthaeans
194
nor knows the term elsewhere.26 Probably aware of this problem,

Josephus, in accordance with the biblical narrative, mentions that the
Cuthaeans originally were five tribes who each worshipped their own
god and came from the same Persian region and river valley called
Cuthah (Xo\)0d, Ant. 9.288) In Josephus's treatment, the biblical 'lions'
have become 'a pestilence' and an oracle advises that worship of the
Most High God (TOV jieyioxov 0eov) brings deliverance (aomptov).
These are minor changes. It is more important to notice that it was the
bringing of 'their own gods' that brought the pestilence. The consequences of the oracle is thus changed, for surprisingly we read:
after being instructed in the ordinances and religion of this God, worshipped him with great zeal [<|)iAoTiu.a}<;], and were at once freed of the
pestilence [A,otu.6v]. These same rites have continued in use even to this
day among those who are called Chuthaioi [Xot>6aioi], Cuthim, in the
Hebrew tongue, Samaritans [Zau.apeiTca] by the Greeks (Ant. 9.290).
With a single artifice, namely the omission of the mention of religious

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

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

with the Judaean-Samaritan relationship. It is repeated almost verbatim
26. See, later in this chapter, my examination of Josephus's terminology.
195
in Ant. 11.341 and 12.257, and, with the same meaning, in a variant
form in 11.85.
This variant form has a parallel in Ezra 4.1-6.22. Josephus, however,
does not primarily use that text, but rather the apocryphal 1 Esdras,
which he interprets by means of biblical Ezra. For our purpose this is
not crucial, since the textual disagreements, related to Josephus's treatment of the text, do not involve the narrative plot as such, but various
designations for the involved parties. For those, there are no disagreements between the biblical Ezra, the apocryphal 1 Esdras and LXX's
Ezra, which follows the MT of the Bible. For the sake of clearness, I
take my point of departure from the MT text.
The story concerns the building of the temple in Jerusalem after the
return from the exile. The problems arise because of the opposition from
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
'the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin', p^m rmiT "H^

(Ezra 4.1);
'the people of the land', fHKrrDi?, 'am ha'ares (Ezra 4.4);
'King Artaxerxes' (Ezra 4.23-24),
'Rehum, the chancellor and Shimshay, the scribe' (Ezra 4.7, 8,
17, 23);
'and the rest of their companions/their associates, the judges,
the governors, the officials, the Persians, the men of Erech, the
Babylonians, the men of Susa, that is the Elamites and the rest
of the nations whom the great and noble Osnappar deported
and settled in the cities of Samaria and in the rest of the province Beyond the River' (Ezra 4.8-10, 17).
All of these are involved in the first attempt to stop the building activities in Ezra 4.1-24.
Later, in chs. 5-6, where the building activities are resumed as a
result of the encouragement of the prophets Iddo and Zechariah, the
plot becomes more transparent. Now both 'the adversaries of Judah and
Benjamin' and 'the people of the land' have disappeared. Left are the
officials represented by
1.
2.
'Tattenaj, the govenor of the province Beyond the River and

Shethar-bozenai and their associates, the governors (Ezra 5.3,
6; 6.13)
'King Darius' (Ezra 5.6-7; 6.1, 12, 13, 15).
196
Let us now see what happens to these persons in Josephus's interpretation of the narrative, beginning in Ezra 4.1 with the reaction of the
'adversaries of Judah and Benjamin':
after hearing the sound of the trumpets, the Samaritans, who were as it
happened, hostile to the tribes of Judah and Benjamin... (Ant. 11.84)
and in the same manner a few verses later:

On hearing this, the Cuthaeansit is by this name that the Samaritans
are calledwere indignant and persuaded the nations in Syria to request
the satraps, in the same way as they had formerly done under Cyrus and
again, after his reign, under Cambyses, to stop the building of the temple
and put hindrances and delays in the way of the Jews as they busied
themselves about it (Ant. 11.88).
Why does Josephus mention the Cuthaeans here, since they were never
mentioned in the biblical accounts of Ezra and 1 Esdras, which,
together with the LXX, mention
the men of Erech, the Babylonians, the men of Susa, that is the Elamites
and the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Osnappar deported
and settled in the cities of Samaria and in the rest of the province Beyond
the River.
and which in Ezra 4.2 are not given any specific designation, but call
themselves 'we'?
Let us build with you; for we worship God as you do, and we have been
sacrificing to him ever since the days of Esarhaddon king of Assyria,
who brought us here.
With the exception of some confusion about the king's name, which
varies in the different variations of this text and is in disagreement with
biblical reports on deportations, this text has the same wording as its
parallels in MT, LXX and 1 Esd. 5.66-67 (68-69). In Josephus's account,
however, we find the following variations interpolated between the
utterances about 'Samaritans' and 'Cuthaeans':
and asked to have a share in the building. 'For we worship God no less
than they,' they asserted, 'and pray fervently to Him and have been zealous in His service from the time when Salmanasses, the king of Assyria,
brought us hither from Cuthia and Media' (Ant. 11.84-85).
Josephus here, as in Ant. 11.290, employs the same method. He

avoids attacking the Samaritan orthodoxy by expanding the 'biblical'
text, and he connects the question with a question of ethnicity, an aspect
absent in the 'biblical' texts, which make no effort to find 'the adver-
197
saries of Judah and Benjamin' in the tradition of 2 Kings 17. First of all,
they mention some other people and, secondly, they date them to a different time, namely during the reign of Esarhaddon (681-669 BE), or
Osnappar, whose identity is questioned and normally is identified with
Ashurbanipal (640-639 BCE), since in 640-39 he campaigned against
Babylon and Susa. Ezra 4.9-10 might refer to this event.27 Other possibilities are Senaccherib and Shalmanezer whom Josephus chose.
Another interesting feature to be noticed in Josephus's account is the
exchange of 'sacrificing to him' for 'pray fervently to Him and have
been zealous in His service', which have no support in any other text.
There could be two reasons for this exchange. First, that offerings
demand a temple or at least an altar, and according to Josephus's Antiquities, the Samaritan temple was not built before the time of Alexander
the Great. Secondly, Josephus might not have thought it proper to testify to offerings being conducted outside of Jerusalem at a time when
cult centralization is believed to have dominated. This accords well
with Josephus's closing remark of the discussion in 11.87, where he
states after the rejection of the Samaritan petition, that 'none but themselves had been commanded to build the temple, the first time by Cyrus
and now by Darius', and continues,
'they would, however allow them to worship there', they said, 'but the
only thing which they might, if they wished, have in common with them,
as might all other men, was to come to the sanctuary and revere God'
(Ant. 11.87).
Josephus's account continues, following the correspondence of

1 Esdras 6-7 and Ezra 5-6. We are now introduced to 'Sisines,28 the
governor of Syria and Phoenicia, and Sarabazanes,29 together with certain others' (Ant. 11.89). Comparable to the biblical account (Ezra 5.34), which has a close parallel in 1 Esd. 6.3-4, they go to Jerusalem to
ask for the 'building licence'. Since the reply to this request is unsatisfactory, they send a letter to King Darius for a confirmation of the
explanation given by the Jews, that they build the temple after the order
of King Cyrus. Also comparable to the accounts in Ezra 5.5 and 1 Esd.
6.6, the Jews are not prevented from building during the period of
investigation.
27. A.K. Grayson, 'Osnappar', ABD 5, p. 50.
28. So 1 Esd. 6.3; Ezra 5.3 reads 'Tattenaj'.
29. Ezra 5.3 reads 'Shetar-bozenai'.
198
In Josephus's elaboration of this story, this 'event' is framed by

remarks about contemporary Samaritan activity, which seeks to stop the
building activities. Utilizing former material and connecting this event
with the rejection of participation in the building of the temple we are
introduced to what turns out to be the 'real' troublemakers, exonerating
the officials for any responsibility for delays or hindrances. We are thus
told in Am. 11.88,
On hearing this, the Cuthaeansit is by this name that the Samaritans
are calledwere indignant and persuaded the nations in Syria to request
the satraps, in the same way as they had formerly done under Cyrus and
again, after his reign, under Cambyses, to stop the building of the temple
and put hindrances and delays in the way of the Jews as they busied
themselves about it.
Since the activity of the officials in this account is not a result of Samaritan activity, the Samaritans independently write a letter to Darius,
accusing
the Jews of fortifying the city and constructing the temple so as to
resemble a fortress rather than a sanctuary, and said that what was being
done would not be to his advantage and, in addition cited the letter of
Cambyses in which he had forbidden them to build the temple (Ant.
11.97).
No such letter to Darius is mentioned in 1 Esdras or Ezra, and Josephus

refers here to a former incident accounted for in Ant. 11.19-30, elaborating Ezra 4.5-7, 11-24 and 1 Esd. 5.63; 2.16, 25:
While they were laying the foundations of the temple and very busily
engaged in building it, the surrounding nations, especially the Cuthaeans,
whom the Assyrian king Salmanesses had brought from Persia and
Media and settled in Samaria when he deported the Israelite people,
urged the satraps and those in charge to hinder the Jews in the rebuilding
of the city and the construction of the temple. And so being corrupted by
their bribes, they sold their services to the Cuthaeans by showing neglect
and indifference toward the Jews in their building (Ant. 11.19).
Hereafter follows the death of Cyrus, who, 'because of his preoccupation with other wars, was in ignorance of these matters' and left it unsolved to his son Cambyses. 'The people in Syria, Phoenicia, Amman,
Moab and Samaria' wrote to him, calling themselves 'his servants,
Rathymos, the recorder of all things that happen, Semelios, the scribe,
and the judges of the council in Syria and Phoenicia' (Ant. 11.22). In
1 Esdras 18-24 and Ezra 4.12-16 this letter is designed for Artaxerxes.
199
Interesting to notice in Josephus's rendering of the building narrative,

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

objection to the king's decision is anticipated. This is similar to Ezra
6.11-12 and lEsd. 7.32-33.
The building continues with the supervision and assistance of
'Sisines and those with him' (Ant. 11.105) and is finished in the ninth
year of Darius.30
Here ends the 'biblical' narratives, leaving open several questions
about the identity of those who oppose the building. They certainly are
not the high officials of Darius's time. In the third plot of Josephus's
narrative, this insecurity brings a considerable advantage. Envious of
the Judaean success
the Samaritans inflicted many injuries on the Jews, for they relied on
their wealth and pretended to be related to the Persians, since they had
come from their country. And the sums which they had been ordered by
the king to pay to the Jews out of their tribute for the sacrifices, they
refused to furnish, and they had the eparchs zealously aiding them in
this; and whatever else they could do to injure the Jews either by themselves or through others, they did not hesitate to try (Ant. 11.114-15).
The stereotype in Josephus's writings of the Samaritans being

Cuthaeans is here exchanged with the more imprecise 'related to the
30. Ezra and 1 Esdras read 'the sixth year'.
200
Persians, since they had come from their country'. This is with good
reason, for the letter that the envoys Zorobabelos and four other leaders,
who are sent from the people of Jerusalem to King Darius to accuse the
Samaritans, bring back 'to the eparchs of Syria and the council' has the
following address:
King Darius to Taganas and Sambabas, the eparchs of the Samaritans,
and Sandrakes and Buedon and the rest of their fellow-servants in
Samaria (Ant. 11.118).
Josephus has thus encircled the 'real' adversaries, the local administration in Samaria, who is ordered to
furnish them out of the royal treasury, from the tribute of Samaria,
everything which they may need for the sacrifices as the priests request
(Ant. 11.119).
Faithful to his general tendency, Josephus's elaboration on Darius's

letter of Ezra 6.8 and 1 Esd. 6.29 exchanges 'the province Beyond the
River' and 'Coelesyria and Phoenicia' for 'Samaria' in a manner similar to what he is doing in his construct of Cyrus's edict in Ant. 11.16.
He thus anticipates the conflict to follow. With minor omissions and
slight alterations, Josephus once again transforms geographical designations (11.118-19) into an ethnic designation (11.114) connected with
the tradition of 2 Kings 17 and placed in the rabbinical tradition of the
Cuthaeans.31 This also allows him to leave out any political reasons for
the conflict, presenting the Judaean-Samaritan conflict as one related
entirely to the question of religious recognition: who is the true Israel,
who belongs to it, and where does one pay temple taxes.
Josephus's treatment of the Nehemiah narrative confirms this, since
in this narrative he shows no interest in establishing a SamaritanJudaean contrast by calling the adversaries of the building of the wall
Samaritans. He here employs the terms 'Ammanites, Moabites, Samaritans and all those living in Coele-Syria' (Ant. 11.174).
Josephus's third story dealing with Judaean-Samaritan conflicts is
placed in the time of the conquest of Palestine by Alexander the Great.
31. A technique also employed by Josephus in his dealing with the text of the
books of Maccabees, e.g. Ant. 12.287, where Apollonius has become 'the general of
the Samaritans' against 1 Mace. 10.69 'governor of Coele Syria' and 2 Mace. 3.5
'governor of Coele Syria and Phoenicia'.
201
The story has the purpose of answering questions about the Samaritan
temple's status in relation to Jerusalem's temple. Alexander is here
used as the authoritative voice of the text. Connected with the story is
the question of who built the Samaritan temple. Thus the focus of the
narrative is not Alexander's victorious campaign or the change of the
political situation. They only serve as a framework for the more important question: Which temple does Alexander accept as the legitimate
Jewish temple? A similar question is raised in front of Ptolemy IV
Philomethor, using the framework of a court hearing. Possible sources
for Josephus's Alexander story are several, none of which can be taken
as a basis for his narrative's content but only for its outline. The story
bears a clear resemblance to Alexander's alleged visits to other important shrines.32
The introduction to Josephus's 'account' describes the strife between
the high priest Joannes and his brother Jesus, who, supported by the
Persian general Bagoses, sought to obtain the office of the high priesthood. This lead to a deadly quarrel between Joannes and Jesus in the
temple, with fatal consequences for Jesus. As a punishment, Bagoses
imposes a tribute on the Jews of 50 drachmae per lamb slaughtered for
the daily offerings for seven years. After Joannes' death his son Jaddua
becomes high priest. He has a brother, Manasseh, married to Sanballat's daughter Nikaso, who caused what in Josephus's views must be
understood as the definitive split between Jews and Samaritans.
Sanballat, 'who was sent by Darius, the last king of Persia,33 into
Samaria', becomes a central figure in Josephus's story. Combining both
the past and the future, he secures that, in spite of Manasseh's departure
from Jerusalem followed by many of the priests and Levites, the Samaritans on Garizim do not represent a new Jewish community, but are the
previously mentioned Cuthaeans from 2 Kings 17. This is done by
describing Sanballat as 'a Cuthaean by birth; of which stock were the
Samaritans also'. Josephus thus makes certain that he is not confused
with any other Sanballat than the one mentioned in the book of Nehemiah. Echoing Ezra 4.15-16 and 1 Esd. 2.22-24, he asserts that this
person can be related to the 'adversaries' mentioned there:
32. Marcus, Jewish Antiquities; Appendix C, LCL, 326; Grabbe, Judaism,

pp. 181-82, 208. Ahlstrom, History of Ancient Palestine, pp. 895-96.
33. Darius III Codomanus (338-331 BCE).
202

This man knew that the city of Jerusalem was a famous city, and that
their kings had given a great deal of trouble to the Assyrians and the
people of Coelesyria (Ant. 11.303).
Manasseh became Sanballat's puppet, who first of all had the purpose
of securing him allegiance with Jerusalem, and when this eventually
failed, giving his daughter's children the dignity of the priesthood. The
allegiance with Jerusalem certainly failed. The elders of Jerusalem did
not consent to the marriage, and since Manasseh would rather divorce
his wife than give up the office of the high priesthood, Sanballat felt
obliged to promise him
that he would build a temple similar to that in Jerusalem on Mount Gerizimthis is the highest of the mountains near Samariaand undertook
to do these things with the consent of King Darius (Ant. 11.310-11).
The role of Sanballat's adversary is given to Jerusalem's high priest,

Jaddua. The presentation of him is as follows: When Alexander the
Great went against Sidon and Tyre after he had defeated Darius, he
asked for troops and supplies for his army from the Jewish high priest
Jaddua:
give him the gifts which they had formerly sent as tribute to Darius, thus
choosing the friendship of the Macedonians, for, he said, they would
never regret this course. But the high priest replied to the bearers of the
letter that he had given his oath to Darius not to take up arms against
him, and said that he would never violate this oath so long as Darius
remained alive. When Alexander heard this, he was roused to anger, and
while deciding not to leave Tyre, which was on the point of being taken,
threatened that when he had brought it to terms he would march against
the high priest of the Jews and through him teach all men what people it
was to whom they must keep their oaths (Ant. 11.317-19).
At stake here is allegiance, loyalty and the question of 'to whom they
must keep their oaths'. The situation certainly is dangerous.
Sanballat, who 'was sent by Darius', had no problems in renouncing
Darius and giving his loyalty to Alexander. After he had given him his
men, eight thousand subjects, for the siege of Tyre, he
felt confident about his plan and addressed him on the subject, explaining that he had a son-in-law, Manasses, who was the brother of Jaddua,
the high priest of the Jews and that there were many others of his countrymen [6|ioe9voov] with him who now wished to build a temple in the
territory subject to him. It was also an advantage to the king, he said, that
the power of the Jews should be divided in two, in order that the nation
203
might not, in the event of revolution, be of one mind and stand together
and so give trouble to the kings as it had formerly given to the Assyrian
rulers. When therefore, Alexander gave his consent, Sanballat brought
all his energy to bear and built the temple, and appointed Manasses high
priest, considering this to be the greatest distinction which his daughter's
descendants could have (Ant. 11.322-24).
As can be seen from this, according to Josephus, Alexander had not

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

with the people and the priests went outside the city, leaving the gates
open, to meet Alexander 'at a certain place called Saphein' (Eaêiv).34
Alexander,
when he saw the multitude in white garments, the priests at their head
clothed in linen, and the high priest in a robe of hyacinth-blue and gold,
wearing on his head the mitre with the golden plate on it on which was
inscribed the name of God, he approached alone and prostrated himself
before that Name and first greeted the high priest' (Ant. 11.331).
Everyone was astonished. What had happened to Alexander?
34. The question, whether this is nowadays Mount Scopus, or it is Kephar Saba
(some 20 miles NE of Jaffa) as rabbinic tradition has it, is unimportant for the
examination here, since in Josephus's version the added aetiology clearly places it
in Jerusalem: 'this name, translated into the Greek tongue, means "Lookout". For,
as it happened, Jerusalem and the temple could be seen from there.'
204

Parmenion35 alone went up to him, and asked why indeed, when all men
prostrated themselves before him, he had prostrated himself before the
high priest of the Jews, whereupon he replied, 'It was not before him that
I prostrated myself but the God of whom he has the honour to be high
priest' (Ant. 11.333).
There follows an explanation of how Alexander had once seen the high
priest in a dream in Macedonia, and that it was told him that by bringing his army under the divine conduct of 'that God' he should 'defeat
Darius and destroy the power of the Persians'. This vision is further
confirmed by Alexander's reading of the book of Daniel, which is
shown to him in the temple,
in which he had declared that one of the Greeks would destroy the
empire of the Persians, he believed himself to be the one indicated (Ant.
11.337).
Made happy by the good news, Alexander is ready to bestow upon the
Jews whatever they might desire, so
the high priest asked that they might observe their country's laws [TOIC;
TidTptoic; voumq], and in the seventh year be exempt from tribute, he
granted all this. Then they begged that he would permit the Jews in
Babylon and Media also to have their own laws [TOI<; i8ioi<; voumq], and
he gladly promised to do as they asked (Ant. 11.338-39).
The danger is averted. The Jewish high priest has been able to 'surrender' to Alexander through Alexander's surrender to Jaddua's God,
and this without renouncing Darius. The story is not finished yet. We
now have the Samaritans and Jews sketched in contrasting polarity with
each other. But the pivotal question yet remains and is still to be put:
Will Alexander consider these two groups to be equal? Is the one
temple as good as the other? Envy and ethnicity are key words here, as
they had been in Josephus's variant treatment of the building of Jerusalem's temple of the Persian period. The story therefore continues:
And so having regulated these matters at Jerusalem, Alexander marched
off against the neighbouring cities. But all those peoples to whom he
came received him in a friendly spirit, whereupon the Samaritans [Eap,apeiTai], whose chief city at that time was Shechem [Zixtua], which lay
beside Mount Garizein, and inhabited by apostates from the Jewish
nation, seeing that Alexander had so signally honoured the Jews, decided
35. A Macedonian general, second in rank to Alexander, cf. LCL 326, p. 475.
205
to profess themselves Jews. For such is the nature [Tf|v ÛGIV] of the
Samaritans [oi Zau.apelq], as we have already shown somewhere above.
When the Jews are in difficulties they deny that they have any kinship
with them, thereby indeed admitting the truth, but whenever they see
some splendid bit of good fortune come to them, they suddenly grasp at
the connexion with them, saying, that they are related to them and tracing their line back to Ephraim and Manasseh, the descendants of Joseph
(Ant. 11.340-41).
Alexander was hardly out of Jerusalem when the Shechemites approached,

bringing along the soldiers whom Sanballat had sent to him, and invited
him to come to their city and honour the temple there as well. Thereupon
he promised to grant this request another time when he should come
back to them [from Egypt] (Ant. 11.342).
Note that in contrast to Alexander's entrance into Jerusalem there is no

prostration, no adoration, no willingness to go to the temple and no
priestly garments. Here are soldiers and a king who has more important
matters to deal with. The Shechemites, anxious not to lose the opportunity of having the king's favour, petitioned him to remit the tribute of
the seventh year, the Jubilee year, because they did not sow therein. He
asked them
who they were that made this request. And when they said that they were
Hebrews ['EfJpoioi], but were called the Sidonians of Shechem [oi ev
ZiXi|o.oi<; Zi8(6vvoi] he again asked them whether they were Jews ['lov8oloi]. Then, as they said that they were not, he replied, 'But I have
given these privileges to the Jews. However, when I return, and have
more exact information from you, I shall do as I think best' (Ant. 1 1.34344).
It is here worth noticing that the question of following the laws of the
fathers, which was central to Jaddua, is totally missing here. Only the
motif of the economic advantage of friendship with Alexander is used.
Together with the denial of being Jews, the Samaritans are portrayed
here as having left Judaism entirely. Central to Josephus's presentation
is that Alexander never did return from Egypt to settle these matters.
The Shechemites are left with their closing statement 'they said they
were not Jews', which does not escape the implication that their temple
is not truly Jewish. This statement in fact coincides with Josephus's
closing remark:
206

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

of Jewish self-understanding, discussed in a variety of texts from the
DSS's Damascus Covenant, Community Rule and Jubilees to Philo and
the Gospels, all dealing with questions of Jewish halakhah. The questioning of circumcision, so central to Paul's writings, is absent in these
texts, as it is in Josephus. By placing the Shechemites in this obviously
Jewish context, Josephus's ambiguity about the Samaritans has been
given its clearest expression.
The details in the Alexander story have been dealt with extensively.
Questions about Sanballat, Jaddua, Manasseh, Alexander's journeys,
his troops in Samaria, Josephus's sources, etc, all are involved here.
These, of course, are necessary questions and some answers may throw
some light on what may have happened. They are, however, not the
most important questions to ask. It is more important to examine how
an author composes and presents the different questions he wants to
answer, as well as to ask the purpose of his story. This story's main
purpose and function is not to describe the Samaritans. They are being
used as characters in a plot. Josephus's main purpose is to emphasize
the story that Alexander had shown worship to Yahweh in Jerusalem,
the same Alexander 'who himself was adored by all others'. One should
not forget too quickly how, confronted with Vespasian, Josephus saved
his life by 'prophesying' that Vespasian should become emperor and
that his success was due to the providence of God (War 3.401). The
Alexander story thus serves a very specific function in Josephus's Antiquities. He aims to demonstrate how the Jewish temple in Jerusalem is
superior to all other temples and to show how Judaism, as it is understood by the Jews of Jerusalem, is the true religion for the whole of
humankind. This is expressed in his description of Alexander, that
'when he went up into the temple, he offered sacrifice to God according
to the high priest's direction' (Ant. 11.336). The implicit message to the
Roman emperor of Josephus's own time should not be dismissed from
the interpretation of the text. The paradigmatic theme of Jews being
favoured by emperors, which is expressed in most of the texts dealing
with the Persian and Ptolemaic period: 1 Esdras, Nehemiah, Esther,
207
Daniel, Letter of Aristeas, Documents of Antioch III, and others, and

which is given explicit reference in Ant. 12.115-28, forms the backbone
of Josephus's writing on Alexander.
Josephus's fourth composition about Samaritans is placed in the time of
the Hasmonaeans and in the framework of Antiochus TV's treatment of
the Jews.
The story opens much like the previous one, with a description of the
circumstances in the temple court of Jerusalem. Josephus is dependent
on 1 and 2 Maccabees, which, like Josephus's own main perspective,
emphasizes that internal quarrels among Jews were responsible for the
Jewish misfortunes, and that the foreign rulers merely reacted to this
situation. This aspect, however, is undermined in the account in which
Antiochus attacks Jerusalem twice in the 143rd and 145th year of the
Seleucid reign (169 and 167 BCE), without any attempt at rebellion, as
2 Mace. 5.1-26 has it. This rebellion is placed in Josephus before Antiochus's Egyptian campaign. It is combined with the appointment of
Onias/Menelaus, who, supported by the Tobiads, introduced Greek customs (Ant. 12.237-41). Other possibilities are thus at hand for interpreting Antiochus's motifs, related to his defeat in Egypt by the Roman
support to Ptolemy Physcon of Alexandria (Ant. 12.242-44) and contrasting the accounts of 1 Mace. 1.16-20. It is not clearly expressed in
Josephus's story, but lack of money and fear for the Romans, for whom
there seem to have been some support in Jerusalem (12.247), are hinted
at (12.249). Since Josephus's composition of the story does not give
any reason for Antiochus's harsh treatment of the Jews, but only for the
plundering of the temple, the question remains open whether Josephus's
interest is not merely bound to giving an account of Samaritan reaction
to Jewish suffering than to the account of 1 Mace. 1.21-64, from where
he deletes the theological point 'that they should all be of one people
and everyone should give up his own customs' (id vourva cruTO'u). The
account involving the Samaritans follows immediately after Josephus's
description of 'the worthiest people and those of noble soul', who did
not obey Antiochus' decrees but 'held their country's customs of
greater account than their punishment' (Ant. 12.255).
The account has this opening:
But when the Samaritans [oi ZauapelTOi] saw the Jews suffering these
misfortunes, they would no longer admit they were of their kin or that
208

the temple on Garizein [ev Fapiêiv vaov] was that of the Most Great
God [TOV (leyioTOi) 6eoi3], whereby acting in accordance with their
nature, as we have shown; they also said they were colonists from the
Medes and Persians, and they are, in fact, colonists from these peoples
(Ant. 12.257).
They send envoys (Tipeapeit;) to Antioch with a letter:

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

2 Kings 17 by using the expression 'certain droughts/frequent pestilences'. Whether he means the one or the other is not important. The
question is related to the rabbinic discussion of whether Samaritans can
be considered to be genuine converts, or whether they are 'lion-converts', as discussed already in Chapter 4. Questions about ethnicity do
not form part of the discussion here. This question was already settled
in the former story and is not taken up again. The focus of this story is
the question of whether those who follow Jewish practices can be called
Jews. The answer is ambiguous, as can be seen from the following.
Now you have dealt with the Jews as their wickedness deserves, but the
king's officers, in the belief that we follow the same practices as they
through kinship with them, are involving us in similar charges, whereas
we are Sidonians by origin, as is evident from our state documents (Ant.
12.260).
Josephus's point of departure is, as it was in Ant. 11.341, the hypocrisy of the Samaritans. In both accounts Josephus's statement is without consequence, since both accounts state that they are not Jews,
which, in consideration of their hypocrisy, should imply that they in
fact are Jews and therefore should partake in the fate of the Jews,
whether good or bad. Indirectly, Josephus reveals his (and probably his
contemporaries') ambivalent opinion of the Samaritans, unwillingly
36. Occurs 10-15 times in Josephus, usually as an administrative term. The
meaning here is probably 'application'. See K.H. Rengstorf, A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1983).
37. Variant: 'frequentpestilences'.
209
admitting their Jewish heritage and their legitimate temple that is dedicated to TOXJ jieyiaToi) 0eot>. It is revealing that neither here, nor in
11.343-44, do the Sidonians call themselves Samaritans or Cuthaeans.
These designations are only employed by Josephus, who also found it
necessary to call them 'Medes and Persians'.38
A further descriptive emphasis on how far the Sidonians are from
'the worthiest people and those of noble soul', who did not obey Antiochus's decrees but 'held their country's customs of greater account
than their punishment' (Ant. 12.255), is given by their addressing
Anthiochus as 'our benefactor and saviour' and by their explicit denial
of any adherence to Jewish customs:
We therefore petition you as our benefactor and saviour to command
Apollonius, the governor of the district [|iepi8dpxri], and Nicanor, the
royal agent, not to molest us in any way by attaching to us the charges of
which the Jews are guilty, since we are distinct from them both in race
and in customs, and we ask that the temple without a name be known as
that of Zeus Hellenics [Aioq 'EUriviov] (Ant. 12.260-61).39
With this statement, the discussion of the Alexander story is given

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

39. According to 2 Mace. 6.2, a variant reading, 'Zeus Xenios', is suggested
(LCL365, p. 135).
210
God has no name, a dedication of the temple would be to 'the only god,
creator of heaven and earth'. The implicit contrast stressed the Sidonian
relationship, since only Judaism had this practice.40 The naming of
Jerusalem's temple in 2 Mace. 6.2 does not change its Jewish orientation, since Zeus Olympus is the Greek name for K'DIZ? if^N ('God of
heaven').41
Could the same be argued for Zeus Hellenius, and why did Josephus
choose this name instead of the 'Dios Xenios' of 2 Maccabees? Several
explanations have been suggested, but I will confine myself to the
summary given by Rita Egger.42
40. Bickerman, Der Gott der Makkabder, p. 94 n. 3. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, pp. 261-67, gives a detailed overview of the problems involved: 'From this
discussion we may conclude that at about the time when Yahweh was identified
with Olympian Zeus in Jerusalem, in Greek-educated circles of Jews in Alexandria
there were reflections on the problem of the relationship between the God of Israel
and the "Zeus" of the philosophers... For Josephus, as for Aristobolus and for Ps.
Aristeas, the God of the philosophers is fundamentally also the God of Israel' (pp.
265-66).
41. Bickerman, Der Gott der Makkabder, pp. 96, 112-13 n. 1.
42. R. Egger, Josephus Flavins und die Samaritaner: Eine terminologische
Untersuchung zur Identitdtserkldrung der Samaritaner (NTOA, 4; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), p. I l l n. 296: 'Der Unterschied des Zeus-Attributes
zwischen 2 Makk 6,2 und Ant 12,261 ist nicht dermassen gravierend, dass die
Menschen die die Forderung der Benennung des Garizim-Heiligtum nach Zeus
stellten, nicht mit einander identifiziert werden diirftenWir nennen noch einige
Deutungen der beiden Epitheta, weil diese auf das Vorverstandnis verschiedener
Autoren (beziiglich der Samaritaner) Licht werfen: Geiger (in: Eckstein, Geschichte
43 Anm.2) glaubt, Zeus' Beiname "Hellenios" sei von den Samar. gewahlt worden,
weil er an "Eljon" erinnereSchalit, Denkschrift, 114f., bringt dieses Attribut mit
dem Wettergott Zeus in Verbindung: Zeus Hellenios sei derjenige gewesen, der auf
dem Oros auf Aegina gethront und als Regenbringer gegolten habe. Die Benennung
des Garizim-Tempels stehe also mit der Diirre, die in Ant 12,259 die Sabbat Observanz der "Sidonier" begrunde, "in volliger Ubereinstimmung".Zum Epitheton
"Xenios" vermutet Montgomery, aao. 77 Anm.ll, es "may have been suggested by
the first syllable of Gerizim, ger, i.e. 'stranger'".Kippenberg 79f betrachtet
"Xenios" aufgrund des griechisch-israelitischen Mischkultes auf dem Garizim
"warscheinlicher als Zeus Hellenios"Alon, Origin 355f., meint, der Name
"Xenios" passe zu den Bewohnern des Ortes, da sie Fremde in Land seien.Nach
Pummer, aao.240f, hat Josephus "Xenios" aus polemischen Grilnden, dh. um den
synkretischen Charakter der SRG zu unterstreichen, in "Hellenios" verwandelt.'
S. Zeitlin (ed.), The Second Book of Maccabees (New York: Harper, 1954): 'The
Surname Xenios, given to the temple on Mount Gerizim which was dedicated to
211
The explanation possibly has to be based on the character applied to

'Dios Xenios'. This god is normally associated with 'Zeus Hekesios' or
Thilios', god of mercy for the poor, foreigners, and those seeking protection. This was exactly what the Jews expelled from Jerusalem did
(cf. Ant. 11.346-47). 2 Maccabees 6.2's additional explanation KaGooc;
8T\)y%avov oi TOY TOTCOV oiKOWTec; (which can mean either that the
name fitted the people living there, or that the people used to call it
such) might be alluded to in Josephus's account. A direct reference,
however, would have weakened Josephus's description of the Sidonians
of Alexander's time, and raised questions about the authenticity of the
present account among those readers familiar with 2 Maccabees. Josephus therefore chose a neutral form 'Dios Hellenics', which cannot be
related to any particular god. 'The Greek Zeus' could, in a manner
similar to 'Zeus Olympos', be the god Yahweh, already 'residing' in
the temple. The ambiguity of the naming, with implicit reference to
accusations of Greek orientation and renegade activities is explicitly
spelled out in Antiochus's reply.
The naming, not the name, is essential to Josephus's account. If the
Jews were forced to accept the naming, it was an inevitable fate, but if
the Samaritans themselves had asked for the naming and its protection,
it was treachery! This point is inherent in Antiochus's reply, which
gives the Sidonians more than they asked for:
King Antiochus to Nicanor. The Sidonians in Shechem have submitted a
memorial which has been filed. Now since the men sent by them have
represented to us sitting in council with our friends that they are in no
way concerned in the complaints brought against the Jews, but choose to
live in accordance with Greek customs, we acquit them of these charges,
and permit their temple to be known as that of Zeus Hellenics, as they
have petitioned [iV;i(flKacn.] (Ant. 12.262-63).
The letter of the Sidonians did not contain any petition regarding living
'in accordance with Greek customs', but only of being free of 'charges
of which the Jews are guilty'. The reply bases itself on a tradition that
contrasts Jewish and Greek and expects that the non-Jewish be equivalent to Greek. Josephus has hereby expanded the Samaritan apostasy as
both religious and political.
Zeus, was for the purpose of showing that the Samaritans had the right to be protected by Zeus, and they would not be molested.'
212
A copy of the letter was sent to Apollonius, 'the district governor, in

the hundred and forty-sixth year, on the eighteenth of the month Hekatombaion Hyrcanios', which is the month of July 166 BCE.43
It still remains to decide whether these Sidonians can be equated with
'later' Samaritans/Shechemites as Josephus does, or whether Josephus,
intentionally using a text that speaks of Sidonians living at Shechem,
intends to deprive the Samaritans of Jewish adherence, both ethnic and
confessional on the grounds that they had declared themselves to be
'distinct from them in both race [yevoq] and custom [eGoc;]' (12.261).
As with Josephus's use of biblical material, it is not a question of Josephus's sources, but a question of how he used these sources. The interpolation of the story between Josephus's revision of 1 Maccabees 1 and
2 (the account of Mattathias and his sons [cf. Ant. 12.265]) could be
seen as an attempt to interpret 2 Mace. 5.23 and 6.1-2, solving both the
problem of 2 Maccabees's lack of reference to internal Jewish conflicts
and answering the implicit question about whether Samaritans properly
shared a destiny with the Jews. In contrast to Josephus's perspective,
both 1 and 2 Maccabees understand everyone who did not agree to the
Hasmonaean revolt as enemies of true Judaism, whether they belonged
to priestly or to popular circles. The division is cast between 'those who
had continued in the Jewish faith' (2 Mace. 8.3) and those who did not.
Some justification of Josephus's view can be found in 1 Mace. 3.8-10.
This contrasts Judaea with Samaria, and probably implies that the army
Apollonius gathered from Samaria consisted of 'Samaritans' and Gentiles. What, however, might be expected, if Josephus had had a clear
understanding of this text's possible reference to 'his' Samaritans, is a
consistent use of it in his further elaboration of Judas's activities (Ant.
12.285-86). In this text, however, he does not contrast Judaeans to
Samaritans, but only gives weight to Samaritan animosity implicitly by
making Apollonius the governor of Samaria. The 'feebleness' of Josephus's 'Samaritans' in all of his stories hardly fits a picture of a forceful
army. Miserable and feckless betrayal seem to be his underlying perspective. The forcefulness of this view finds expression in Josephus's
terminology, which is hardly accidental and draws heavily on biblical
traditions' explicit accusations of apostasy and deceit.
43. See the commentary on the dating in LCL 365, p. 137.
213
Josephus's fifth story about the Samaritans is set in the Alexandrian
diaspora during the reign of Ptolemy Philometor (181-146 BCE). It is
combined with his account of the building of Onias's temple in Heliopolis (Ant. 13.62-73). The account is anticipated by a summary of what
happened to the descendants of the exiled Jews in Egypt who had been
taken captive from Judaea, Jerusalem, Samaria and Garizein during the
reign of Ptolemy I Soter (323-285 BCE; cf. Ant. 12.7, 10). Josephus
emphasizes that the Jews 'were determined to keep alive their fathers'
way of life and customs'. This created quarrels and fights with the
Samaritans (auapEiia<;)/Sriechemites (ZiKiûaJv).
Josephus's accounts of the Oniad temple in War and in Antiquities do
not agree about whether it was Onias III (War 7.423) or IV (Ant.
12.388) who built the temple.
In War, the account opens with a reference to the destruction of a
Jewish temple in the district of Onias during the reign of Caesar, who,
'suspicious of the interminable tendency of the Jews to revolution', had
ordered it to be demolished. Antiquities has no such reference. Similar
to the Alexander story, the anticipating account in Ant. 12.387-88 connects the building of the temple with irregularities in Jerusalem's
temple court that were caused by politically appointed high priests. This
story is placed in the time of Antiochus IV and leading to Onias's flight
to the Egyptian King Ptolemy for protection. In Egypt, he erected a
temple in Heliopolis 'similar to that in Jerusalem'. War 7.427 (correcting a previous statement in War 1.33) stresses that the temple 'is not
like [o\)% ojioiov] that at Jerusalem, but such as resembled a tower'.
None of these accounts focus on the Samaritan question. However, the
expanded account of the Oniad temple in Ant. 13.62-74 does. One can
of course argue that it is only the redactional composition that encourages one to believe that these matters are related, since Josephus ends
the Oniad account before bringing up the question about the legitimate
temple.
The following arguments support dependency:
1.
The issue of cult centralization is not explicitly discussed in

the accounts of the Oniad temple. It is given implicit reference
in Onias's application, that the variety of temples lead to disagreements and improper cult practices (Ant. 13.60). Implicit
reference is also given in Josephus's commentary to the reply
of Ptolemy Philometor and Cleopatra, that 'they placed the
214
2.
3.
blame for the sin and transgression against the Law on the
head of Onias' (Ant. 13.69). That this should relate only to the
site's former pagan status, as assumed in the note in LCL 355,
p. 261, does fit well the cited letter, but we should not forget
that in Josephus's biblical tradition, only Jerusalem was left
clean after the Josianic reform.
The disputes between the Samaritans and Jews are held 'in the
presence of Ptolemy Philometor', who is given the status of
authoritative voice.
Onias justifies his building of the temple by a reference to the
prophet Isaiah, who foretold that '[T]here shall be an altar [in
Egypt to the Lord God [ecrcai 0\)oiaair|piov ev AiytmTcp
Kvpico TOO 6eep]' (Ant. 13.68). Parallel to this, the Jewish
spokesman Andronicus demonstrates the sovereignty of Jerusalem's temple with 'proofs from the Law [EK to\) vouoi)] and
by the succession of the high priests [icov 8ia8o%oJv tcav
dp%iepecov]' (Ant. 13.78).
The story opens:

Now there arose a quarrel between the Jews in Alexandria and the Samaritans who worshipped at the temple on mount Garizein which had been
built in the time of Alexander, and they disputed about their respective
temples in the presence of Ptolemy himself, the Jews asserting that it was
the temple at Jerusalem which had been built in accordance with the
laws of Moses, and the Samaritans that it was the temple on Garizein
(Ant. 13.74).
Josephus employs only the term Zauxxpeiq in this account, which, along
with the reference to Alexander, bears all the connotations of previous
accounts. From the context, it must be assumed that the discussion
relates to the reading of the Law. Whether both groups refer to the same
'codex' is not debated. The suggested 'proofs in accordance with the
Law' are never spelled out by the Samaritan negotiators Sabbaeus and
Theodosius, who gave 'Andronicus, the son of Messalamus' permission
to speak first (13.78). Since he successfully persuaded the king to
decide 'that the temple at Jerusalem had been built in accordance with
the Laws of Moses', the debate is over. Sabbaeus and Theodosius and
their party are put to death.44 We are deprived of any justification for
44. Which, according to W. Whiston, The Complete Works of Flavins Josephus
(Edinburgh, 1737; repr. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1960-81; Peabody, MA: Hendrick-
215
the Samaritan claim. In giving us Andronicus's eloquent denial of the

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

support in a reference to the honourable status of the temple, when,
chronologically speaking in Josephus's account, the 'Asian' Antiochus
IV had just pillaged it. No explicit proofs from the Law are given in
Josephus's account: no text reference, no quotations. This makes the
proof a question of reputation rather than legality and implicitly
confirms what we know from the discussions of Josephus's own time,
that the Law cannot prove the case.
Josephus's final account about the Samaritans relates to the destruction
of the Samaritan temple during John Hyrcanus' campaign against the
Syrian cities. After the death of Antiochus VII Sidetes, he considered it
to be easy to conquer these cities. So after conquering the Nabataean
cities of Medaba and Samoga, he attacked
Shechem and Garizein, and the Cuthean nation, which lives near the
temple built after the model of the sanctuary at Jerusalem, which
Alexander permitted his governor Sanaballetes to build for the sake of
his son-in-law Manasses, the brother of the high priest Jaddua, as we
have related before. Now it was two hundred years later that this temple
was laid waste (Ant. 13.255-56).
With this short text, Josephus 'collects' most of his accounts related to
the Samaritans and removes any possible doubt about which temple
John Hyrcanus had 'laid waste'.45 The description is in itself neutral.
son, 1987) should be normal practice in this type of court case.
45. Josephus's language is ambiguous here, since the expression: oi)ve|3r| 8e TOV
vaov TOVTOV epr||aov can mean that the temple 'was deserted', as Whiston's translation has it. This ambiguity of language reflects well Josephus's biblical tradition,
which, for instance, in Isa. 24.10, 12 makes the city of emptiness a desert, with broken walls and cries in the streets. In contrast, Josephus's language is crystal clear
when he relates the order to destruct the Oniad temple, using the verb KaSetpeoo
216
Should it imply a hidden controversy, or attempt to justify John Hyrcanus's action, that must be sought in the attached story of the subduing
of the Idumeans, who are only permitted to 'remain in their country so
long as they had themselves circumcised and were willing to observe
the laws [v6|iioic/voui|iOic;] of the Jews' (Ant. 13.257).46 They accepted
these conditions 'out of attachment to the land of their fathers', and
'they have from that time on continued to be Jews'. In Josephus's view,
the Idumaeans were ethnically and confessionally Jews, because they
accepted the terms made by the Jews. Placed in this context, we should
not be too confident in Josephus's intentions. Anticipating the destruction in his account of the hearing in Ptolemy Philometor's court, Josephus stated that 'the Jews, who were then in Alexandria, were in great
anxiety...for they were resentful that any should seek to destroy [KorcaX\)co]47 this temple which was so ancient and the most celebrated of all
those in the world' (Ant. 13.77).
Josephus 's Terminology
From the examination of Josephus's texts, a certain pattern appears.
This is probably related to either the perspective or the sources of the
account.
The term 'Cuthaeans' appears frequently in texts dealing with the
building or the destruction of the temple and is missing in texts dealing
with questions concerning the 'legitimate temple' or with purely political circumstances. It is noteworthy that the term is employed eight
times in Antiquities. Only one of these unrelated, namely Ant. 11.20,
referring to the related form of 11.19. A remarkable interrelated form is
found in the above-cited text about John Hyrcanus's temple destruction.
Instead of the usual combination ZajiapeiTai/XouGaioi, we find the
(cf. War 7.421). However, according to War 7.433-36, the Oniad temple was not
destroyed but stripped of its treasures and closed (cmoKXeito)! That Josephus does
not relate any temple destruction in his parallel account in War 1.63 must also be
taken into consideration. Could it be that the temple was not destroyed, thus agreeing with Samaritan tradition, as I shall relate in the next chapter?
46. This account has no parallel in War.
47. %aXe7t(6c; yap e<j>epov el Tomo tivet; Kmcd'uao'uaiv. Whiston's translation
has 'for they took it very ill that any should take away the reputation of that
temple'; both translations can be defended. Cf. Rengstorf, Concordance: xaA,eJtoo<;
(j>epeiv, ' to be (become) displeased (indignant)'; Kaialijco, 'destroy, dethrone', etc.
No specific reference to this text is given.
217
expression %o\)0cdcov yevoq (13.256), which relates to the historical

description of Sanballat's building of the temple, but only implicitly
combines this with the Samaritans.
The other six uses of the term Xo\)9aioi have an addition that has
either a geographical (Ant. 9.288; 10.184; 11.19) or ethnic/religious
connotation (Ant. 9.290), or both (Ant. 11.88; 11.302). These differences, however, should not be overstressed, if we consider Josephus's
use of the term in 9.288 and 290 as typical and interchangeable. By and
large, the Cuthaeans in Josephus's writings are people who were
brought to Samaria by Shalmanezer, adopted the name of the area as
well as its religion in their own form, and considered themselves to be
Jews.
The term is employed only in texts drawn from the Bible or from
biblical related texts (2 Kgs 17; Ezra 4-6; Neh. 13.28; 1 Esd. 2.16-30;
5.66-7.3). It is noticeably absent in accounts related to Alexander the
Great (with the exception of the description of Sanballat), Ptolemy I
Soter, Ptolemy Philometor and Antiochus IV. This is most clearly
expressed in this description of the Samaritans:
Now there arose a quarrel between the Jews in Alexandria and the Samaritans who worshipped at the temple on mount Garizein, which had been
built in the time of Alexander, and they disputed about their respective
temples in the presence of Ptolemy himself, the Jews asserting that it was
the temple at Jerusalem which had been built in accordance with the
laws of Moses, and the Samaritans that it was the temple on Garizein
(Ant. 13.74).
No reference is made to 'Cuthaeans' or 'Sanballat', which contrasts

strikingly with the account of the temple destruction.
Etymologically, the term does not seem to have any other background than that of the geographical name Chuthah,48 which in Old
Testament Scripture is found in 2 Kings 17 only. It is totally absent in
pseudepigraphic literature and is not to be found in any ancient Near
Eastern texts before its occurence in Josephus and rabbinic literature.49
Thus it is not possible to discuss other reasons for the term's application
48. W. Gesenius, Hebraisches und aramaisches Handwdrterbuch iiber das Alte
Testament (Berlin: Springer Verlag, 17th edn, 1962); M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of
the Targumim, Talmud Babli, Yerushalmi and Midrashic Literature (New York:
Jastrow, 1967); J. Levy, Worterbuch iiber die Talmudim und die Midrashim (4
vols.; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1963).
49. Cf. Chapter 4 above.
218
to Samaritans. A later judgment of the Samaritans apparently caused

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

51. Egger, Josephus Flavins, pp. 294, 301-302, 315-16.
52. Concluded also by Rita Egger, Josephus Flavius, p. 172, on the background
of a much larger body of material.
53. Which is in itself interesting, compared to the Jewish petition that Alexander 'permit the Jews in Babylon and Media also to have their own laws' (Ant.
11.338). In this story, however, the Samaritans are said to claim that they are
descendents of Joseph (Ant. 11.341) and Hebrews called Sidonians of Shechem
(Ant. 11.343).
219
Attempts at a historicizing reading of the two text corpora have

proved unsuccessful. It has not been possible to decide who these Sidonians are or whether they, as in Josephus's accounts, were equivalent to
Samaritans.54 Knowledge of a Sidonian colony in Marissa in the second
century BCE55 has encouraged proposals of a similar colony in Shechem,
one which did not belong to the Samaritans themselves but which made
use of their temple.56 Confirmation of this proposal certainly would be
interesting. It would demand a further examination of who these Samaritans are who have the temple. They certainly could not be any of those
groups presented in Josephus! Most probably, they would belong to the
'lost tribes of Israel', which Josephus has cast out for good (cf. Ant.
10.183; 11.133).
This problem, however, is not important here, since it is Josephus's
metaphorical use of his 'sources' that interests us. Josephus's progressive narrowing down of the Samaritans as the population of, first, the
whole of the northern kingdom in the time of Shalmanezer and Ezra, to
the mixed population of renegade Jews in the time of Alexander, to a
'Sidonian colony' and finally to 'those living around Mt Gerizim' in
Maccabaean time hardly reflects reality. Apart from being controversial
in Josephus's own account about the quarrel in front of Ptolemy, it
contradicts what we otherwise know of the Samaritan diaspora of Josephus's own time. Based on a reading of Homer, E.J. Bickerman considered, the designation to mean Phoenician, which in the geographical list
54. Egger, Josephus Flavins, pp. 266-81, probably offers the clearest example
of the impossibility of such a reading and of the difficulties in establishing any
authenticity for the document. Unaware of the caveat she implicitly brings into her
interpretation of the document, she reached the following conclusion on p. 278: 'die
Sidonier hatten von nun an nicht mehr oder nicht mehr ausschliesslich JHWH
verehrt: Der Garizin-Tempel ist einige Jahrzehnte spater (129/128) zerstort worden.
Der Grund dieser Zerstorung durch Johannes Hyrcanus ist uE. bei den Sidoniern
bzw. ihrer Herrschafft iiber diesen Tempel zu zuchen.'
55. Schurer, History of the Jewish People, II (rev. edn 1979), pp. 4-5. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, p. 453 n. 128: 'The large number of Edomite names
confronts the scholar with the question whether the Sidonians at Marisa were really
from the neighborhood of Tyre and Sidon, or whether they were "Canaanites" in
the broad sense of the term.'
56. M. Delcor, 'Vom Sichem der hellenistische Epoche zum Sychar des Neuen
Testamentes', ZDPV 78 (1962), pp. 35-38; Kippenberg, Garizim und Synagoge,
p. 79; R. Pummer,'Genesis 34 in Jewish Writings of the Hellenistic and Roman
Periods', HTR 75 (1982), pp. 177-88.
220
of Gen. 10.15 is Canaanite, 'since Sidon is Canaan's firstborn and

Shechem originally a Canaanite town' (sic).51
This explanation fits Josephus's intentions in Ant. 11.340-41, which
combines Sidonians, Shechemites and apostate Jews. It might also
explain interpretations of Genesis 34 in pseudepigraphic and Hellenistic
literature. That the Samaritans themselves should have used the name
'Sidonian', and thus have distinguished themselves from the Jews of
Jerusalem by asserting a relationship to Melchizedek (who allegedly
should have 'belonged to the race of Sidon and Canaan'), is an interesting but unsupported idea put forward by Bickerman.58 However, if such
were the case, I think we might expect a more favourable presentation
of Canaan than Genesis 9's in the SP.
57. E. Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek Age (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988).
This hypothesis is put forward by A. Alt (1937^40), see Egger, Josephus Flavins,
p. 266. Strabo, Geog. 16.2.22. See, further, V.A. Tcherikover and A. Fuks (eds.),
Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum (3 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1957-64), I, p. 120 n. 5: 'In Palestine the Phoenicians were known either as
Sidonians or as Canaanites (Hebrew D^WD); inLXX: (|>oiviKri is used sometimes for
Canaan (e.g. Exod. 16.35), sometimes for Sidon (e.g. Isa. 23.2).' Cf. for other
numerous instances R. Abel, La geographie de Palestine (2 vols.; Paris: J. Gabalda,
1933-38), I, pp. 254-55 (Exod. 6.15; Josh. 5.1; Mk 7.26): 'En effet, non seulement
Homere, mais encore la Bible designeret les Pheniciens sous le nom de Sidoniens
pour marquer peut-etre qu'ils n'etaient pas tout Canaan. Ne en des temps recules,
1'usage se maintenent apres meme que Tyr et conquis 1'hegemonic. Itoba'al, roi de
Tyr, est appele roi des Sidoniens; Astarte, divinite phenicienne a travailler le bois
est attribute aux Sidoniens'; N.P. Lemche, The Canaanites and their Land
(JSOTSup, 110; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), p. 156: 'In Hos. 12.8 Canaan is on
one hand an Ephraimite and on the other a tradesman. Now this is the only evidence
in the Old Testament of the identity between Ephraimites and Canaanites. It was
therefore proposed above that Hosea in this place makes use of a foreign ethnic
designation to disclose the true character of Ephraim, while at the same time
imparting a sociological connotation to this ethnic term.'
58. Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek Age, p. 11: 'By styling themselves "Sidonians", that is "Canaanites", and therefore autochthonous, the descendants of the
Assyrian settlers appropriated the ancient glory of Shechem and trumped both the
Jews in Jerusalem, the older arrivals in Canaan, as well as the Greeks at Samaria,
the more recent arrivals. The Shechemites now asserted, for instance, that Melchizedek, king of Salem (in the vicinity of Shechem) and priest of the most high God,
who according to the Torah had blessed Abraham and received tithes from that
Patriarch, was one of their people, since he belonged to "the race of Sidon and
Canaan". Moreover, proclaiming that Melchizedek had officiated at Gerizim, they
claimed for their temple an antiquity far surpassing that of Zion.'
221
Sidonians in biblical tradition are identical with the worst of idol

worship that caused the partition of the kingdom, resulting from Yahweh's punishment of Solomon's worship of 'Ashtoret the goddess of
the Sidonians, Kemosh the god of Moab and Milkom the god of the
children of Ammon' (1 Kgs 11.5, 33; 2 Kgs 23.13). In the centre of this
narrative cycle, thematically designed as 'he walked in all the way of
Jeroboam the son of Nebat and in the sins which he made Israel to sin,
provoking the Lord the god of Israel to anger by their idols', is the narrative about Ahab the son of Omri, who sinned even more by marrying
the daughter of the Sidonian King Etbaal and raising an altar for Baal in
Samaria (1 Kgs 16.30-32). The reiteration of this theme in 1 Kgs 15.34;
16.2, 19, 26, 31; 22.53 and 2 Kgs 3.3; 10.29; 13.2, 11; 14.24; 15.9, 18,
24, 28 relates the narratives to each other and forwards the fate of the
northern kingdom. It is contrasted to the reforms of Josiah, which, in a
final reiteration of both Solomon's and Jeroboam's sins and the defilement of their cult places (2 Kgs 23.13-20), marks every place outside of
the walls of Jerusalem as unclean. Reiterating the passover of the time
of the judges, Israel's and Judaea's royal pasts are made parenthetical.
The intention of the reform is not only the purification of the people,
but unification in a pre-monarchic past's hope for a new beginning. The
thematic elements of this cycle are the king's apostasy, erection of cult
places for foreign gods (further aggravated by the king's marriage into
the families of these foreign gods), the people's deceit when it preferred
Jeroboam to Rehoboam and the partition of the kingdom. This is not
brought to an end before the foreign gods are thrown out and their cult
places destroyed, that there be only one temple and one ruler.
Josephus's thematic accord with this narration in his first 'Sidonian'
account in Ant. 11.297-347 is striking. Josephus's story also deals with
the question of the people's deceit. Sanballat and his son-in-law did not
hesitate to break their oath to Darius. They created a mixed race by
marriage with foreign women. They made a cult place outside of Jerusalem attributed to a god without a name, who becomes a Greek god in
Josephus's second 'Sidonian' account. Finally, they caused a division
of 'the strength of the Jews'.
It seems reasonable to ask whether Josephus had the biblical tradition
in mind. Whether, purposely exploiting the most dominant metaphor of
the narrative, the Sidonians, who in tradition had become synonomous
with ever-hated 'Canaanites', he sought to place the Samaritans in a
context of Gentiles. Such an assumption finds support in his concomi-
222
tant use of 'Shechem'. In the biblical tradition Shechem not only bears
the burden of guilt for the rape of Jacob's daughter Dinah, and the
resulting rejection in spite of their circumcision, but also the burden of
the people's deceit in the time of Abimelech, which 'increased idolatry'
(Judg. 8.33-9.57). Judges 9 is the only passage in the Hebrew Bible
mentioning the 'Shechemites', expressed by DDE? '"'PID in Judg. 9.2, 3,
6, 7, 18, 20, 23, 24, 26, 39 and DD& {?] in 9.57. The closing statement
in 9.57 about the evil deeds of the Shechemites (DDE? '{83K nm'^D) may
have had a forceful effect in Josephus's own time, comparable to what
we find in a Talmudic commentary on the Testament ofLevi.59 The narrative opens (Judg. 8.33) and ends (Judg. 10.6) with remarks about
apostasy: that the people worshipped Dîn (Baals) and Ashtarot
(rrnntBU), which, with the exception of this account, only appear
together in Judg. 2.13, the beginning of the apostasy at the time of the
Judges, and in 1 Sam. 7.4 and 12.10, the restoration during Samuel,
where the removal of these gods brings peace. Apart from this, mHDS)
is only mentioned in the already mentioned cycle, namely 1 Kings 112 Kings 23 and in the account of the death of Saul (1 Sam. 31.10). It
seems reasonable to assume that Josephus consciously used the terms
Sidonians and Shechemites in his discussion about the Samaritans.
After the destruction of the temple, they are termed EctjiapeiTai/ EajLiapeiq (cf.Ant. 13.275; 15.292; 17.20, 69, 319, 342; 18.30, 85-89, 167;
20.118-36). In none of these accounts do ethnicity and confession play
an independent role. Most of these accounts are related to hostility and
fraud.
Josephus between Jewish War and Antiquities
Parallel accounts in Antiquities to some of the accounts in War display
a tendency of concern that cannot be explained on the possibility that
Josephus had more exact information at hand when he wrote Antiquities. By text expansion and conscious use of terminology, Josephus's
apologetic interest in contrasting Jew and Samaritan is given greater
59. b. Sank. 102.1: There was a time destined to be calamitous. At that time
Tamar was nearly burned, and Judah's two sons died. The place was also productive of calamities; for in Shechem Dinah was disgraced, in Shechem Joseph was
sold, and in Shechem also was the kingdom of David divided' (cf. P.I. Hershon,
The Pentateuch According to the Talmud: Genesis with a Talmudic Commentary
[London: S. Baxter & Sons, 1883], p. 420).
223
emphasis in Antiquities than in War, He thus seems to have felt it necessaryin an expansion of War 1.64-65to justify John Hyrcanus's
campaign against Samaria by adding that 'he hated the Samaritans [TOI<;
Eauxxpeijaw] as scoundrels because of the injuries which, in obedience
to the kings of Syria, they had done to the people of Marisa, who were
colonists [arcoiKO'uc;] and allies [cru|u,u.dxoi)<;] of the Jews' (Ant. 13.27576).60
War 2.232-44 //Antiquities 20.118-36
In these stories, Josephus tells about Samaritans fighting with Galilaeans in Ginea, Jewish intervention in the fight and a trial that judges
the Samaritans responsible for the fight. An analysis of Josephus's terminology in the two accounts is enlightening.
War 2.232: Next came a conflict [0i>|j,po?if|] between the Galilaeans [FaXiXaicov]
and the Samaritans [Zajiapecov]61.
Ant. 20.118: hatred [e%9pa] arose between the Samaritans [Za|iapeiTCu<;] and
the Jews [rcpoc; louScdoix;].62
War 2.233: Cumanus did not interfere because he had more important affairs on
his hands.
Ant. 20.119: Cumanus, 'having been bribed by the Samaritans, neglected to
avenge them' .
War 2.235-36: Cumanus, after the Jewish brigands and rioters had fallen 'upon
the borderers of the toparchy of Acrabatene', massacred the inhabitants and
burned down the villages, took with him from Caesarea a troop of cavalry
known as Sebastenians and set off to the assistance of the victims of these
ravages.
Ant. 20.122: Cumanus, after the Jews had taken action and had burned and
plundered many 'villages of the Samaritans', went out with soldiers from
Sebaste and after arming the Samaritans, marched out against the Jews.
War 2.239: 'the leading Samaritans... urged Ummidius Quadratus to punish the
authors of these depredations'.
60. The Greek term designates that the league was related to war and politics. If
for some reason the people of Marisa (cov Mapior|vo\)<;) is a 'misspelling' of the
district of Samaria, as suggested by Ralph Marcus, LCL 365, p. 366, we certainly
have an interesting mixture of, on the one hand 'Samaritans' being allied to the
Jews, though they were colonists, and Samaritans (probably of a non-Cuthaean
stock) not being allied to the Jews, but probably being kinsfolk.
61. Notice the equality between the involved parties in this text.
62. Josephus' s text more correctly should have been translated that 'Samaritans
had hatred against the Jews'.
224
Ant. 20.125-27: the 'leaders of the Samaritans met with Ummidius Quadratus,
the governor of Syria, who at that time was in Tyre, and accused the Jews
of firing and sacking their villages', and what was even worse of 'the contempt that the Jews had shown for the Romans' by not appealing the case
to the Romans, 'as though they did not have the Romans as their governors'.63
War 2.240: the Samaritans had originated the disturbance, and that Cumanus
should carry the whole responsibility for 'refusing to take proceedings
against the assassins'.
Ant. 20.127: the Jews accused the Samaritans for being responsible for the strife,
and Cumanus for having been bribed by them.
War 2.241: Quadratus 'crucified all the prisoners taken by Cumanus'.64
Ant. 20.129: Quadratus, after his first hearing in Samaria, 'crucified those of the
Samaritans and of the Jews who had taken part in the rebellion and whom
Cumanus had taken prisoner'.
War 2.242-44: 'he [Quadratus] gave another hearing to the Samaritans', whereafter 'he sent for 18 Jews, who, as he was informed, had taken part in the
combat, and had them beheaded'.
Ant. 20.130-33: a certain Samaritan informed Quadratus, that the Jews' real
intentions was to revolt against Rome. Quadratus, after having put to death
some of the Jewish leaders, hastened to Jerusalem, fearing a fresh revolution, but found the city 'at peace and observing one of the traditional religious festivals'.
War 2.245-46: At the trial Agrippa defended the Jews, while many eminent persons supported Cumanus. The result of the hearing is similar to that in
Antiquities.
Ant. 20.135: Cumanus and the Samaritans were met with considerable support
by Caesar's freedmen and friends, and that they would have won the case if
not the emperor's wife Agrippina, urged by Agrippa the Younger, had persuaded Caesar Claudius to make a hearing and 'punish the instigators of
the revolt'. This hearing convinced Claudius 'that the Samaritans were the
first to move in stirring up trouble'. They were accordingly put to death,
and the officals Cumanus and Celer disgraced.
This rather neutral way of describing the Samaritan-Jewish relationship is reflective of Josephus's other accounts in War. This does not
63. This accusation of the Jews for opportunism in Ant. 20.127 is a free interpretation of War 2.237 mentioning the Jewish fear of bringing down the wrath of
the Romans on Jerusalem.
64. Tacitus, Ann. 12.54, relating of the quarrels between Samaritans and Jews,
says that Cumanus crucified the Jews, since they had dared to slay Roman soldiers.
225
mean, however, that Jews and Samaritans typically were on friendly

terms with each other. They were not, but the overtones that colour
most of Josephus's stories in Antiquities are missing in War. Thus Ant.
17.342, concordant with War 2.111, parallels Samaritans and Jews in
their common accusation of Archelaus for brutality and cruelty.
War 3.307-15 relates the sufferings of the Samaritans (Zajiapeic;)
during the Roman siege of 'their sacred Mountain called Garizein'.
This account is similar to Josephus's account of the suffering of the
Galilaeans, and forms part of his account of the siege of Jotapata. Josephus mentions the rashness of the Samaritans, that 'the success of the
Romans made them ridiculously conceited of their own feebleness, and
they were eagerly contemplating the prospect of revolt'. This led Vespasian to capture the mountain and kill those who had not fled or surrendered to the number of 11,600. The Samaritans had been offered
safe conduct, but refused. At a first glance, it could look as if Josephus
criticizes the Samaritans' actions, using this story as a contrast story.
However, reading the whole account and taking into consideration his
description of the sufferings of the Galilaeans, it is clear that, if any
contrast were intended, it relates to the Samaritans' ability to withstand
the Romans. It seems proper to assume that Josephus brought these
three accounts together in order to demonstrate the severeness of the
resistance that threatened Vespasian, describing how every group did
what they could to hamstring Roman power.
The closing remark that 'such was the catastrophe which overtook
the Samaritans' is the only place in War (with the exception of 1.562
and 592, which are unimporant here) where the term Eaiiapeliai is
employed. A consequent use of Zajiapeiq is found in the remaining
texts. Parallel to this, only few occurrences of au.apeiiai are found in
the later chapters of Antiquities,65 all of which have polemical overtones
(e.g. Ant. 17.69; 18.30; 20.118). The importance of this, however,
should not be overstressed since a certain harmonization seems to have
developed through the transmission of Josephus's texts. The lack of an
Urtext prohibits us from establishing any certainity about the issue.66
The term Eajaapecov eOvoc; is employed only in Ant. 17.20 and 18.85,
and relates to the 'Samaritan nation', to those who believe Mt Garizein
to be the most sacred mountain.
65. Egger, Josephus Flavins, pp. 247-48.

66. Egger, Josephus Flavins, p. 250.
226
Concluding Remarks to Josephus's Presentation of Samaritans

As a Jew trained in Jewish thought and living for some months (Oct.
66-July 67) in Galilee, Josephus shows surprisingly little knowledge of
Judaean-Samaritan controversies over cult and temple in his accounts
in War. The picture is not far from that given in 2 Maccabees, where
Jews and Samaritans had fought together against the Seleucid oppression and had suffered equally. In general, the terminology is neutral and
the only occurrence of the term %o\)0aicov yevoq (War 1.63) does not
have the sectarian overtones that characterize the use of the term in
Antiquities. As related earlier in War's account of John Hyrcanus's
campaign, Josephus does not tell of any temple destruction, but only of
the defeat of the Cuthaeans. It is perhaps correct to assume that the
temple was not destroyed but deserted.
While in Rome, Josephus, much later, wrote Antiquities, his stories
about Samaritan connection with central events in Judaism testify to a
greater interest in what subsequently became known as the JewishSamaritan schism. Is this due to a better opportunity of using relevant
sources in handling a problem that 'later' became so well known that
the New Testament, Church Fathers and rabbinic literature all take
measures to handle co-existent problems between Samaritans and Jews?
Josephus did have access to Epaphroditus's huge library, and age had
probably also supplied him with greater knowledge in general. However, Josephus's perspective, which is more interesting to detect than
any possible source, is given its most adequate expression in Apion 1.1
when he states,
In my history of our Antiquities, most excellent Epaphroditus, I have, I
think, made sufficiently clear to any who may peruse that work the
extreme antiquity of our Jewish race, the purity of the original stock, and
the manner in which it established itself in the country which we occupy
today. That history embraces a period of five thousand years and was
written by me in Greek on the basis of our sacred books.
In this perspective, Josephus's treatment of the Samaritans is of midrashic character, employing available material in a conscious presentation that argues that the Samaritans are, at best, 'apostates of the
Judaean nation' and, at worst, nothing but heathens, whom he out of
politeness calls Xoi>6aioi, instead of the D*1"]} employed in some rabbinic writings. The emphasis on the Jewish race's 'extreme antiquity'
and 'purity of the original stock' contrasts with his description of the
227
Samaritans as latecomers and as impure, a mixture of five different

peoples who had later intermarried with various other peoples.
In War, Josephus, as an historian, presented his version of recent
Jewish history. In Antiquities, serving both the role of a historian and a
'rabbi',67 he composed his history on Jewish antiquity in order to
demonstrate that legitimate Judaism belongs to Jerusalem. This message was forcefully given to the Roman leaders, not only to defend the
sovereignty of the Jewish temple, but also to demonstrate the loyalty of
the Jewish leaders to the Romans. Every time such loyalty was questioned, they stood the test, as they had also done in the time of Persian
and Greek leadership. After the loss of the Jewish temple in Roman
times, the pivotal questions related to 'where' and 'how' the temple
kept alive the hopes of Jewish survival in a world that did not look upon
Judaism with favour. Josephus's treatments of the Samaritan question
makes it implicitly clear that Samaritanism and other 'Judaisms'
especially the Jews of Heliopoliswere a threat to Josephus's presentation of a Jerusalem-centred Judaism. The diaspora belonging to such
groups were not fewer than those of the Jewish diaspora.68 Their theology could not be argued to be significantly different from that of the
Jews, with the one exception that they offered their worship to Garizim.
As a historian, Josephus could not refuse to mention these communities
and their temples. They were part of the historical discussion. However,
like a rabbi, he could compose his material in a way that would prove to
the reader that these groups were dissidents from what he saw as true
Judaism. He argues implicitly that during the Hellenistic period they
had left their Jewish foundation and, with it, the laws of their ancestors.
He argues that they practise a Judaism that was alien to that of
Jerusalem, even though their faith had originally come from Jerusalem.
Josephus's sectarianism resembles parts of the Jewish tradition that had
asserted Jerusalem's chronological and ideological priority over its
competitors. The temple in Jerusalem he claims to be older than other
competing temples. Although Jerusalem had not avoided being influenced by Hellenistic culture, few dissidents supported such a culture:
one Manasseh and one Onias, and theyand here Josephus's argument
achieves wholeness and eloquent balancewere eventually transferred
67. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 75, speaks of a 'Pharisaic profile' in Antiquities.
68. A.D. Crown, 'The Samaritan Diaspora', in idem (ed.), The Samaritans
(Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 195-217 (201).
228
to the competing temples, which now are implicitly claimed to be both

younger than that of Jerusalem and politically based on Greek and
Ptolemaic authority. It is a wonder that Josephus in War shows no interest in mentioning the Samaritan temple. Does it form part of his strategy? Is the repeated information about the temple in Heliopolis (War.
1.31, 33; 7.422-32) part of the same strategy?
Lack of documentation characterizes all of Josephus's descriptions.
Who built the temple in Heliopolis? Was it Onias III during the reign of
Ptolemy VI (cf. War 1.33; 7.423) or Onias's son, Onias IV, who did not
obtain the office of the high priest in Jerusalem after the death of
Menelaus (162-60 BCE), but rather had fled to Egypt (cf. Ant. 12.387;
13.62-73, 285)? Or could it possibly have been Onias's nephew Onias,
surnamed Menelaus (Ant. 20.236)? How long did it stand, if, in accordance with Josephus's dating in War 7.436, it was demolished after the
Sicarii's flight to Egypt in the aftermath of the fall of Masada, 343 years
after its erection. This would date its erection to around 270 BCE, a date
conflicting with Josephus's own chronology.
Scholarly consensus maintains that it was Onias IV who built the
temple in Tell el-Yehudieh east of the Nile delta, 180 stadies or 24
Roman miles north of Memphis.69 The colony was probably a military
camp serving the Egyptian defence (War 1.190). Findings of Jewish
names on tombstones confirm Jewish presence in the area. Chronologically, most of these are dated about a hundred years later, and are of no
help for an a quo dating in the third or second century BCE.70 Jewish
camps in Egypt were not unusual. Some might have been similar to Elephantine with their own temples, even before Onias was to have built
his temple. Egyptian papyri dating to the third century BCE mention a
village named Samareia in the Fayum near Arsinoe.71 Josephus mentions that Alexander placed Sanballat's troops in Thebes (Ant. 11.345)
and that Ptolemy I Lagos took captives from Judaea and Jerusalem together with captives from the Samaritan and the Gerizim area and settled them in Egypt (Ant. 12.7). However, exact figures of how many
Jews actually lived in Egypt can be doubted. Philo's mention of a
69. Schtirer, History of the Jewish People, III, pp. 145 n. 33 (32), 146 n. 33.
70. CPJ, III, pp. 1451-1530. Neither in inscriptions or in administrative documents are there found any secure references to Onias and his sons. A doubtful reference is found in the inscriptions CPJ, I-II, 1450, 1455, and in pap. CPJ, I, 132.
Most of the datable inscriptions date from 50 BCE to around 50 CE.
71. Schtirer, History of the Jewish People, III, p. 59.
229
million Jews 'from Kathabathmos near Libya to the Egyptian frontier'

is probably a rhetorical exaggeration.72 Strabo does not mention a
Jewish presence in his description of the temple of Heliopolis north of
Bubastus.73 His description of the animal sacrifice in the temples of the
area74 seems to be the background for Josephus's polemical description
of the temple in Ant. 13.66-67, 70-71, since it is only in this story that
he mistakes Heliopolis for Leontopolis. Josephus's placement of the
Judaean-Samaritan discussion in Alexandria in connection with this
story is thus even more striking, and it is reasonable to ask whether
Josephus composed his material in a way that would miscredit both the
Samaritan and the Oniad temple at the same time.
1.
2.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
Both temples have their background in high priests excluded

from Jerusalem. Their questionable characters are made explicit. Manasseh, betraying the security of his country, chose the
marriage and the relationship with the 'Cuthaeans'. Onias IV
wanted to create a name for himself, which was not possible
because of circumstances in Jerusalem. War 7.431 tells us that
Onias's dishonest motive was to rival the Jews at Jerusalem
and attract the multitude away from them. Both narratives'
legendary traits point to functions of folklore and slander,
whose main purposes are to entertain, create continuation and
pronounce judgment.
The use of 'Leontopolis', city of lions, is a message to the educated reader, and especially to the Jewish reader who knew the
Jewish tradition about the Samaritans' doubtful Jewish adherence based on the fear of lions. Josephus's use of this name in
his reference to Heliopolis is no matter of chance, since
Strabo's mention of the neighbouring cities could well have
led to a different choice. Moreover, Leontopolis is far from
being close to Heliopolis. It is not probable that the place
name should refer to an unknown spot nearby, as has been
suggested by Schiirer.75 It is much more probable that the
Phoenician Leontopolis's closeness to Sidon76 creates the connection in Josephus's metaphorical use of the name.
Schiirer, History of the Jewish People, III, p. 44.
Geog. 17. 1.27-30.
Geog. 17.1.19,22,40.
SchUrer, History of the Jewish People, III, p. 146 n. 33.
Strabo, Geog. 16.2.22.
230

3.
4.
The building of the temple in Heliopolis on the heap of ruins

of a former pagan temple is improbable. The problem is not
solved by cleansing the place, as expressed in Onias's application. The answer of the king most probably reflects the author's
attitude. War 7.420-32 does not contain this correspondence;
the polemic against the building limits itself to the critique of
Onias's motive in v. 431, thus 'correcting' vv. 423-25, which
have Antiochus IV s intolerable religious persecutions as its
motive.
The trial before Ptolemy Philometor deals with the temples in
Jerusalem and on Gerizim. Placed here, Josephus demonstrates
that the temple in Heliopolis/Leontopolis had no significance.
This is probably correct, judging from its absence in JewishAlexandrian literature.77 Onias probably did not attract many
Jews nor weaken the power of the Jews, but he certainly raised
for himself a namein literature! When the judgment denied
the Samaritan claim, Josephus was able to demonstrate Jerusalem's sovereignty, and, with his reference to the succession
of high priests, he removed any question of the legitimate high
priest in fact being in Heliopolis.
With this, we are thrown back into the question of the function of the
temple in Heliopolis in Josephus's writing. Nobody seems to know
such a temple or need it, and it is puzzling why he mentions it at all.
Did it exist outside of Josephus's fantasy? The answer can be both yes
and no. That temples existed outside of Jerusalem has been proved sufficiently in M. Smith's work from 1971.78 M. Hengel furthermore considers it probable that 'competitive' temples were erected in Palestine
as late as the second century BCE.79 It is surprising that none of these
77. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, p. 278. The assumption that it is mentioned in the Sib. Or. 5.501, 507 has been rejected by J. Geffcken, Komposition u.
Entstehungszeit d. Oracula Sibyllina (Leipzig: n. pub., 1902), p. 26.
78. Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics, p. 93: 'So the cult of Yahweh was
disseminated from a number of centers known to usHaran, Elephantine, Babylonia, Lachish, Samaria, Gerizim, Tabor, Carmel, Hermon, Hebron, Mamre, Deir
'Alia, Tell es-Sa'idiyeh, Araq el-Emir, Leontopolisand probably from others of
which we have no record.'
79. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism (rev. edn, 1996), p. 274: 'Probably at the
same time as the foundation of Leontopolis, the synagogue at Antioch also took on
temple-like functions to which "the successors of Antiochus IV"presumably
231
are mentioned in Josephus's works. Similarly, it is surprising that nonJewish authors of the second and first century BCE do not mention that
the Jews only accept one temple in a world that is elsewhere characterized by having several. Thus, Onias's temple in Egypt creates no
special attention as long as the temple in Jerusalem is still standing and
considered to stand at the centre of Judaism. Therefore, the critique of
Onias in War does not relate to cult but to policy, and the placement of
Onias is more important than any possible question of cult centralization. By this we might have arrived to the crux interpretum of the
Heliopolis stories. Let us therefore put forward another hypothesis.
The legitimate high priest did not go to Gerizim or form a competitive community in Judaea. He was much too busy in Egypt, where the
placement followed because of the similarity of the names Onias and
On and tradition's testimony of Jewish settlement in the area.80 It is,
however, not Onias who gives the area its name. This was established
centuries earlier. The mention of Onias's land in Ant. 14.131 cannot be
identified with Onias's temple activities.81 Unfortunately, Josephus did
not take into consideration the traditions of 2 Maccabees when he wrote
War. It is not improbable that he mistook Onias for Jason, who, according to 2 Mace. 5.8-10, was shipwrecked on his way to the Lacedaemonians and cast ashore in Egypt. Josephus does not mention Jason's fate,
but only his rebellion in Ant. 12.237-40, and he seems to have forgotten
him in Ant. 20.235-37. When Josephus later became familiar with
Onias's fate (2 Mace. 4.34), he had to transfer the event to his son
Demetrius I Soter, 162-150 BCbequeathed the bronze vessels taken by Antiochus
from the temple. Later kings also bequeathed valuable gifts to the growing community, with which "the sanctuary was adorned" (TO iepov eêXduTip-uvav). Presumably the Ptolemies, like the Seleucids, sought to make 'central sanctuaries' in
their sphere of rule independent of "apostate" Jerusalem, for the use of the Jews. Of
course these efforts remained without real success.'
80. Cf. Jer. 43.13: Dn^Q p3 "ICDK 2JQ2J mi, LXX*: tout; ev Qv; The Hebrew
here clearly echoes the Gk form Heliopolis, "city of Helios" so called from the worship of solar deities peculiar to the city. In Egyptian, the town was called Iwnw
"pillar town" a form reflected in Akk. Ana, Coptic On, and Hebrew 'on/'awen (JIN)
(Ezek. 30.17), which LXX renders Helioupoleus' (D.B. Redford, 'Heliopolis', ABD,
III, pp. 122-23). Joseph's marriage to Aseneth, daughter of the priest in On, with
whom he begot the sons Ephraim and Manasseh (cf. Gen. 41.45, 50; 46.20) and the
LXX reading of Exod. 1.11's Helioupoleus for Ramses, could have led tradition to
connect Onias with the place.
81. Schtirer, History of the Jewish People, III, p. 48. Josephus, LCL 365 p. 517.
232
Onias IV, but now there was no return. Literarily, Onias had built his
temple in Heliopolis as a consequence of Antiochus IV's oppression of
the Jews in Jerusalem. The only thing to do was to deny its importance
and its relationship to true Judaism. When, at the same time, a Judaism
that had lost its centre demanded a clear statement of where this centre
needed to be, Josephus took the opportunity to prove that no centres
outside of Jerusalem could claim legitimacyeven if this had been
placed in the famous On, which not only testified to the favour of Egyptian kings for centuries, but also was the place where famous Greek
philosophers like Solon, Pythagoras and Plato had sought wisdom, and
where Moses had been priest.82 Josephus's implicit argument accords
with rabbinic literature, which places Onias's temple in a subordinate
position to the temple cult in Jerusalem and denies recognition of its
sacrificial rites and its priests, who are given the status of the priests
mentioned in 2 Kgs 23.9: 'Nevertheless the priests of the high places
came not up to the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem, but they did eat
unleavened bread among their brethren', thus they were like them that
have a blemish: they may share and they may eat (of the Holy things)
but they may not offer sacrifice.'83 The same judgment was given of the
Samaritan priests in Masseket Kutim 23 and 27.
It now seems possible to propose some conclusions about Josephus's
historiography. The most important events are at best undocumented
and at worst contradicted in other works. Alexander probably never was
in Jerusalem, if we are to believe Diodoros Sicculus, Strabo, Arrian,
Curtius Rufus, and others, and the narrative's focus on Jewish-Samaritan controversies, similar to what we find in the first century CE
Megillat Ta'anit makes it more than doubtful that the story has any
original core of truth regarding events of the fourth century BCE.84 The
82. D.B. Redford, 'Heliopolis', pp. 122-23; D.B. Redford, Pharaonic King
Lists, Annals, and Daybooks (Publication No. 4; Ontario: SSEA, 1986); Strabo,
Geog. 17.1.29. Heliopolis's connection with Moses in Egyptian history-writing
(esp. Manetho, see Apion, 1.250, 260-87) and this historiography's consequent
claim that the Jews should be of Egyptian origin is strongly rejected by Josephus
(Apion 2.8-32). Josephus's interest in answering such 'accusation' might have been
a second reason for his Heliopolis story. Similar to his Alexander story of the
Samaritan temple, it establishes an origin tradition for the cult and removes any
questionable connections with such a 'troublesome' past.
83. m.Men. 13.10.
84. See the discussion of Simon the Just in Chapter 4 above.
233
documents regarding John Hyrcanus seem to have been lost when

1 Maccabees was written. The brusque closure of this book after the
summary of his exploits is similar to the often-used phraseology of Old
Testament 'historical books', which in like manner refers variously to
chronicles that are not employed further.
Archaeological finds are inconclusive. Samaria seems to have been
destroyed by Alexander on his return from Egypt in 331 because of
rebellious activities, and a Macedonian garrison was placed there.85
Some of the survivors possibly moved to Shechem, which seems to
have been re-established as a Macedonian city at this time, only to be
destroyed again in the late third or early second century BCE during the
Ptolemaic-Seleucid wars.86 Samaria's 300 years' position as provincial
capital in the Assyrian87 and Babylonian Periods, which in the Persian
period also included Jerusalem until the fifth century, might have
inspired the writing of stories of rivalry in the 'narratives of return',
Josephus's Alexander story and the discussion before Ptolemy. The
Assyrian siege, however, did not lead to a complete destruction of the
city. The city walls remained. It was not until the Greek destruction that
the city lost its governmental importance for a period of about 130
years, to be regained in the Seleucid period. Again destroyed in the
Maccabaean interim, it regained its status in Roman times. Hellenistic
and pagan influence is apparent from the finds of imported pottery and
statues of Hercules, Dionysus, Apollon and Kore. The latter's temple
was built partly of remains of an earlier temple from the third century
BCE, dedicated to Serapis-Isis and attributed to the Dioscuri.88
85. According to Curtius Rufus 4.8, 9-11.

86. Re-evaluating the results of G.E. Wright, both E.F. Campbell and I. Magen
have asked for a further consideration of Shechem's relationship to the Hellenistic
city of Lozeh on Gerizim's summit. It might not be quite so certain that Shechem
replaced Samaria's political importance. Cf. E.F. Campbell, 'Shechem', in E. Stern
(ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (4
vols.; New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993), IV, pp. 1345-54.
87. Rebuilt 'better than it was before' and populated with 'people from countries which I myself had conquered. I placed an officer of mine as governor'.
According to the Sargon II inscription in Khorsabad (cf. ANET, pp. 284-86).
88. N. Avigad, 'Samaria', in Stern (ed.), New Encyclopedia of Archaeological
Excavations in the Holy Land, IV, pp. 1306-10.
234
Mount Gerizim, Tell er-Ras

The possible remains of temple constructions under the so-called
Hadrian temple built on Gerizim may date to the fourth-third century
BCE. No final conclusions have been established and the latest report of
I. Magen has not confirmed the earlier hypothesis that the structures
from earlier excavations were in fact a temple, or that it could be dated
to the fourth century. Remains of a wall, enclosing a sacred precinct
covering the entire summit, with two large gates on the eastern side and
a large number of sheep bones inside, might suggest a temple similar to
that assumed to be in Jerusalem, but no certain remains have been
uncovered so far.89 Discussions of whether Samaritans had a temple at
all or perhaps only an altar in front of the tabernacle, which 'disappeared' after the betrayal of Eli, have not yet been resolved.90 Finds
of coins in the city on top of Gerizim (Khirbet Louza = biblical Luzah)
date from the time of Antiochus III (around 200) to the time of John
Hyrcanus. These also give evidence of destruction, as they were hidden
in thick layers of ashes and burned debris. The city thus seems to have
been built and strengthened under Antiochus III, an event not mentioned by Josephus, who, supporting his account with reference to Polybius of Megalopolis, addresses all of Antiochus's 'documents' to the
restoration of the temple and temple cult in Jerusalem (Ant. 12.133-46).
The 'genuineness' of this so-called 'charter of Jerusalem' must still be
questioned, in spite of E. Bickerman's analysis, which established its
authenticity for the majority of scholars.91 As rightly pointed out by
Biichler, Josephus's quotation of Polybius preceding Antiochus's letter
to Ptolemy does not give any reason to believe the letter has anything to
do with circumstances in Jerusalem. The lack of any specific names
allows reference to any place, and it is only 12.141's remark that the
timber is to be brought from 'Judaea itself and from other nations' that
provides a likely reference to Jerusalem. Biichler's problem with the
identification of city and temple, which would not fit the assumption of
the fortress placed in Samaria and the temple on Gerizim collapses with
89. I. Magen, 'Gerizim, Mount', in Stern (ed.), New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, II, pp. 484-92.
90. R. Pummer, 'Samaritan Material Remains', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck] 1989), pp. 135-77 (172-73).
91. See the outlines of the discussion as presented in LCL, 365, Appendix D;
E. Bickerman, 'La charte seleucide de Jerusalem', pp. 4-35.
235
I. Magen's latest report on Gerizim. It is not necessary, however, to

claim the letter to be a Samaritan forgery of Herodian times, which
ascribed to Antiochus III certain grants given to the Samaritan temple
on Mt Gerizim. The letter's resemblance to other decrees given by Persian, Hellenistic and Roman rulers can be used either to support or to
reject its authenticity. Josephus's quotation of Polybius that 'those Jews
who live near the temple of Jerusalem, as it is called', came over to him
(Antiochus III), together with Josephus's remark in 12.156 that the
'Samaritans [Eauapeiq], who were flourishing, did much mischief to
the Jews by laying waste their land and carrying off slaves' seems to
point to a period of hard conditions for the Judaean Jews (218-198
BCE). Whatever role Khirbet Luzah may have played before its destruction, it never found its way into Josephus's narrative. The city never
gained importance afterwards and it was not rebuilt after the Roman
occupation in 63 BCE. Samaria-Sebaste was restored by Gabinius in 57
BCE (Ant. 14.87-88; War 1.166). Neapolis, on the northern slope of Mt
Gerizim, replaced ancient Shechem in the time of Herod the Great. The
site is connected to the summit by a staircase dating to the first century
BCE, and it still remains to decide whether temple structures dating to
the third century CE can be called 'Samaritan'.92
None of these findings, however, can tell us anything about whether
'Samaritans' lived in Gerizim, in Shechem, in Samaria or in its vicinity
who can be separated from the Samaritan population as a whole, or
whether these people maintained a temple cult that in antiquity competed with the one in Jerusalem and with other temples in or outside of
Palestine. Specific Samaritan features in architecture, art and burial
practice are rare and difficult to demonstrate before the common era.93
Offerings made to Mt Gerizim on the Delos inscriptions from 250 and
150-50 BCE, accordingly, only testify to a religious cult centred on
Gerizim, whose diaspora members call themselves 'Israelites'. Similarly, the papyri from Wadi Daliyeh does not give proof of being specifically Samaritan. They only tell us that at a certain time some people
from Samaria, using a variety of names containing not only a Yahwistic
theophoric element, but also Edomite, Moabite, Canaanite, Babylonian
and Aramaic divine elements, hid in the cave and were attacked there.94
92. Magen, 'Gerizim, Mount', p. 490.
93. See Pummer, 'Samaritan Material Remains'.
94. For a discussion of a connection between this event and the destruction of
Samaria, see, Ahlstrom, History of Ancient Palestine, pp. 898-901.
236
There is no evidence that they were part of Josephus's 'Samaritans' in

the Alexander story or of any specific religious group contrasting to the
Jews of Jerusalem. They might, however, be those who were claimed to
be of mixed stock in the later literary tradition, and who were contrasted
to the pure stock of Jews who had returned from Babylon. That argument, however, belongs to ideology and propaganda, not to history.
It therefore is still reasonable to consider whether Josephus created
the traditions about the Samaritans or whether he refers to already
established popular descriptions even though these are not known to
have been written earlier. Giving uncritical credit to a variety of stories,
he might have tried to compose a chronological framework for opinions
of Samaritans that would include most of this material. Redactional
notes would establish sufficient coherence and make the stories plausible. However, if Josephus had had exact sources, he probably would
have mentioned them, given the controversial character of the theme.
Moreover, it should then be possible to confirm at least some of his
'information' in earlier or contemporary writings rather than in later
rabbinical sources. The influence of diaspora Judaism, and possible discussions there about relationships between Jews and Samaritans, could
have led to a greater actuality in Josephus's Antiquities than had been
the case with War. This could explain that some of his references to
Samaritans are connected with conditions in Leontopolis and Alexandria. Some confusion and transference of material cannot be excluded.
The necessity of pointing out that biblical related texts are talking
about Cuthaeans who are consistently called Samaritans seems to be an
improvised solution for antedating a problem that is still current. Similarly, cult centralization is given greater weight in Antiquities than in
War. Josephus's revealing revision of Demetrius's letter to Jonathan
(1 Mace. 10.25-46) in Ant. 13.54, states that those living in the three
Samaritan border areas added to Judaea shall be subject to the ancestral
laws, and 'that it shall be the concern of the high priest that not a single
Jew shall have any temple for worship other than that at Jerusalem'.
However, 1 Mace. 10.38 states that the areas should be 'so annexed to
Judaea that they are considered to be under one ruler and obey no other
authority but the high priest'. 1 Maccabees shows us that this question
was unimportant. It might be too far-reaching to assume that the question gained importance only after the destruction of Jerusalem's temple.
On the other hand, one cannot convincingly argue for a thorough-going
cult centralization on the basis of Deut. 12.4's ambiguous reference to
237
'the place Yahweh will choose'. Deuteronomy's primary goal was not
to centralize the cult in Jerusalem, but to further cult control under the
authority of the temple and the priesthood. Deut. 12.4-9 clearly expresses this in its prohibition of Yahweh worship like the custom of the
foreigners. Yahweh worship should not be upon the high mountains and
upon the hills and under every green tree, but it should be in the place
Yahweh names as his, that is, in the temple (vv. 5, 11, 26), which is the
place to bring offerings and tithes. This corresponds to Hezekiah's store
chambers in 2 Chron. 31.11, which secured the maintenance of the
priests and the Levites. In Deuteronomy, it is not Yahweh's altars that
should be destroyed, but altars of foreigners (12.2-3). Sennacherib's
mockery of Hezekiah and the Jews in Jerusalem relates to the same
problem. Can one tear down Yahweh's altars and still have Yahweh's
protection (2 Kgs 18.22; 2 Chron. 32.12)? Only cult places in Judaea
and Jerusalem are spoken of, and the text does not involve cult places
outside of these areas. We might be dealing with a postexilic reform
instituted by the Persians, as, according to, for example, the Elephantine
papyri, offerings had ended there because of the destruction of the
temple. Ezra 3 explicitly states that the burnt offering is instituted only
after the setting of the altar in its place (Ezra 3.3-4). The cult reform is
given two purposes:
1.
2.
It regulates cult practice, as can be seen from the Nehemiah

model and Hezekiah's reform in 2 Chron. 31.18-20, which
relates that most of the people from Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar and Zebulon had not been cleansed properly, wherefore
they did not fulfil the demands of holiness. (As was seen also
from Onias's application to Ptolemy, Ant. 13.66).
It secures taxation for the temples, which before the Hasmonaean expansion of Judaean borders, were regional, that is,
Jerusalem's temple for (Judaea and) Jerusalem, Samaria's
temple for Samaria, Lachish and Beersheba's temples for
Edomite areas, Antioch's temple for its area, etc. This partition
raised no problems as long as the temples were governed by
Ptolemaic and Seleucid rulers. The change of borders and
authority created competition and led to the destruction of
temples. It was only later that this became a theological and
national problem, when the neighbouring peoples refused to
give up their own cult places and submit to Jerusalem. The
question's relation to political issues is implicit in Demetrius's
238

offer to Jonathan that the Samaritan areas should shift their
allegiance to the Jewish high priest. This clearly implies that
they formerly stood under another authority. Who this authority is we are not told, but Samaritan tradition refers to both
secular and priestly authority. Josephus's remark makes it
obvious that other authorities than the Jewish high priest were
possible, and also that there were other cult places outside of
Jerusalem for Jews. Before drawing a final conclusion, we
have yet another issue to consider. In spite of some problems
of anachronism, Samaritan historiography needs to be given its
voice in a closer examination.
Chapter 6
SAMARITAN HISTORIOGRAPHY
The presentation and interpretation of Samaritan historiography is
based on the Samaritan Chronicle II, Sepher Ha-Yamin in J. Macdonald's edition and on the Kitab al-Tarikh from Abul'Fath in P. Stenhouse's edition.1
The Samaritan history has close parallels to the similar Jewish history
in the Pentateuch traditions up to the conquest of Palestine after the
wandering in the desert. The disagreements between the Samaritan and
the Masoretic Pentateuchs are not related to the history as such, but to
specific features regarding the importance of Shechem and the placement of the cult place on Gerizim, as has been demonstrated in Chapter
3.
This fundamental disagreement forms the core of the following story
in a manner similar to the importance of Jerusalem in Jewish history.
The few questions concerning legal affairs raised in the material are
subordinate to this main question, as is also true of rabbinic discussions
about Jewish-Samaritan relationship. Belonging to the discussion about
cult place is the question of the legitimate high priest. In the material
we find references to mutual accusations that the high priest may not
belong to the correct lineage. Characteristic of both theology and historiography is the absence of Heilsgeschichte. The Samaritans did not
consider themselves to be an elected people, who in isolation should
1. See Chapter 3 above for an introduction to these works. Macdonald's Hebrew text is not vocalized The peculiarity of references are due to Macdonald's verse
system for non-MT (letters with an asterisk) and Stenhouse's pagination (p. x) of the
translated texts, which does not follow the pagination of the book. Chronicle II is
paginated in accordance with Old Testament parallels, which is misleading because
the material is in several instances interrupted by independent material. The overall
impression of the chronicle as a rewritten Old Testament text is exaggerated, making it difficult to read the chronicle on its own terms.
240
seek their own salvation. They rather considered themselves to be the

'light and salt' of the world, obliged to make Moses' ordinances known
to everyone in order to save the world.2
The Samaritan Joshua disagrees considerably with the Masoretic
Joshua. It parallels MT Joshua in chs. 1-11; 13.7b-14.5; 15.la; 22.1-6;
24.1-27, 32. Added are references to the celebration of the Pesach after
the first conquest, the building of the temple, an independent account of
the division of the land,3 the election of the king and several references
to the importance of Shechem and Gerizim:4
Joshua 8.30 reads Gerizim for Ebal.5 The placement between the conquest of Aj and the army's overnight in Gilgal, which in MT shows
some confusion about the placement of Ebal and Gerizim (cf. also
Deut. 11.29-32), is hereas in SP Deut. 11.30supplied with the clarifying note that this is close to the 'town of Shechem' fysb jmo }*bxi
DD> TU). In the Samaritan Chronicle, the high priest Eleazar is given
the leading role of the writing on the stone and the reading of the Law.
Following the commandment given in Deut. 27.12-14, the people
gathers on Mt Gerizim and Mt Ebal, where the words of blessing and
cursing are recited. The ark of the covenant carried by the Levites is
placed on Mt Gerizim, and 'the glory of the Lord appeared above the
2. Macdonald, Theology, p. 448.
3. Which made Crown, 'Date and Authenticity', suggest a dating for the independent Samaritan book of Joshua not later than the end of the second century CE.
J. Strange's article from 1993, The Book of Joshua, a Hasmonaean Manifesto?', in
A. Lemaire and B. Otzen (eds.), History and Tradition in Israel (VTSup, 50;
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1993), pp. 136-41, touches upon the same problem related to the
conquest in MT Joshua, which includes Transjordan, Galilee and Judah/Benjamin,
but not the central hill country of Ephraim and Manasseh. Strange's conclusion that
the Masoretic book of Joshua is superfluous, when we have the narratives about the
conquests in the first chapter of MT Judges, is indirectly supported by the Samaritan
tradition of Judges. In this tradition the conquests end with the death of Joshua. The
book opens with Nethanael's victory over Kushan-Risj'atajim (cf. MT Judg. 3.910). Gaster, Samaritans, pp. 138-39 argued for the authenticity of the land division
in the Samaritan tradition, since this division is in accordance with Josephus, Ant.
5.80ff. and Ezek. 47.15ff., all of which 'take precisely the same boundaries for
Palestineon the east the Jordan, on the west the sea' and divide the land into portions from south to north (ST Jos. S A*-L*; Josephus, Ant.) or from north to south
(Ezekiel).
4. har garizimlhargarizim: both forms are used in Macdonald's text.
5. Macdonald's remark that this variant reading is found in the LXX also is not
confirmed in the standard version of the LXX, which all read Gaibal.
6. Samaritan Historiography
241
ark of testimony'. Contrasting this is the absence of the high priest in

MT Josh. 8.33-35. The uncertain placement of the ark (between the
mountain peaks?) and the formal reading of the Law, which avoids the
context of a cult practice or service are striking, yet fully in agreement
with the overall impression of MT Joshua and Judges that they reflect an
interim between Moses (Aaron) and the House of Eli of 1 Samuel. The
glossary presence of 'Eleazar the priest' together with 'Joshua, son of
Nun' in MT Josh. 14.1; 17.4; 19.51; 21.1 (the allotment of land narrative) confirms this impression, since Eleazar is not given any role. All
acts are carried out by Joshua.
Joshua 9.27 adds 'the chosen place Mt Gerizim and the congregation
living in the cities, which are close to the chosen place Mt Gerizim'.
Joshua 10.9, 15 Gilgal and Bethel become close to or similar to
Gerizim.
Joshua 10.43 tells about the return of the army after the conquest of
southern Canaan. This is also mentioned in the MT and LXX, but only
ST continues to tell about the Pesach offering (nODH pip) on the chosen place Hargerizim, before the arrival at 'the chosen place in Gilgal',
and before the continuation of the campaign against the northern Canaan
(MT Josh. 11.1-23), which in both versions form the conclusion of the
conquests.
The building of the temple in ST Jos. Q on the top of Mt Gerizim
(DT~inn >N~l ^) follows immediately after the ending of the conquest. Two different versions recount that a cult place (p>Q) containing
the holiest (B*-D*) and that a temple (^DH) with the tent of meeting
(~lUin ^HN) with the ark (mii?n "pIK), the propitiary and the screen
("]DQH fD~l2), as well as all the altars (mrntQn ^D) and all the accoutrements of the sanctuary (ID ^ D1KQ ^D pCBDn '^D) (G*) were erected.
AF p. 32 tells that Joshua built a fortress on the mountain to the north of
the illustrious peak. The stone altar on Mt Gerizim is already erected
after the conquest of Huta (Aj) (cf. p. 14).
The references to the cities of refuge in ST S M* (MT Josh. 20.7-8)
declares Shechem to be holy.
Joshua 24.1, the setting up of the covenant in Shechem has the addition 'at Mt Gerizim', while 24.25-26 adds 'at the foot of Mt Gerizim'.
In ST, the death of Joshua does not end with an Israel left alone without any ruler and with a high priest (Phinehas), as does the Masoretic
tradition, where Phinehas's narrative role is absent in most parts and
episodes of MT Judges. ST recounts that Joshua casts lots between the
242
12 princes of Israel. The lot fell on Nethanael, son of Caleb, from the
tribe of Judah, who became king over the Israelites. In the same manner, there is a formal transfer of the office of the high priest Eleazar to
his son Phinehas four years after the death of Joshua. This event is
opened with a cutting of the covenant in Shechem, followed by a wandering to Gibea, where Phinehas is clothed in the high priestly garments, and where Eleazar is buried 'in Gibea the town of his son Phinehas, which is opposite the holy mountain, the place the lord has chosen,
Mt Gerizim, Bethel'.6
MT Judges' patronage versus chaos narrative 'that in these days there
was no king in Israel and everyone did, what was right in his own eyes'
aiming to prepare the reader for the blessings of the kingship, the establishing of order, the joining of the tribes around a central shrine and a
central government has no parallel in ST Judges. Here the good conditions established during Joshua and Eleazar continue. Kings elected by
the people in Shechem under the conduct of the high priest do their
royal duties and are succeeded by other kings similarly elected. High
priests are all unproblematic successors of their fathers. We find no
apostasy, no punishment and no deceitful kings similar to MT's Abimelech. The language is more neutral than MT Judges, and without the
Deuteronomistic categories, 'the Israelites did what was evil in the sight
of the Lord', 'the Israelites cried to the Lord', 'the Lord raised up a
deliverer', that form the central theme of MT Judges. Statements such as
'whenever the judge died, they turned back and behaved worse than
their fathers' (Judg. 2.19) are totally absent in the first part of ST
Judges. It is not until the very end of the book, when, after the death of
Samson, Eli's usurpation of the high priesthood leads to the apostasy of
the people and the cessation of God's favour, that these categories are
employed.
ST Judges follows the chronology of MT Judges, however, in a more
summarised version and with some deletions, and it is only MT Judg.
3.12-13, 20-30; 4.2-3, 12-24; 11.12-33 that are presented verbatim or in
a close variant that leave out the most legendary traits of the stories.
Added are chronological insertions of the high priests, Phinehas, Abisha,
6. This last paragraph, ST Jos. U-W, whose central core is the biblical Josh.
23.1 and parts of Josh. 24 and 14, is in ST Chron. II separated from the former
chapters of MT Joshua by an insertion of the Shobach Legend. This legend, dealing
with Joshua's war with King Shobach, is judged manifestly late, because of its
many Arabisms; see Macdonald, The Samaritan Chronicle No. II, p. 73.
243
Shishai, Baghi and Uzzi and their priestly duties and cultic services.7
The wars within Israel are finished after Joshua's conquests, and ST
Judges opens with Nethanael's victory over Cushan-Rishathaim, king
of Mesopotamia (cf. MT Judg. 3.9-10). With the absence of MT Judges
17-21 the account of Samson functions as the bridge to the books of
Samuel. This composition is in accord with Josephus, who placed his
version of Judges 19-21 after the conquests in MT judges (Ant. 5.136),
made Eli the successor of Samson and placed the story of Ruth during
his reign (Ant. 5.318).
The problem with the assumption of ST's dependency on MT is thus
given a broader perspective, and questions of variant texts gain significant importance in judging the material. The Samaritan text is not an
abbreviated, rewritten MT version. The dominant theme and message in
ST pronounce that Israel prospered as long as the cult was in place on
Gerizim and the administration was in Shechem. The counter-message
in MT argues that there was no proper cult and no central administration. The problem with this kind of polemic, however, is that the
reverse should bring order and prosperity. This does not happen. The
movement of ark and cult under David's reign does not solve the problems raised in MT Judges, that it was the lack of a king that allowed the
people to do 'everyone what was right in his own eyes'. MT Judges
does not provide the contrast story it intended to be and we are probably far better off if we understand MT Judges as a negative anticipation
of the traditions of the monarchic period, such as has been suggested by
Graham Auld.8 Such an interpretation, however, still carries the reverse
of the coin as an unsolved problem. Why is it necessary to denounce the
7. This list is paralleled in Josephus, Ant. 5.361-62; MT 1 Chron. 5.30-31; Ezra
7.4-5; 1 Esd. 8.2. Josephus, however, is the only informant, who explicitly confirms
the Samaritan tradition that Eli, being of the Ithamar line, usurped the high priesthood and accordingly broke the Eleazar line until the reign of Solomon. Indirectly,
however, the rejection of the house of Eli (1 Kgs 2.27, 35) is given reference in the
various lists of high priest in the Old Testament, all of which leaves out Eli and
form a continuation from Aron to Seraiah using the names of the Eleazar family
members, Meraioth, Amariah, Ahitub, who, according to Josephus (Ant. 8.11-12),
lived as private persons during the interim. Josephus's various references to high
priests 'confirm' the split, which is furthermore testified in his enumeration of high
priests in Ant. 20.229 that the first thirteen high priests until Solomon were descendants of Aaron's two sons.
8. The Deuteronomists between History and Theology', International Organization for the Study of Old Testament congress, Oslo, 1998, forthcoming.
244
past in order to capture the future? The question whether MT Judges is a

polemic story against Shechem and against an early Shechem tradition
remains. To avoid this context the biblical version made the period as
chaotic as possible. The judges fight in vain to keep the people from
worshipping idols. Proper cult places and priests are nearly entirely
absent. MT Judges 9 and MT 1 Kings 12, the people's election of Abimelech, and Rehabeam(!) and Jeroboam in Shechem, may implicitly
testify to this tradition, since these kings bear the markers in MT tradition of deceitful kings emanating from Shechem. This is all the more
remarkable as no other stories of the Old Testament relate to appointments of kings in Shechem, given the people the privilege of election
(cf. Judg. 9.6; !Kgsl2.1,20).
As mentioned above, the turning point against the good conditions in
ST comes with Eli's and his supporter's move from Shechem to establish a rival cult in Shiloh. The young Eli, son of Jefunneh, of the lineage
of Itamar (ST JP; KS*), is given the honorary office of chancellor of
the temple treasures under the leadership of the high priest Uzzi, whose
authority he challenges. The quarrel results in Eli's departure from
Shechem and his erection of a temple and cult in Shiloh. A variant tradition involves exclusion, and in a paradigmatic use of Genesis 4, it
gives the role of Cain to Eli, as the unsuccessful priest, whose offer
God rejects because it has not been properly salted (cf. Lev. 2.13; ST
LK*, U*). Eli in MT is not given any genealogy, while Jefunneh's son
Caleb is of the tribe of Judah in Num. 13.6. Only in 2 Esdras from the
end of the first century CE do Eli and his son Phinehas occur in the
Aaron-Eleazar genealogy of Ezra, the scribe.
Eli's departure turns the fate of all Israel, which looses its coherence
and splits into three separate groups (ST Judg. LO*-T*; ST 1 Sam.
BA*-F*: AFp. 42):
1.
2.
3.
The Jews, who followed Eli.

The Josephites, counting Epraim and Manasseh with some few
adherents from other tribes, who followed Uzzi and remained
faithful to Gerizim.
The rest of the people who later deserted Eli because of the
apostasy of his sons, and became idol worshippers.
It is noteworthy that all groups suffer God's anger and that Israel's
apostasy is caused by this schism, which, according to Samaritan theology, has not ended yet. The divine favour, Radwan, which began with
the patriarchs, reached its climax with the entry into the promised land
245
during the time of Joshua and ended with the last judge. The priestly
quarrels caused a replacement of this period with a period of God's
wrath, Phanutah.9 This period is initiated by an increasing darkness that
makes the daily services impossible and ends up enveloping the whole
house. Finally a big cave appears. The high priest Uzzi collects the
sacred vestments, gold and silver vessels and places them in the cave.
After having sealed up the cave, he marks its place, only to find out the
next day that it has disappeared without any trace. The grief and selfreproach is endless and the prehistory is re-evaluated in the closing
elegy (ST 1 Sam. BG*-CGG*; AF pp. 42-45). Not before the return
of the Radwan will the hidden objects appear again. The biblical
account of the inauguration of Solomon's temple seems to build on a
similar tradition. The time of grace has appeared. Yahweh has left the
darkness and accepted the temple for his name and spirit (2 Chron.
5.13-6.2; 7.1-2). It is not possible to decide whether this text has a conscious anti-Samaritan bias or whether both texts are using similar
themes. It is, however, possible to decide that placement (Mt Mori ah)
and acceptance are important to the author of MT Chronicles, thus
revealing conflicts of interest.10
Samaritan self-understanding as a minority group from the descendants of Joseph is further testified to in the Samaritan 'books of Samuel
and Kings'. The Josephites do not participate in Samuel's trial in Mizpa
(cf. 1 Sam. 7.6; ST 1 Sam. GE*). Nor do they follow Jeroboam's cult
but remain faithful to the Law (ST 1 Kgs EN*-S*). They are not ruled
by the kings of northern Israel (who rule over eight tribes of Israel only,
cf. ST 1 Kgs GC*, JA*) and their chronology is the chronology of the
Samaritan high priests, who also continue to perform after Saul's
destruction of city and temple.
9. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, p. 118: 'It is noteworthy that such a view of
world history as being divided into distinctive epochs is characteristic of much Jewish apocalyptic writing (cf. the four world empires of Daniel) and also of Qumran
scrolls and the New Testament. Such links may provide a further pointer to the date
of the formative period of Samaritanism.' I would say that this world view, although
not explicitly expressed in the Old Testament material, is inherent to all our texts,
which speak of God's periods of anger and mercy.
10. The placement of Mt Moriah in Jerusalem (2 Chron. 3.1) and Yahweh's
acceptance of the temple in 2 Chron. 7.12 reveals that the question of legality had
not yet been settled at the redaction of the book.
246
The Chronicles dealing with Saul's war with the Josephites in ST

1 Sam. IB* and AF p. 47 is interesting:
Samuel, King Saul, Jesse, of the tribe of Judah, gathered together and
gave orders for battle to be made against the tribe of Ephraim and the
tribe of Manasseh and all their congregationsnamely the congregation
of the Samaritan Israelites [Dnown ^Rier ^np],11at Elon Moreh, for
they had refused to have the tribe of Saul the son of Kish over them, and
because they had not forsaken Mount Gerizim Bethel or gone over to
Shiloh under Samuel's jurisdiction to sacrifice at Shiloh, as Eli the son of
Jefunneh had commanded' (ST 1 Sam. IB*).
The premises for the declaration of war are both political and religious. The balance of power has shifted radically. It is now the former
secessionist group who set up the terms. And although the Josephites
refer to kinship: 'Why will you make war on us, when we are brothers'
and to cooperation in earlier wars against the Philistines, the attack is
inevitable. Two different traditions are brought together in this text of
ST 2 Chronicles, but this does not affect the outline of the story that the
war at Elon Moreh, by Shechem, is inevitable in both versions. The
second version opens with a discussion between Saul and the Samaritan
Israelites, who refuse to obey Saul because the 'place where Yahweh
chose to make his name to dwell is Mount Gerizim Bethel', which is
superior to Shiloh. The war, which takes place during the pilgrimage of
tabernacles, results in a destruction of the stone altar on Gerizim, the
killing of the high priest Shishai, son of Uzzi, the slaughtering of the
Samaritan community in Elon Moreh, Shechem, Bethel and the town of
Luzah, and a destruction of the houses in the town, which is said to be
large.
The parallel story in MT Samuel is Saul's victory over the Ammonites
(1 Sam. 11.1-11), which, placed as an inclusio between the two
electionsin 1 Sam. 10.17-27 in Mispa, and in 11.12-15 in Gilgal
implicitly seeks to answer the question about Saul's authority and
strength (1 Sam. 10.27). The MT of 1 Sam. 11.12-13 does not tell
clearly who they are who challenge Saul. This information has to be
11. 'those Israelites who keep the Law', DHQ27, which should not be confused
with DînQE?, which is believed to be a gentilicum derived from Shomer/Shomron.
D"HQC0 is a Samaritan self-designation after the rejection of Saul and the schisms
among the Israelites (ST 1 Sam. H E*). Macdonald translates the term 'Samaritan
Israelites'. Gaster, Samaritans, p. 5, variant form: flQNn ^ D'HQtO (keepers of the
truth).
247
found in Josephus's Ant. 6.82, where they are called 'Saul's countrymen (6ux)<|)\)^CGv) and men of their own race (eic Tamou yevoix; amoic;).
In both these versions Saul spares the men because of his victory over
the Philistines.
AF p. 48 tells that 'they (Saul and his men) sowed it like all (the
other) fields'. This addition corresponds to Megillat Ta'anifs ending of
Alexander's, Antiochus's or Hyrcanus's destruction of the Samaritan
temple and must therefore be taken into consideration in judging the
material.
After the war, the Samaritan community is prohibited from entering
Mt Gerizim for 22 years, during which the remaining Samaritans are
more or less outlawed, their cities are occupied by Saul's men and they
end up fleeing to Bashan (ST 1 Sam. JR*-V*), where, according to
another tradition, they stayed for 48 years. Bashan as homeland for half
of Menasseh's tribe (cf. MT Num. 32.29-32 paralleled in MT Josh.
13.29-32) probably implies such a connection. These traditions seem to
have given voice to MT Amos 4.1's prophetic attack on the cows of
Bashan, who are in the mountain of Samaria. The feminine plural,
based on mD's feminine form, should not lead us to any simple interpretation that this text concerns the upper-class women of Samaria.12
Such an interpretation is both misleading and discriminating, and not
reflective of the text's continuation, which, from v. 4 on, employs the
masculine plural, further testified by the masculine plural DiT]~[N and
the masculine plural 1I2Q2? in 4.1.13 The metaphorical use of the expression is thus the more striking, since the admonition of 5.15 gives hope
for salvation of the remnant of Joseph, rpV rv~lN&. Psalm 68's rejection
of the Mount of Bashan and its inhabitants (vv. 14-23) for the sake of
Jerusalem's temple (vv. 25-36) reflects a similarly metaphorical use and
intertextual play on the mount of "pQ1?^ (v. 15),14 which was the mountain Abimelech entered when he needed firewood for the killing of the
people in Shechem (Judg. 9.46-49), and brings us right to the centre of
the voice of conflict. When }2D "in is rejected, its high peaks (D"]]^)
12. As understood by the translators of both the Danish 1992 authorized Bible
and the English RSV of 1952.
13. The expression's metaphorical implications addressing the whole population
were suggested already in 1975 by Hans Barstad, 'Die Basankuhe in Amos IV 1',
VT 25 (1975), pp. 286-307.
14. Its root means darkness, obscurity, gloom, imagery, idolatrous.
248
look with envy (1^1) at the mountain that Elohim desired for his abode
(vv. 16-17). The text's play on Genii's closeness to p215 (being hunchbacked), which in Lev. 21.20 is said to be a disease that disqualifies one
from serving as an Aaronite priest, should be a warning of the tendentiousness of the text and that D1"]]^ might form a contrast to D1~)Q in
v. 19.
In the Samaritan tradition, Saul's attack on the Samaritan Israelites is
the sin as a result of which he was killed in the battle with the Philistines (ST 1 Sam. KA*; MT 1 Sam. 31). In the Jewish tradition of the
Chronicler, the reason for Saul's death is his unfaithfulness towards
Yahweh, 'that he did not keep the command of Yahweh and furthermore consulted a medium, seeking guidance' (MT 1 Chron. 10.13-14),
which has no parallel in 1 Samuel 31 or 2 Samuel 1. This medium,
however, in the LXX version of the same paragraph, is understood to be
Samuel the prophet, referring to Saul's visit to the witch of Endor (cf.
MT 1 Sam. 28.4-25), who calls up Samuel. He confronts Saul with his
former sin, that he did not 'carry out his fierce wrath against Am'alek'.
Therefore he and Israel are given into the hand of the Philistines on the
following day. This episode and the accusations against Saul, are missing in the Samaritan Chronicle. Nevertheless, Samuel's role as Saul's
master, is fully spelled out: 'he did not do anything except at the command of Samuel' (ST 1 Sam IA*; JE*; KA*).16 Josephus, agreeing
with rabbinic tradition, gives another variant of the accusations that
Saul died 'because he disobeyed God's commandments touching the
Amalekites, and because he had destroyed the family of Abimelech the
high priest, and Abimelech himself and the city of the high priests'
(Ant. 6.378). Josephus's rendering of this story, based on 1 Samuel 2122 and missing entirely in the Samaritan Chronicle II, has a sermon-like
addition (Ant. 6.262-68), which condemns Saul's act that he not only
slaughtered a whole family of high-priestly rank, but furthermore demolished the city, which the Deity himself had chosen as the home and nurse
of priests and prophet [6. 262]... and strove to leave what was virtually
15. The three words are all hapax legomena in the Old Testament.
16. The negative presentation of Samuel that he was a descendant of Korah who
had rebelled against Moses (ST 1 Sam. DA*), based on the same lineage as presented in MT 1 Chron. 6.21-24 (cf. ST 1 Sam. DF*), implicitly also brings Saul
into discredit. Josephus gives a clue to this lineage, which is missing in MT 1 Samuel
by stating that Samuel was a Levite (Ant. 5.342).
249
their temple [vctov] destitute [eprmov Kaidaifiaai] of priests and prophets (6.268).17
The story's closeness to Saul's destruction of the Samaritan community

in the Samaritan. Chronicle II, with no parallel in the biblical material,
suggests that both stories have the same event in mind. ST 1 Sam.
MA*-F*'s summaric note on Saul's hatred for David, David's gathering of four hundred men whom 'he led everywhereplundering and
taking booty in order that he might provide them with bread to eat'
and that 'he was the object of admiration to all king Saul's enemies and
foes' suggests furthermore a common source. The statement that 'our
congregations too, the community of Samaritan Israelites on Mount
Gerizim Bethel liked David very much', implicitly testifies to the aggravation of Saul's animosity against the Samaritan Israelites.
The reason for the election of David by the people, supported also by
the Samaritan Israelites, is not that the kingship is taken away from
Saul, but that the death of Saul left the 'men of Samuel' without governor (ST 1 Sam. KD*-E*), 'the men of Israel were left without a king'
(ST 2 Sam. AA*).
Here the Samaritan 'historiography' tends to become more incoherent. It is said about David that he used to send his offerings and tithes to
Gerizim and that it is the cessation of this and his subsequent plans of
building the temple at Jerusalem that caused the rise of anger among the
Samaritan Israelites, leading to a final break with David. The Samaritan
high priest at that time, Jair, refers to the common law and the placement of the temple at Gerizim. Here, as in the Saul story, it is stressed
that all tribes of Israel still (sic) had the same holy Law (iwnpn mmn)
without additions or abbreviations (ST 2 Sam. BJ*; 1 Sam. JC*). Out
of fear for the high priest, David stops his building activities with the
excuse to the leaders of the people that 'I have shed too much blood'.18
Therefore the assignment to build the temple should be given to Solomon (cf. also MT 1 Chron. 22.8-10).
The anointment of David is traditionally performed at holy Shechem
(ST 2 Sam. AB*)as is the anointment of Saul (ST 1 Sam. HA*), of
17. Scripture does not mention prophets. Neither does Josephus in his citations
of the biblical material (6.242, 254-61), where the city is called DTron TB (2 Sam.
22.19), which is the only occurrence in the Old Testament, paralleled in the LXX
and Ant. 6.260.
18. Same wording as in MT, with the exception that in ST the verb is 1st pers.
sing.
250
Solomon (ST 1 Kgs AB*) and of Rehobeam (ST 1 Kgs BA*)and it

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

few adherents from other tribes, especially the tribe of Ben-
19. Hos. 8.5-6 about 'Samaria's calf seems to refer to the same tradition, which
seems not to have any other parallel (cf. N. Wyatt, 'Calf, in van der Toorn (ed.),
Dictionary of Deities and Demons, pp. 344-45). However, Amos 9.14's mocking
reference to the confidence in the 'cult places' of Samaria, Dan and Beersheba
might fall within the same context. Jeroboam's two centres of worship as a replacement of the one in Jerusalem might in fact indirectly confirm the Samaritan tradition, that there were two centres, and that the book of Kings sought to avoid mentioning Gerizim.
25 1
jamin (EP*), forming the Samaritan Israelites,DFSADFD
rmn ^ anDen.
2.
3.
4.
The tribe of Judah in Jerusalem20 together with a large number

of adherents from other tribes.
A group in Pir'aton (nni)"l2, cf. Judg. 12.15), who worshipped
foreign gods, deviated from the Law and were called 'the sect
of forsakers' (DsmT^n).
The rest of the people who followed Jeroboam son of Nebat,
called 'the rebellious' (D~mon).
The unbroken list of Samaritan high priests forms the chronological

backbone of the biblical chronology in Kings and Chronicles, with
which the Samaritan story shares many features. Omri belongs to the
Samaritan Israelites and he is responsible for the Josephites' settling on
the mount of Samaria, which got its name from Shemer, the name that
was successively adopted by the population, Shomronim (1 Kgs XIIXXII IA*-F*). Jehu abolishes idol worship after the Samaritan high
priest Hilkija had criticized it. We find no relapse in ST 2 Kings2 Chronicles CA*-E* as in MT 2 Kgs 10.29ff.
As mentioned earlier (in Chapter 4), the ST Chronicle II's parallel
text to 2 Chron. 28.1-27 is remarkable, partly because the story is told
almost verbatim and partly because we find that the Samaritan community joins the eight tribes governed by Pekah son of Remalja in the
war with Ahaz and the Jews. MT 2 Chron. 28.7-8 tells that the Ephraimite Zichri slew Ma-asei'ah the king's son, Azri'kam the commander of
the palace and Elka'nah the next in authority to the king, and that the
Israelites took a great number of captives and brought them to Samaria.
ST 2 Chron. ID* tells that Zichri is from the tribe of Ephraim, that he
belongs to the community of the Samaritan Israelites and that it is the
leaders of this community that order the prisoners to be sent back, without any mention of Oded, who, in Josephus, is made prophet of Samaria.
King Ahaz is not only at war with the Israelites in both texts, but also
with the Edomites and Philistines. The chronology in ST follows the
chronology of MT 2 Chronicles and places the story before the Hezekiah story as in MT 2 Chron. 29.1-32.33, but after the fall of the northern kingdom (ST 2 Kgs-2 Chron. H), which MT 2 Chronicles does not
20. Often called bet makteS (the house of shame) in a corrupted form of bet
miqdaS (cf. AF p. 47: Caster, Samaritan, p. 11).
252
mention. The chronology in this Samaritan chronicle, however, is so

confused and repetitive that it is difficult to create any certain coherence.
Hezekiah's invitation to the people of the towns of Samaria and to
the leaders in Shechem is met with contempt and scorn from the eight
tribes, and a theological rebuke from the Samaritan Israelites (ST
2 Kgs-2 Chron. JD*). During the reign of Josiah, the prophet Jeremiah
is stoned by the people in Judah when he elevates himself as a prophet.
Josiah himself is killed in the following battle with Pharaoh Necho (ST
2 Kgs-2 Chron. NE*-H*). That is all we hear about the reform kings
in this Samaritan chronicle.
In MT 2 Kgs, two parallel accounts in 17.5-6 and 18.9-12, which are
also in the Samaritan Chronicle, tells about the deportation of the
people, but using the material differently. The first account is the traditional one about the deportation during Shalmanezzar, but only counting eight tribes of Israel, who like Judah and Benjamin, had sinned
against Yahweh by erecting cult places everywhere, worshipping foreign gods and forsaking the house and mountain of Yahweh's inheritance, the chosen place Mt Gerizim (Bethel) in contrast to the Samaritan
Israelites, who remained steadfast in their worship of Yahweh on
Gerizim (ST 2 Kgs-2 Chron. HA-B*, D*-K*).
The second account finds the rest of the eight tribes and the tribe of
Judah carried off to Babylon, while the Samaritan Israelites from
Shechem are deported to Haran during the period of the high priest
Abkiah (LE*-MO*). A mixture of different traditions results in a
single comprehensive deportation of all Israel and subsequent single
comprehensive return of each to his own place during the time of high
priest Serayah (ML*-N*).21 The hiding of the holy vessels on Gerizim, the note in the annals about the hiding place and the handing over
of the Abisha Scroll to the Levite priests to guard it because they are
expected soon to return to their lands, are interesting details from this
story (LK*-N*), and seem to have become stock motifs in both
21. The Samaritan tradition here seems reflected in MT Gen. 11.26-12.4's

account of patriarchal origins, which reworks Gen. 17.5's tradition that Abraham
has come from Ur of the Chaldees (Th.L. Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives [Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1974], pp. 298-314) in order to include
the tradition that Abraham comes to Shechem and the Land of Moreh from Haran,
offering a mirroris refraction of the Samaritan story of exile. Similarly, when Jacob
returns from Haran, he goes to Shechem (Gen. 33).
253
Jewish and Samaritan tradition.22 This narrative of deportation does not

exclude a mention of the deportation during Nebuchadnezzar, which
broadly follows the outline of MT 2 Kings 24-25.
While ST Joshua and Judges have a very independent tone and seem
to tell the story from a Samaritan perspective, it is remarkable that
according to the tradition, the independence of the Samaritan Israelites
not only ceased 'historically' with Saul's destruction of the altar on
Gerizim and the people's exodus to Bashan, but that 'historiographically' the Samaritans seem to have no independent story to tell about the
period of the monarchies, and that the two tribes of Joseph play only
minor roles in their historiography.23 This is true also of the biblical
'historiography', unless the Samaritan Israelites are understood here to
belong to the northern kingdom as such. The Old Testament terminology is not at all clear, and it can not be stated with conviction whether
the Old Testament texts are referring to separate groups when they
mention Ephraim and Israel, or whether the simultaneous occurrences
of the two names are due to synonymous parallelism, for example, in
Hos. 11.8: 'How can I give you up Ephraim, how can I hand you over
Yisrael'; 2 Chron. 25.7: 'Yahweh is not with Yisrael, (not with) all of
the sons of Ephraim.' Nor do we know whether the occurrences of
Israel, Ephraim and Judah in various combinations (as in Hos. 4.15-17;
5.5; 6.10-11; 12.1) are due to the same grammatical device, or whether
Jer. 7.12-15's comparison of Judah with Israel and the fate of the cult in
Shiloh, including both Israel's people and the seed of Ephraim, is referring to the whole of the northern kingdom. Some few texts, however,
22. 2 Mace. 1.19-23; 2.4-7; Eupolemus Frg. 4 according to Eusebius, Praep. Ev.
9.39.1-5; Josephus, Ant. 18.85-86; 2 Bar. 6.7-9; 4 Bar. 3.10-11; m. Seq. 6.1-2;
b. Yom. 53b-54a; cf. I. Kalimi and J.D. Purvis, 'The Hiding of the Temple Vessels
in Jewish and Samaritan Literature', CBQ 56.4 (1994), pp. 679-85. The hiding
stories contrast the biblical stories that the vessels were preserved in Babylon and
brought back to Jerusalem (cf. Jer. 21.19-22; 28.1-9; Ezra 1.7-11; 5.13-15; 6.5;
2 Chron. 36.9-10; 2 Kgs 24.8-17). The literature mentioned deals with the hiding of
the temple vessels of Jerusalem's temple only, making it thus the more striking that
only Josephus gives witness to the Samaritan tradition! The Samaritan use of the
motif might therefore not be quite as secondary as suggested by the authors of this
article.
23. This might be the reason for AF's lack of any history writing from the reign
of Jeroboam to Nebuchadnezzar's siege of Jerusalem, when all Israel is exiled and
foreign people settled in the country. Critique of the prophets (p. 58) and a list of
the high priest (p. 59) 'covers' the entire period.
254
support the Samaritan tradition. The text in Isa. 7.5 (parallel to 2 Chron.
28.7-8), mentioning 'Ephraim and the son of Remaliah' as Ezek. 37.1619 does, where the joining of the people involves Judah and their associates the Israelites on one hand and Joseph (Ephraim) and their
associates the Israelites on the other hand, or as 2 Chron. 34.9 does,
separating Ephraim and Menasseh from the remnant of Israel as well as
from Judah and Benjamin and those living in Jerusalem. In the biblical
chronology, this text dates to the time of Josiah and parallels Hezekiah's invitation in 2 Chron. 30.1 to all Israel and Judah as well as
Ephraim and Menasseh to come to Jerusalem to keep the Passover.
These texts, together with the stories about the election of kings in
Shechem (MT Judg. 9; 1 Kgs 12), confirm a tradition that separates
Ephraim (and Menasseh) from the ten tribes, confirming both the Samaritan and Josephus's tradition. The interdependency of these traditions,
however, is not that easily solved. Josephus's narrowing of the Samaritan community, which has its parallel in the Samaritan pre-exilic
history, might also give expression to the Samaritan tradition. The
necessity of being true descendants of Jacob/Israel and not have been
mixed with foreign people or to have fallen in apostasy as the rest of
Israel had may have played a role in Samaritan historiography comparable to Josephus's claim for the origin and purity of the Jewish
people. The Samaritan Israelites' concentration around Gerizim and
Shechem could similarly be part of the same ideology, and might in fact
relate to a much later period.
Prophets in Samaritan Tradition
Prophets are either ignored24 or held in contempt in the Samaritan literature. Since Moses is the sole and only prophet and the Pentateuch is
the only authoritative scripture, there is no need for other prophets.
Those prophets who are mentionedElijah (ST 1 Kgs XII-XXII
JB*), Elijah and Elisha (MP*Q*), Elisha (ST 2Kgs-2 Chron. AA*E*), Hosea, Joel, Amos (ST 2 Kgs-2 Chron. FB*) and Jeremiah (ST
2 Kgs-2 Chron. NE*)are all called sorcerers and are accused of
using magic and astrology: 'They called themselves prophets. They
addressed words among the whole congregation of Israel [^np ^D
24. G. Fohrer, 'Die israelitischen Propheten in der samaritanischen Chronik IF,
in M. Black and G. Fohrer (eds.), In Memorandum P. Kahle (BZAW, 103; Berlin:
W. de Gruyter, 1968), pp. 127-37 (131-32), offers a list of the 'omissions'.
255
^"lET] on the authority of Yahwehwhich Yahweh did not in fact

command, nor did he speak with them at all' (MP*Q*). They have no
messages from God but speak their own words and lead the people
astray.25 Elijah is accused of having eaten the bread out of the mouth of
the widow and her son with his empty words: 'I shall eat and so will
you two', whereafter the widow's son starved to death. Thereafter Elijah, also called Khananiah, flees from King Ahab the son of Omri and
his people to hide himself at the eastern side of the Jordan, but falls into
the water and drowns (ST 1 Kgs XII-XXII JE*-G*). The intertextual
play on the similarly empty prophesies of Jeremiah's competitor Hananiahsharing the name of the prophet Jehu's father, Hanani (MT 1 Kgs
16.7)who is sentenced to death because of his lies, probably underlies this tradition (cf. MT Jer. 28). AF p. 58 brings a summary of the
biblical account and calls it a lie when the Jews claim that Elijah raised
the son.
This harsh condemnation of Elijah could be a reaction to rabbinical
and New Testament veneration of Elijah as a new Moses.26 The way the
problem presents itself, however, is not quite so limited if we can judge
from the few allusions to both a prohibition against prophecy and a
condemnation of Elisha in his own literary world. 2 Kgs 3.13-14,
Elisha's mocking words to Israel's king: 'What have I to do with you?
Go to the prophets of your father and your mother', which in Josephus
has become even more ironic with the addition 'since they are the true
prophets' (cf. Ant. 10.34), and even further twisted with Josephus's
continuation that 'the king begged [edeiio] him to prophesy and save
them'. 27 This is not reflective of the answer in the king's mouth of
2 Kings, which holds Yahweh responsible for the war and requires
Yahweh's prophet to prophesy the outcome. This he only does for the
sake of Judah's king Jehoshaphat, who has joined the league against
Moab. Israel's king he 'would not look toward, nor see'. This whole
incident goes unmentioned in the Samaritan Chronicle, which interrupts
2 Kgs 3.4-10, 26-27 with the following remark: 'On the eighth day
25. The view on Moses' role as God's messenger, God's Logos, who gave the
unchanging Law, lies behind the severeness of the Samaritan critique of the prophets (cf. Macdonald, Theology, pp. 204-11).
26. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, p. 124, based on Fohrer, 'Israelitischen
Propheten'.
27. There does not seem to be any textual reason for this change, since the text
is not in Chronicles and LXX has the same version as 2 Kgs.
256
there was very heavy rain and all the men and their beasts drank. Then
the Israelites smote Moab' (ST 2 Kgs-2 Chron. AA*).
The 'omission' in the Samaritan Chronicle is the more striking when
compared to the story about Elisha's role in the Aramean war (MT
2 Kgs 8-23), which follows right after the former story, leaving out the
Elisha stories in 2 Kgs 4.1-6.7.28 The positive role of Elisha in the biblical story is turned into a negative in the Samaritan version. He 'is a
soothsayer, a sorcerer, a medium and a wizard'. No mention is made of
Elisha's wondrous acts for the salvation of Israel (cf. 2 Kgs 6.15-22),
which, in the Samaritan version, is due to the Israelites' military skills
as 'they smote the men of Syria' (AC*). Josephus's unscriptural praise
of the prophet that 'Adados was amazed at the marvel and at the manifestation of the God of the Israelites and his power, and also at the
prophet with whom the deity was so evidently present' (Ant. 9.60) cannot safely be said to form part of the north-south conflict. It might
rather be seen as being representative of Josephus's own aims at recognition.
Paralleling this story is the shortened Samaritan version of Elisha's
role during Ben-Hadad's siege of Samaria (cf. MT 2 Kgs 6.14-7.20). ST
2 Kgs-2 Chron. A 24-G* puts the blame for the siege entirely on
Elisha, 'the soothsayer', who 'with his disciples [VTQ^n]29 flees from
the king and settles in another land', again leaving out Elisha's acts of
salvation. In a reference to 'the salvation on the second day' by Yahweh (ST AG*) it seems to show its dependency on the biblical narrative (2 Kgs 7.1). The manner of dependency, however, might not be
quite so easy to establish. The question still remains: Why does the biblical version raise the problem of a critique of the prophet and give an
answer to it? Both versions narrate that the king went to Elisha to hold
him responsible for the famine. This seems to be an unnecessary accusation in the biblical version, if circumstances outside of the narrative
had not already raised the question and expressed doubts formulated by
the king's captain in MT 2 Kgs 7.2, 17-20.
MT 2 Kings 5.1-8's story about Na'aman's leprosy opens with the
Israelite maidservant's advice to Na'aman to go to the prophet in Samaria to get cured. The king of Aram therefore sends Na'aman with a
letter to Israel's king, who sees a hidden pretext for conflict behind the
28. Josephus neither has these stories, with the exception of the story about the
widow's jar of oil (Anr. 10.47-50).
29. Ant. 9.68, TOiq |ia6r|Tca<;; MT2 Kgs. 6.32, D'DTn.
257
request. The conflict, however, is between the prophet and the king,
who has no confidence in the prophet's abilities. The prophet Elisha,
man of God, takes up the challenge: 'Let him come to me, and he shall
know that there is a prophet in Israel.'
Also MT Amos 7.12 refers to the prophet's rejection from Israel after
his prophecies against Jerobo'am: 'Amazi'ah [the priest of Bethel] said
to "Amos, seer, go flee away to the land of Judah, and eat bread there,
and prophesy there; but never again prophesy at Bethel, for this is the
king's sanctuary [~[^Q~^~IpQ], and it is a temple of the kingdom
[rD^QDTrri].'"
MT Ezekiel 12.22-25 adds to the critique:
Son of man, what is this proverb that you have about the land of Israel,
saying 'The days grow long, and every vision comes to nought'? Therefore tell them, Thus says the Lord Yahweh: I will put an end to this
proverb, and they shall no more use it as a proverb in Israel. But say to
them, The days are at hand, and the fulfilment of every vision. For there
shall no longer be any false vision or flattering divination within the
house of Israel.'
As a consequence of this, Ezekiel is ordered to speak against Israel's

prophets (cf. Ezek. 13.1-23) who prophesy out of their own thoughts,
who follow their own spirit, but have seen nothing (!) (cf. 13.1-3), who
see delusive visions and who give lying divinations (v. 9), who say
'Peace' when there is no peace (v. 10), and who have prevented the
people from building up a wall for the house of Israel, that it may stand
in battle in the day of the Lord. Note the character of the accusations,
which are similar to the court hearing in Micah, especially ch. 3's condemnation of the false prophets, who are held responsible for the
destruction of Jerusalem, for which the only salvation is to listen to the
prophet, who is 'filled with the spirit of Yahweh' (Mic. 3.8: also paralleled in Lam. 2.14).
The critique of the prophets in Samaritan tradition answers a similar
critique in the Jewish tradition, but is oriented against those prophets
whom Jewish tradition claims are true prophets. The only prophet who
is mentioned by name but not commented on, and who is not called
'prophet', is Jonah son of Amittai (ST 2 Kgs-2 Chron. FC), who in
2 Kgs 14.25-27 bears the responsibility for Jeroboam's expansion of
Israel's border to Hamath and Arabah, and who does not prophesy
against Israel to its doom, but for its salvation (cf. the role of Jonah in
the book of Jonah). Finally, attention should be given to the Damascus
258
covenant CD 7.18 and to its parallel text in 4Q267 frg. 3, 4.6-7, 'are the
books of the prophets, whose words Israel despised', as a testimony to a
well-known tradition of the second-first century BCE.
The Historiography of the Postexilic Period
These narratives are not included in Macdonald's edition of Chronicle
II, and has to be sought in Chronicle IV, Kitab al-Tarikh from ch. 18
onwards.30
Drought in Canaan offers an occasion for the Persian King Surdi31 to
command the Samaritan Israelites to go home and worship the god of
the land. They want to bring home all their brethen and send letters to
everyone to come to Haran for a united return. Since the Israelites do
not wish to be under the leadership of anyone who is not 'a prophet like
Moses', the Samaritan high priest is given cause in a second letter to
give a sermon. This explains why Moses is the only prophet:
Open up the Law and read it and you will understand that there will
never again be a prophet after Moses. For were there a [hypothetical]
prophet who might come after him to do what Moses did, there would be
no need for him. For it is said in the Law, 'I have bestowed upon you a
perfect law. Neither add to it, nor take away from it, throughout all your
generations' (Deut. 4.2).
Not everyone accepted this letter, and a great number remained in exile
and never returned. When the Jews arrive at Haran, the disagreement of
where to go to worship begins. The request brought by the Jewish representative Zerubbabel is not unimportant: 'You and your assembly
must do as we tell you: that is, we must go up to Jerusalem, and be all
of us, one nation' (p. 70). The Samaritan answer similarly reflects the
everlasting hope, that if the people return to the chosen place of the
forefathers, then god might 'be content and take pity on us, and ratify
for us the covenant of our fathers' (p. 71). The discussion clearly places
itself in an implicitly much broader discussion about the new and the
old Israel, with the Samaritans opting for continuity and the Jews for a
new beginning. This beginning, however, according to Samaritan
30. As mentioned above in Chapter 3: P. Stenhouse's English translation from
Arabic.
31. Usually identified with Darius I (522-486) whose length of reign is said to
be 36 years (AFp. 80): the name probably is spelled backwards, cf. Stenhouse,
nn. 306, 375a.
259
understanding, took place in the time of Eli and proved false. The court
hearing in front of King Surdi falls within this discussion. By reference
to the Torah scroll, which had been kept in custody in Niniveh during
the exile, the Samaritans 'read out the verses', showing that Mt Gerizim
is the Qibla. Zerubbabel then produced a scroll that he maintained was
the scroll of David, and which (he claimed) showed that the threshing
floor in Jerusalem was the Qibla (p. 71). As is typical for this chronicle,
a theological reflection answers the question why the chosen place has
to be Gerizim, and why Joshua had erected the altar on Gerizim and not
on Ebal (Josh. 8.30), which would have conflicted with the tradition of
curses from Mt Ebal (cf. Deut. 11.29 and 27.12, pp. 71-76). When
Zerubbabel and his companions are afterwards given permission to
speak, they do not refer to the Law of Moses but rather to their tradition, which says that 'David and Solomon both said that the Qibla is
Jerusalem'.
Thereupon, the Levite Sanballat accuses the Jews of accepting only
parts of the Law and, with reference to Deut. 15.19-20,32 of ignoring the
question of where the priests should bring their offerings before the
temple was built in the time of David and Solomon. When Zerubbabel,
in response to this accusation, refers to his Scriptures, which prophesy
that Jerusalem should be that place, Sanballat claims that the Jewish
books are forgeries, deceits and lies, and he asks permission to throw
them into the fire. The ordeal by fire reveals the truth. The scroll of the
Jews burns immediately, while the scroll of the Samaritans is thrown
into the fire three times from whence it returns undamaged three times.
Before this, Zerubbabel, however, had first tried hard to escape the test.
He took the scroll of the Samaritans
opened it, looked in it and then said, 'I cannot throw it. For my book was
mine alone', but this Book is mine and his, because the one who wrote it
is the lord, the Messenger (of God) Moses, upon whom be perfect
peace.'33 (p. 77: my italics)
This wonderful play on a well-known literary motif is given a different

perspective here that places the weight of the narrative on the behaviour
of the combatants rather than on the outcome of the test. The explicit
reference to the common tradition, which should be given priority over
the particular tradition, gives voice to this underlying theological theme
32. Imperfect clause ace. to SP Deut. 15.20.
33. 'Upon whom be perfect peace' follows every time Moses is mentioned.
260
and to a reversal of Jewish accusations against the Samaritans for having forged the Pentateuch. The king's anger leads to the execution of 36
of the Jews' chiefs and wise men and to the great exaltation of Sanballat, who is not only honoured by the king with gifts, garments, etc. but
also by the tribes. After having paid the ransom for the Torah scroll and
sacred vestments, 'they all set out in joy and good spirits and with them
went people from the sons of Benjamin, and the sons of Kohath and
Gershon and Merari, who had been with Eli in Shiloh' (p. 78). Note the
return of the 'apostates' both to their tradition and to their home. On
Gerizim they constructed the altar, '10 cubits long and 10 cubits wide,
and 5 cubits high. The temple building was 35 cubits square. They
made a candlestick of one gold quintar, and made a table and put the
showbread upon it' (p. 79).
We meet Sanballat again in the narrative about the Jewish return and
their attempt to rebuild the city and the temple. The event takes place
during the reign of Anusharwan, 'who ruled the land and put the Hellenes to the torch, exacting tribute from such of them as survived'.34
The short narrative is not essentially different from the biblical narrative of Ezra-Nehemiah where Sanballat also stops the building activities (Ezra 4.2), and destroys the constructions raised. This much aggravated Jewish-Samaritan relationships. Ezra and Zerubbabel are accused
of having forged the holy writ, introduced a new alphabet, removed the
references to Gerizim and given this new edition to the people, declaring, 'This is the Book of God, the authentic truth. Put your faith in it
and make copies of this alone' (p. 81).
Later on, King Darius II (423-404) takes care to finish the building of
the temple and kill a great number of Samaritans (p. 85). No 'biblical'
text gives this information. They rather relate that the Samaritans are
ordered to bring revenues to the Jews.
Presumably during the time of the same King Darius, Simon is
appointed as king of the Jews (p. 87).35 After the rebuilding of the
temple in Jerusalem, the cult becomes centralized. King Simon prevents
the Samaritans from going to Mt Gerizim, where he destroys the altar
and the temple 'which the high priest Abdal had built' after the return
34. Stenhouse, Kitab al Tarikh, n. 376 considers this to have been Cyrus I
(537/8-29).
35. Stenhouse, Kitab al Tarikh, nn. 406-407 suggests this to be Simon the Just
(142-135 BCE) the Jewish high priest praised by ben Sira. The king would then subsequently be Ptolemy Physcon (146-116).
261
from exile. The Jews stayed on the mountain for 40 days to devastate it
and pollute it. In the wake of the following pogroms, the Samaritans set
out to avenge themselves by killing a great number of Jews and demolishing the Jewish temple and the city walls. However, with aid from
King Darius the Jews win the battle, the Samaritans are severely beaten
and those who survive become dispersed throughout the world: some to
the valley of Kutha, wherefore 'the Jews call them Kuthians, so that the
name Samaritan and the name Israelite would fall into disuse' (p. 88).
The account in many ways reflects the account of Saul's destruction of
the Samaritan temple.
King Simon is followed by 'Arqia (Hyrcanus?). During this king's
reign, a peculiar discussion takes place.
At this time a dispute broke out between the sons of Ithamar and the sons
of Manasseh, because the sons of Manasseh had said to the sons of Ithamar, 'Give us a share in the Beautiful Meadow'. He came to a decision
in this matter, thinking that this would satisfy them but he met with no
success. He said to them, 'Mount Gerizim is for you, and for them and
for all Israel; Nablus is exclusively for the house of Ephraim; the beautiful Meadow is for all the tribes; and the scroll of the law is for all Israel'
(pp. 88-89).
Later Jewish fortune turns, and the nations who had become 'alarmed at
their oppression and deceit' gather against them, destroy city and temple
and scatter the Jews among the larger cities. This gives occasion for a
Samaritan return and a re-erection of the 12 stones in their places on the
mountain (p. 89), which now is in place for the reception of Alexander
the Great.36
The Samaritan Alexander narrative contains some of the themes
known from Josephus's Alexander legend and Megillat Ta'anit, but
with a somewhat different casting. In the Samaritan narrative, it is the
Samaritan high priest Hezekiah and the Samaritan community who
meet Alexander outside Nablus when he plans to wipe out the Samaritans because of their support of Tyre during his siege of the town. As in
the comparable Jewish material, Alexander becomes convinced that the
Samaritan high priest is a representative of God's will and that Alexander's fortune has been predicted by him (not by way of the book of
36. The placement of the previous narratives related to Simon and 'Arqia seems
to be a chronological error, and if we consider the John mentioned later in p. 112 to
be Alexander Jannai, the following narratives pp. 92-111 form an independent
insertion.
262
Daniel, of course). Hezekiah brings 'the illustrious Book and the Torah'
(p. 92).37
When Alexander wants to build a temple after he had founded the
Egyptian city of Alexandria, and to make representations of himself in
Nablus and in all other places, the Samaritans are in a dilemma.
Through divine advice, however, they solve the problem by naming all
new born children after Alexander. When Alexander returns from
Egypt38 he is so satisfied with the arrangement that Hezekiah, the high
priest, is given opportunity to give a theological discourse about the
impossibility of having the emperor's picture or statue set up for adoration and to explain why Alexander cannot build a temple on Mt Gerizim (pp. 94-95).39 The Samaritan narrative is not less legendary than
Josephus's story. Lack of direct anti-Jewish propaganda might, however, suggest another source. It would probably be safer to consider the
Megillat Ta 'anit traditions as forming the backbone of this as well as
the stories about temple destruction. The attached discussion about the
temple, however, may suggest an answer to the Jewish claim that
Alexander had built a temple on Gerizim. The Samaritan community's
attachment to Shechem seems to be a fact throughout the Samaritan
historiography, both before and after Alexander (cf. pp. 79. 89. 92. 100.
102V
The lack of Samaritan apology in Josephus's narrative of the discussion before the court of Ptolemy II Philadelphus is given full compensation in this Samaritan Chronicle. The story is combined with the
Greek translation of the Pentateuch. The Samaritan deputation is led by
Aaron and the Jewish by Eleazer. Jews and Samaritans each produce
their own version and the argument seeks to convince the king that the
Jewish version, which is without any clear reference to the cult place, is
illogical, since the Israelites could not have been left without such a
37. Unknown, might be the Abisha Scroll and the Torah Scroll (Stenhouse,
Kitab al Tarikh n. 434).
38. In accord with Greek historiography, see Chapter 5.
39. The Samaritan temple might in fact have been the one in Shechem, while
Gerizim might have been a cult place without a temple. According to I. Magen's
preliminary reports on the excavation, this seems to be a possibility (see Chapter 5).
AF pp. 77. 88 and 89 suggest that there was a temple on Gerizim in Persian times
until the destruction by the Jewish King Simon. The Samaritan Chronicle, which,
according to Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, p. 129, confirms Alexander's building
of a Samaritan temple on Gerizim, must be one other than Chronicle II and VI.
263
decision for so many years after the exodus. The argumentation follows
the lines of the argument given in the court of Darius and adds nothing
new to the Samaritan position. The outcome of the hearing is an order
to make pilgrimage to the place and a curse on everyone who does not
submit to this, followed by the clarifying remark that the 'Jews had forbidden pilgrimage to the Mount of Blessing' (pp. 103-11).
Chronologically, this prohibition is combined with the split of the
Jews into three separate groups, Pharisees, Sadducees and Hasidim.
This seems to have taken place shortly before or in the beginning of the
reign of John Hyrcanus. The Samaritan Chronicle does not mention
Essenes, which are given such extended comment in Josephus, who
(agreeing with Samaritans on the number of sects), for his part, does not
mention Hasidim whom we know of from 1 and 2 Maccabees and who
seem to be important supporters of the Hasmonaean revolt.40 The Hasidim's attachment to Samaritans dwelling in the villages near the Mount
of Blessings with the intention of devoting themselves to worship and
following the Samaritan school of thought (AF p. I l l ) certainly would
have been in conflict with Josephus's negative attitude towards the
Samaritans, if this statement were correct.
Contrary to Josephus's harsh treatment of Sadducees (War 2.166;
Ant. 18.16-17), AF states that they got the name because 'they abhorred
burdening themselves with any type of injustice'. It is furthermore
stated that 'they admitted only the authority of the Torah, and what the
writings point out by way of analogy with it', leading to a rejection of
the books 'which the sect of the Pharisees promote, preferring to follow
in the tradition of their ancestors'. On this matter, Josephus is in full
agreement, when, in connection with John Hyrcanus's prohibition
against Pharisaic regulations, he states that
the Pharisees had passed on to the people certain regulations handed
down by former generations and not recorded in the Laws of Moses, for
which reason they are rejected by the Sadducean group who hold that
only those regulations should be considered valid which were written
down (in Scripture), and that those which had been handed down by
former generations41 need not be observed (Ant. 13.297).
The Sadducees are said to live in the villages around Jerusalem.

40. 1 Mace. 2.42; 7.13; 2 Mace. 14.6. Josephus's rewriting of the text of
1 Mace, is the more striking since he follows this text closely and has made replacements for omissions (cf. Ant. 13.278; 34.396).
41. Lit. 'the fathers' tradition' (EK rcapaSooecoc; TCOV Ticrcepcov).
264
In this Samaritan chronicle, John Hyrcanus did not cause any temple
destruction, and the story about the conquest of Samaria and Shechem
resembles Josephus's account in War.
The king had previously attacked Sebastia, a Samaritan city, and inflicted terrible hardship upon it; and after capturing it he had killed a great
number of Samaritans. He then came to Nablus and waged a fierce war
against it, killing a great number of people from the two sects. But he
was not able to capture it as he had captured Sebastia (AF p. 113).
After John Hyrcanus's fierce discussion with the Pharisees about the
high priestly office, the rupture and his subsequently attachment to the
Sadducees, he seeks to restore the Samaritans' rights and the resumption of pilgrimages to Shechem. The Samaritans, however, do not wish
to see John Hyrcanus on Gerizim:
After John had gone over to the Sadducees and had done what he did to
the Separatistsburnt their books and forbidden the young to receive
instruction from themhe restored the practice of going on pilgrimage
to Nablus to the Mount of Blessing, and firmly held that it was the house
of God. Nevertheless the Samaritans would not consent to his making
the pilgrimage to it, and were vigilant in preventing him. They held out,
by the might of their Lord, against his insistence. When he had abandoned all hope of having his way, he proceeded to dispatch sacrifice and
tithes, votive offerings and pious donations and gifts for it (AF p. 113).42
What lies behind this story? Josephus War 1.67-69 and Ant. 13.288300 give no information about John Hyrcanus's relation with the Samaritans. Neither do his stories about Alexander Jannai. The break with
the Pharisees could have led to abominable circumstances in Jerusalem,
and Hyrcanus could have intended to seek support from the Samaritans
and perhaps from the Hasidim, who, according to this Samaritan chronicle 'rallied around the Samaritans all without exception' (p. 111). Any
Samaritan reception of John Hyrcanus on Gerizim would, however,
have been an acclamation of his high priestly status. On this point,
Samaritans did not disagree with the Pharisees, though they had other
reasons.
42. The rabbinical parallel in b. Qid. 66a ascribes this event to Yannai (Alexander Yannai, 103-76 BCE). So does Stenhouse, who thinks that the successor of
the Jewish King Simon named 'Arqiah must be John Hyrcanus, and therefore the
king spoken of here, named John, must be Alexander Jannai (see note n. 563). Josephus's parallel stories, ascribed to each of the kings, supports the confusion, but
only the John Hyrcanus story explicitly 'dates' the break.
265
Consideration must be given the function of the story. Typologically,

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

Megillat Ta (anit.
Josephus's two stories.
The stories in the Samaritan Chronicles about King Saul, King
Simon, John Hyrcanus and perhaps Alexander Jannai.
The Old Testament stories of Judges 9; 1 Samuel 22; 2 Kings
23.
Ben Sira 50's praise of Simeon ben Jochanan and 'the foolish
people in Shechem'.
43. War 1.67, 88-98; Ant. 13.299, 372-83.
266
Common to all these stories are attempts at completion of or the

destruction of Shechem, Gerizim, Bethel and Khirbet Luzah. When this
took place and with what motivation cannot be safely decided from
these stories. That it happened on behalf of and with direct actions of
Jews in Jerusalem is shared by all of the stories. The Samaritan Chronicle does not hide the fact that there existed a long-termed and farreaching hostility between Jews and Samaritans, and that both groups
mutually exploited this in their fights with the surrounding 'nations'.
We find in both Samaritan and Jewish sources indications of an intensification of hostility after the return from the Babylonian exile, and, in
some of the sources, this is closely combined with temple-building activities in Jerusalem. Interestingly, no stories argue against templebuilding activities in Shechem or on Gerizim, although this is said to
have been destroyed a couple of times. Three stories talk about attempts
to destroy Jerusalem's temple (Megillat Ta'anit; AF p. 81. p. 89).
Thematically, we once again find ourselves dealing with the problematic presence of past traditions over against present innovations, and
two groups who claim authority for each of their own. This might be an
example of the never-ending story. It might, however, also be a single
story spelled out in many variations to give credence to its antiquity and
consequent historicity. Repeated remarks in AF about disagreements in
the Christian era is not necessarily authentic throughout the period. On
the other hand, it can be stated that no Samaritan stories tell about any
cooperation between Samaritans and Jews. The cessation of mutual
persecutions are always due to the interference of foreign rulers. The
following examples can be seen as paradigmatic for this tendency:
AF p. 115 probably said about Cleopatra, the wife of Ptolemy VII,
'She was also favourably disposed to the Samaritans. Her son helped
them in their struggle against the Jews'.
AF p. 124: during Hadrian's siege of Jerusalem, two Samaritan
brothers, called Ephraim and Manasseh (sic), who are Jewish prisoners,
reveal for him the tunnel entrances to Jericho and Lydda, and he succeeds in conquering the city. Hadrian rewards the Samaritans, entrusts
them with the affairs of the country and puts them over the Jews. On
Gerizim, he erected an imposing temple for himself, called Safis. He
killed an incalculable number of Jews and put the city to the torch.
When the Samaritans later make sedition and burn down Hadrian's
pagan temple on Gerizim, the Jews declare to Hadrian,
267
See how the Samaritans return your trust: how they pay you back! You
had us put to death on their account, and you put them over us; you
spared their land and treated them with every kindness; and yet after
your departure, they burnt down your temple together with all who were
inside it.
This of course leads to Hadrian's campaign against the Samaritans, who

neither abstain from dishonest methods in accusing the Jews of the
burning of the temple and of its inhabitants. A reference to the longstanding hostility between Samaritans and Jews, who certainly have
produced a false charge, easily convinces Hadrian to turn his attack on
the Jews.
With the exception of Josephus and the Samaritan Chronicles, the
sources are remarkably silent about these conditions, or only speak of
them indirectly, as does the biblical literature. 1 and 2 Maccabees speak
about godless men and enemies of the Jewish nation. Are these Samaritans or are they (as is usually assumed) unfaithful priests and pagans
from among foreigners? Several texts from the DSS collection speak
about wicked men from Ephraim (e.g. Pesher Nahum, 4Q163 frg. 3-4,
5.5, which bases its interpretation of Demetrius's[?] attack on Jerusalem
on the book of Nahum, and 4QpPsa = 4Q171, 2.18, which is a pesher
on Ps. 37). Both of these texts, however, also speak about the wicked
men of Judah, who seem to be 'those who seek easy interpretations'. If
they be not the Pharisees, as the standard scholarly opinion maintains,
the texts could in fact be reflective of a Pharisaic view and be addressed
rather against Sadducees and Samaritans. This could, for example, fit
well with the situation during the reign of John Hyrcanus after his break
with the Pharisees or with the reign of Alexander Jannai, which would
explain why Ephraim, Manasseh and Judah are all spoken against in a
similar manner.44 Josephus's statement that the Sadducees 'reckon it a
44. 4Q44g's praise of Alexander Jannai does not conflict with the possibility
that other DSS texts express severe hostility against this king. According to Josephus the Pharisee conflict was a twofold conflict beginning with John Hyrcanus and
ending with Alexander Jannai's deathbed repentance. Securing the power for his
wife Alexandra, Alexander Jannai advised her to 'yield a certain amount of power
to the Pharisees'. They in turn 'recounted the deeds of Alexander, and said that in
him they had lost a just king, and by their eulogies they so greatly moved the people
[so] to mourn and lament that they gave him a more splendid burial than had been
given to any of the kings before him' (Ant. 13.400-406). The substance of this
historical setting is due to Josephus's argument and does not conflict with any
'scholarly constructions imposed upon the texts' that argue for an anti-Jannaeus
268
virtue to dispute with the teachers of the path of wisdom,45 that they
pursue' (Ant. 18.16), might be descriptive of the animosity against
'those seeking easy interpretations'. Although they follow the regulations set up in the Pentateuch, they are not bound by tradition. They
may in fact have had much greater freedom in making ad hoc interpretations without demonstrating any deviation from the written biblical
text. The hermeneutic principle for interpretation of both legal and
prophetic material in the DSS, however, exposes several changes of the
biblical texts with the purpose of making it fit.46 It seems possible that
the accusation of making 'easy interpretations' could well be applied to
either group. L.H. Schiffman's excellent book,47 in which he strives
hard to demonstrate a Sadducean origin for the scrolls, in fact is much
more successful in denoting a Pharisaic or early rabbinic tradition
underlying most of the legal material in the scrolls.48 The few exceptions showing a possible Sadducean association49 might better be seen
as a corrective to our excessively dichotomous distinctions between
Sadducees and Pharisees. Supporting a view of Pharisaic origin is the
fact that the scrolls are hardly descriptive of how matters are, they
describe rather how they shall be when an idealized future has become
the present. The righteous priests of the scrolls are not in the 'lineage of
Zadokites' from David's time, whom we and Josephus understand to be
the heirs of the high priestly office in the second century BCE Judaism
and called Sadducees. They are the new priesthood, sprouting from the
righteous priesthood of the biblical 'David's house of Zadok', and their
origin is in the lay movement, probably the Levites. This, however is a
construed: that is a literary 'genealogy' that seeks to legitimate this
bias in the text, such as argued by Greg Doudna, 'Redating the Dead Sea Scrolls
Fund at Qumran: the Case for 63 BCE' (PhD thesis, University of Copenhagen).
45. TOtx; SiSaoKdloiK; oo<j)ia<;.
46. Cf. P.R. Davies, Scribes and Schools (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John
Knox Press, 1998), pp. 157-63.
47. L.H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls (Philadelphia: Jewish
Publication Society of America, 1994).
48. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, pp. 7, 77, 103, 105, 118-26,
371-74. Schiffman's comparative examination on fate and predestination in the
scrolls related to Josephus's descriptions of the Jewish sects (pp. 145-57) does not
prove his case, since the views of the scrolls certainly are most reflective of Josephus's description of the Pharisaic movement and only with great difficulties can be
applied to either Sadducees or Essenes.
49. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, pp. 75, 87.
269
priesthood. Purification rules and rites make the transformation from

lay to sacred, as shown also in the preparations for Hezekiah's celebration of the pesach (2 Chron. 29.34; 30.17, 22). Pesher Habakkuk's
rejection of the 'wicked priest', who failed to stand in the way of truth
and betrayed the laws for the sake of riches (8.9-10) and his accusers
self-identification as the faithful teacher, the p~l^ mQ (7.4) must be
taken into consideration here.
Another factor to be taken into consideration is scroll production as
such. Several Jewish groups might have produced various texts, but we
only have limited knowledge of such practices.50 The only group who is
explicitly said to have produced 'writings' in fact is the Pharisees. The
writings they produced have been described as interpretative writings
on the Tradition of the Fathers' (cf. Ant. 13.292, 296-97; 18.14-15; Life
191; AF pp. 111. 113; Mk 7-9, 13).
These factors, together with what we otherwise know about the
understanding of Judaism as Pharisaism, must be given consideration in
our judgment of the origin of the DSS material. The harsh treatment of
the Sadducees and accusations against them of having amassed wealth
and riches at the expense of the poor in collusion with the Hasmonaeans, the civil war that both led to the killing of a great number of
Jews, as well as to the exile for some eight thousand people as discussed above, however polemically and exaggeratedly in Josephus's
writings, all have their counterpart in the scrolls. Although we cannot
use Josephus as a proper source, we cannot totally dismiss the implications of his storytelling. The anachronistic problem of identifying any
Jewish group on the basis of descriptions made 100 to 200 years later,
depending on the dating of the DSS material, is a stumbling block of
considerable dimensions. Conclusions can be drawn only with great
caution. The representation of several views and hands in the texts may
50. The purported abundance of book production by Essenes is not given any
verification by Josephus's various presentations, and we can only guess that 'the
books of the sect' (War 2.142) is a reference to DSS manuscripts. Philo's statement
about the Essenes gives no information about literary activities (cf. Omn. Prob. Lib.
75-91; ref. to Philo in Eusebius, Praep. Ev. 8.6.1-9; 7.1-20; 11.1-18). His contemplative Therapeuts, on the contrary, whom he presents in contrast to the physically
active Essenes, are fully occupied with studies and interpretation, which also seem
to have been preserved in writing (cf. Vit. Cont. 1-90 [1, 28-31, 75-80, 88]). These
Therapeuts seem to be far from any group we can identify on the background of
DSS material.
270
be reflective of more than one coherent group, and the hypothesis of librarian activities in the scrolls must be considered seriously.
The book of Hosea and Pesher Hosea speaks in the same manner
against Ephraim and Judah in 4Q167 frg. 2: the interpretation to Hos.
5.14 'For I will be like a lion (to Ephr)aim (and like a lion cub to the
house of) Judah. Its interpretation (concerns) the last priest who will
stretch out his hand to strike Ephraim (...his ha)nd. Blank [...] Hos.
5.15. It is not clear who 'the last priest is', but the extremely difficult
interpretation that considers him to be Alexander Jannai does not fit the
perspective of the text. This is clearly written by one who identifies
himself with those who are oppressed and looking for revenge. This
authorial perspective could be reflective of the self-understanding of the
Pharisee, opposed by both Sadducees and Samaritans who are portrayed
as those subject to Yahweh's disappointment.
Isaiah 9.20-21 and Pesher Isaiah 4Q163 frg. 4-6.1, which quote Isa.
9.20-21, both express a contrast between Ephraim-Manasseh and Judah.
The texts do not differ from each other:
No one [forgives] his brother, [he destroys to the right and remains hungry, he consumes] to the left and is not replete; [a man eats the flesh of
his arm. Manasseh against] Ephraim and Ephraim against [Manajsseh;
[the two] together [against Judah. And with all this] his wrath is not mollified.
The reconstruction of the text seems reasonable, since the previous

verses closely resemble the text of the Old Testament. Unfortunately,
the interpretation is missing. The all-over impression of the texts from
the DSS is that those spoken against and considered to be apostates are
either 'those looking for easy interpretations', associates of foreign
nations or the foreign nations themselves, and that a proper north-south
polarity is not the focus of the texts. Similar to what we find in a variety
of psalms and prophetic texts of the Old Testament, the 'war' implied is
either intrinsic and thus splitting apart the tribes of Israel, or it is
extrinsic and the 12 tribes are joined together in a common war against
the nations, such as can be seen in the War Scroll (e.g. 1QM 3.14, 5.1).
The Temple Scroll, which speaks with the voice of the Pentateuch, similarly puts Israel's tribes in a relationship of equation (e.g. 11QT 19-20;
24.1-16). Any tendency of antagonism or priority can only be detected
in the order of the tribes.
The Damascus Document (CD 7.11-12; 4Q266 frg. 3, 4.6-7), men
271
tioning Ephraim's detachment from Judah, probably comes closest to

an actualized interpretation of Isa. 7.17:
When the two houses of Israel separated, all the renegades were delivered up to the sword; but those who remained steadfast, escaped to the
land of the north. [This refers to] when the two houses of Israel split,
Ephraim lorded over Judah,51 and all the backsliders52 were turned over
to the sword.53
The interpretation, however, is held in so general and cryptic terms that

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

might catch a glimpse of the Pharisees behind the 'books of the law',
'the books of the prophets' and 'the reverence for David', a glimpse of
perhaps Sadducees, Hasmonaean rulers and others opposed to the Pharisees behind 'the princes of Judah' and finally a glimpse of Samaritans
behind 'the elders', as it is the entry of Zadok, which brings forth the
Law. If this interpretation is correct, we might (along with some of the
DSS material) be placed in a much closer context than is usually considered. Furthermore, 'when the two houses of Israel split' might be a
much more complicated reference than just a north-south conflict. That
not only Sadducees, but also Samaritans are said to be living according
to the 'Way of the Fathers' (m. Nid. 4.2; Ant. 12.10; 13. 297), and that
this way is the tradition past for those who sought to re-establish that
tradition within a new interpretation, seems to reflect a structural
51. F.G. Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992),
reads 'Ephraim detached itself from Judah', which fits the preposition.
52. Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 'renegades'.
53. inn1? "ntwon *cr:no]n 'TJDI rmrr ^DQ cnst* ~ic (*niphai ptc of 310).
272
conflict of considerable dimensions, embracing all aspects of societal

life.
A thorough evaluation of the Samaritan material can be given only on
the basis of already well-known traditions. As seen from this examination, some of the material seems to cast light on obscure passages and
stories that otherwise remain incomprehensible. The main problem with
Samaritan historiography is not quite so much detecting ancient sources
behind what we now have. The main problem is rather that the 'historiography' never reached a level of canonization similar to Jewish 'historiography', which was able to preserve a substantially unchanged text
over centuries. We cannot safely know whether the Samaritan historiography, when it agrees with Josephus against the biblical sources,
speaks independently of Josephus, or whether its material is composed
in accord with Josephus, or, in a somewhat apologetic way, takes up
themes and stories about Jewish-Samaritan relationships that are also
debated in Josephus. No entirely independent story seems to have been
told in the chronicles. Stories dealing with Samaritan matters proper
have a close resemblance to stories known from other sources: Letter of
Aristeas; the book of Esther; 2 Maccabees; Susanna, the LXX, among
others. The authors of the chronicles show no interest in presenting a
national history or in placing Samaritans within such a realm of secular
history. They did not take part in the Hasmonaean desire for independence and nationality. In this way, they resemble the Hasidim, whose
primary goal was religious independence, and who probably withdrew
when the uprising turned into a political movement for national independence. Samaritan history is the history of a religious group whose
members call themselves Israelites (bene Yisrd'el) and Shomerim. Their
main enemies are not foreign nations but their countrymen and brethren
called Jews. Such a historiography, of course, is as little reliable at face
value as the similar Jewish historiography. We cannot simply read such
'historiographies' independently of each other. The realities giving
them substance have been interwoven. Treating them as if they were
independent traditions would be comparable to telling a family saga
from the perspective of a single one of its members. In future studies,
much more work needs to be done. Much more openness and creativity
needs to be invested in comparative studies of what is a common history for the benefit of greater clarity regarding both Samaritanism and
Judaism.
Chapter 7
FROM LITERARY TO HISTORICAL REALITY
Ezra 7-10 and Nehemiah 8 and 12 each have an account about the
activity in Jerusalem of a certain scribe Ezra, descendant of Aaron. This
figure 'later' became of considerable importance to rabbinic Judaism, in
which, equated with Moses, he marks the re-establishment of the 'forgotten' tradition. Remarkably, Josephus does not know of this later-tobe-so-famous person, but seems satisfied with paraphrasing the book
that carries his name, namely 1 Esdras. It seems necessary to look into
sources later than Josephus to find 'information' about a person who
'lived' in the fifth-fourth century BCE. Such a situation caused G. Garbini1 to conclude that 'the figure of Ezra was created by the book of the
same name; he did not have an autonomous existence as a person who,
if not historical, was at least legendary before the writing of the book'.
Garbini's purpose was not to deny Ezra, but rather the book of Ezra's
historicity, and, with the help of an understanding of name etymology,
transmission, development of tradition and the establishment of stock
characteristics seek to place himself hermeneutically before the literary
'evidence' and, as a result, give a more correct picture of Ezra. The
sources Garbini examined for this 'creation' were 1 Esdras, Ezra, Nehemiah, the books of Chronicles, 1 Maccabees, the book of Sirach, the
DSS, rabbinical literature and Josephus. The examination led Garbini to
suggest that Ezra was a synonym for Alcimus and his reform activities
around 159 BCE, which led to the Zadokite emigration from the temple
in Jerusalem and to their successive establishment of an alternative
community in Qumran. 2 By using literature that belonged chronologically and ideologically to different contexts, but whose intertextuality
reflects a high degree of 'sociological' agreement, Garbini established a
1. G. Garbini, History and Ideology in Ancient Israel (ET: trans. John Bowden;
London: SCM Press, 1988 [1986]), p. 155.
2. Garbini, History and Ideology, pp. 165-69.
274
new context and a historiography for a previously unknown person

named Ezra. It is our task to re-examine Garbini's conclusions by
means of more or less the same sources but with the possibilities that
other methods bring. This task is complicated by the fact that our
sources are far from neutral and do not exist independently of each
other. This means that their authors have already created the connections and contexts that we might detect and perhaps also interpret with
the purpose of creating new conclusions, which, however literarily
valid, nevertheless may be historically incorrect. The limitations of our
sources related to the survival and transmission of ancient literature is
an insurmountable problem. Other authors have already decided what
should be told from the past and what perspective be seen underlying
the narrative. Only coincidences and implicit stories give us access to
'the hidden story' behind those already presented. Ignoring this central
hermeneutic problem, much history writing is condemned to paraphrase
already written stories. If Garbini is right in his Ezra hypothesis, it is
not thereby proven that the description of Ezra in 1 Esdras was false for
its intended reader, or that the 1 Maccabees' potential 'dialogue' about
Ezra with this tradition's portrayal of Alcimus was correct at the time.
Both versions in fact could be false or correct, both then and now. The
problems of anachronism and circular dependency are not solved by
showing that the portrayal of Ezra fits the portrayal of Alcimus in
1 Maccabees; or, for that matter, showing that the 'history' relating
events in the Hasmonaean period fits the biblical acount from the time
of the Judges to the refom of Josiah. The possibility of exposing our
texts' sociological realities, and from them create the reality that created
our texts is minimal. Our only chance for knowledge of our texts'
content and perspective is not so much dependent on assuming the role
of our text's implicit reader, but rather on assuming the role of its
implicit author. We need to decode our author's methods. In our
attempt to become 'as clever as' the author, it is today's task to detect
how the ancient author used the story he created to hide the history that
did not fit his perspective, as well as the message he had chosen to give.
Let me give an example.
1 Maccabees, whose literary purpose was to legitimize the Hasmonaean takeover and usurpation of the high priestly office, has two main
problems: the Oniads and Alcimus. Alcimus is so obviously a usurper
in this story, hardly to be reckoned in the high priestly succession (cf.
1 Mace. 7.5, 21) because he did not know how to behave as a high
7. From Literary to Historical Reality
275
priest of the lineage of Aaron (cf. 1 Mace. 7.12-18; 9.54-56). The

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

in Egypt, as we have already seen demonstrated in his various stories
about the temple in Heliopolis or Leontopolis. At the same time, it
became even more urgent to suppress discussion of a possible Hasmonaean usurpation of the high priesthood. To make the discussion before
Ptolemy a discussion between the Oniads and the Hasmonaeans would
have both undermined the earlier argument and have been difficult to
accomplish. Therefore, the legislation needed another context, and for
that the Samaritans were suitable. Josephus reached his goal: the primacy of Jerusalem and its priests, then and now. Here, however, we
find the critical point, for in Josephus's presentation of the list of high
priests in Ant. 20.235, he confirms indirectly the course of events: Jacimus or Alcimus is of the family of Aaron, but not of the family of the
Oniads (cf. 1 Mace. 7.14, but contra Ant. 12.387, which relates that
Lysias appointed a high priest of another house).3 That there is no high
priest for seven years thereafter (Ant. 20.237) keeps the Hasmonaeans
apart from any conflict over the high priestly office. It is only Jose3.
See Chapter 4 above.
276
phus's mention of the high priests (whom Herod had appointed), that
they 'were not of the family of the Hasmonaeans', which gives reason
for the reader to think that these (the Hasmonaeans) were not of the
lineage of Aaron, since Josephus, in his initial statement, had declared
that nobody who was not of the lineage of Aaron could become high
priests.
The question now left open is whether this description has been able
to move into the universe of the author and thereby create the 'correct'
story to contrast to the received story's placement of the Oniads in
Egypt, with its legitimizing of the high priestly functions of the Hasmonaeans. This is unknown on the basis of the available sources. However, it is clear that this possibility is inherent in the texts. So too is
Nodet's Oniad and Garbini's Ezra theory. It is only further research that
can lift the veil from some of the hidden histories of the past. Using
these texts as historical documents, however, has been our greatest
mistake. In the form in which they are presented, they have already
become part of the world of story and tradition. Whatever documentary
material may have preceded the narratives, we can only know the versions presented. The few 'independent' fragments and archaeological
remains, interpreted with caution, are of considerable help.
The most central peculiarity involved in our understanding of the
Samaritan-Judaean conflict is the existence of a common Pentateuch.
As demonstrated by the brief presentation above of the Greek literature,
the traditions about the monarchy seem to have become known considerably later than the Moses traditions. Moreover Judaism's concentration on Jerusalem becomes more explicit during the second century
BCE. This reflects well our knowledge of political circumstances, which
in the establishment of a partly independent Jewish state in the middle
of the second century BCE, created the basis for a literary delimitation
of Judaism's geographical boundaries. That the establishment of the
state also implied an establishment of a more politically oriented high
priestly office seems evident in Demetrius's letter to Jonathan (1 Mace.
10.38), the cruvaycoyfj |ieyd^r|'s (14.28) appointment of Simeon in
14.35 and 41 as their leader and high priest (fiyo'uuBvov amcov KQI
dp%iepea), and finally the declaration that 'all contracts in the country
should be written in his name' (14.43). Implicit in the offer to add the
three Samaritan border regions to Judaea is that they had earlier submitted to another authority. Also implicit in Josephus's discussion of the
'right temple' in Ant. 13.74-79 is that none of the temples discussed had
277
obtained supreme authority and that such authority was indivisible.

These circumstances were given vivid expression in much of the literature of the second-first century BCE, as has been shown by Mendels.4
Giving voice to the wish for the development of a single religious
centre in Jerusalem, the literature became idealistically descriptive of
what was not yet created. The literature does not argue defensively for a
re-establishment of an idealized past that had had a single temple, one
priest-king and a united people in Jerusalem! The literature in fact
argues on the line of innovation and development from that ideal place
in the past, where the people once had its centre, to a new place in the
present that is in process. The Deuteronomistic literature's elaboration
of the Shechem and Bethel traditions is a rejection of that past, implicitly prior to the establishment of the cult in Jerusalem. In the book of
Jubilees, necessary corrections of the very same past are given voice,
when Jub. 8.19's 'navel of the earth' (cf. Exod. 15.13; Ezek. 37.12)
becomes Mt Zion; and when, in its addition to Gen. 22.14's 'mountain
where Yahweh shows himself, this is said to be Mt Zion in Jub. 18.13.
Yahweh's prohibition of Jacob's plans of building a temple and a wall
in Bethel, and of making the place holy for himself and his children
(Jub. 32.16-24), both implies that Jacob becomes Israel here (v. 18) and
that this Israel does not belong to Bethel (v. 23): 'Do not build this
place and do not make an eternal sanctuary, and do not dwell here
because this is not the place. Go to the house of Abraham, your father.'
The text implies that the houses of Jacob and Abraham become united.
Jub. 49.18's correction of Deuteronomy 12's implicit question of where
Yahweh was worshipped before the building of the temple maintains
that it had only been until the building of the house of the name of
Yahweh that the tabernacle had been set up in the midst of the land.5
The relationship to Haran is another issue of concern. Abraham's connection to Haran could not be denied, but any doubts that this relationship should imply a connection to the Nabonide reform in Haran, and
that Abraham might have brought his god(s) from there, needed a clear
rejection. This was done in the story about Abram's burning of the idol
house in Ur in which Abram's brother Haran dies (Jub. 12.12). When
Abram thereafter goes to geographical Haran (Jub. 12.15), it is not one
of Haran's gods but Yahweh who reveals himself and teaches Abram
4. D. Mendels, Jewish Nationalism, p. 150.
5. A similar question in AF p. 76 is answered by reference to Deut. 15.20 and
16.16.
278
not to make signs from the sun and the moon. Only after the cutting of
the covenant and the institution of Hebrew as the language of creation
(Jub. 12.22-27), does Abram travel to Canaan.6 This 'correction' in
Neh. 2.10, 19 led to the apposition added to Sanballat ha-horoni.1 This
apposition presumably is not only a reference to an abandoned past, but
also to the future past of Samaritan tradition, which not only made 'the
Samaritans, the descendants from Phinehas and Joseph' go into exile to
Haran (view AF p. 63). but also sought to make a common return from
Haran during the leadership of Sanballat. This attempt did not succeed
because of disagreements over where to go: Gerizim or Jerusalem (AF
pp. 70-78). Once again we are left with the curious problem that MTand
Jewish tradition reject their past, while Samaritan tradition seeks to
confirm its. This literary technique is in full agreement with Old
Testament literature's rejecting the gods of the fathers prior to the
acceptance of the covenant at Shechem in Joshua 24. This event is not
included in Samaritan tradition. Included, however, are the great cycles
of stories dominated by the motif of rejecting the firstborn in order to
give room to the youngest. In the Ishmael tradition, he is reckoned as
Abraham's illegitimate son; in the Lot tradition, he is a subordinate
member of the family; and finally in the Esau-Jacob tradition, he is the
twin brother and equal. It is this equal but rejected brother, who makes
the connection to Yahweh from Seir, while Jacob is connected exclusively to the Samaria and Shechem traditions.8
6. This still valid question even in rabbinic literature is exemplified in the joke
presented in Chapter 4.
7. Josephus either did not understand this word play or his texts did not contain
the apposition. It is found only here in the Old Testament; the LXX reads oava(k$AaT 6 Apcovi and is without apposition in LXX Neh. 4.1 and 6.1, 5, 14. Josephus's similar use of 6 xi)00cao<; in Ant. 11.302 has no support. The place name has
not been identified; suggested are Beth-Horon on the Samaritan Benjamin border in
the vicinity of Ono (cf. Neh. 6.2); the village Huuwara, a little south of Shechem,
and finally the Moabite Horonaim paralleling Tobiah, the Ammonite. A possible
connection to Haran has been rejected on philological grounds (cf. EncJud.). This,
however, seems unreasonable, since the reading of the Hebrew text is determined
by its vocalization. According to Gen. 11.31 this is Haran.
8. We are dealing here with a type of literature that is found only in the Old
Testament tradition and is unparalleled in Near Eastern literature (cf. D. Irvin,
Mytharion: The Comparison of Tales from the Old Testament and Ancient Near
East (AOAT, 32; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978). This literature
reworks the past in typological narrative, which, taking up the past, is able to reject
279
The move towards Jerusalem is not restricted to non-biblical literature. It also found its expression in several Psalms' and Prophets' wishes
for all people to go to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of Jacob,
and for the Torah to go forth from Zion and the commandments of Yahweh from Jerusalem (cf. Isa. 2.1-2; Mic. 4.1-2; Joel 3.5); 'for on the
mountain of Zion and in Jerusalem there will be salvation/ refuge'. One
could doubt whether the reference to Zion is so exclusively a reference
to Jerusalem (cf. Mic. 1.1 's words against Samaria and Jerusalem
(D^lTl jl-iDET1^)- Micah 3.12 states that 'because of you Zion shall
become plowed as a field; Jerusalem shall become a heap of ruins and
the mountain of the house [ninn "in], a wooded height'. We usually
consider these expressions to be parallelisms, but it is not as obvious as
we are wont to think. When we analyse the Zion utterances in Kings
and Chronicles, we find the interesting fact that in 2 Sam. 5.8; 1 Kgs
8.1; 1 Chron. 11.5 and 2 Chron. 5.29 Zion is not the temple but the city
of David, and that in 1 Kgs 8.1 and 2 Chron. 5.2 the ark is carried 'from
the city of David, the same as Zion' (]VX KTI Til TSD) to the temple
during the celebration of its inauguration. We find the same conditions
in Psalm 2's setting of the king 'on Zion, my holy mountain'; and in Ps.
48.2, 12-13's conflation of kingship and divine presence, calling Zion
'the city of the great king' that is secured by God's presence. We
possibly have more texts that support a tradition that does not explicitly
combine Zion with the temple. We have several psalms that speak of
'the city, the habitation, the house [etc.] of the Lord' without mentioning Zion (e.g. Pss. 24; 27; 46; 62; 66; 100; 101; 122). It is not the
place here to examine how Zion became the temple of the Lord, the
temple mount, Jerusalem and the people. We confine ourselves to conclude that several psalms, lamentations and prophets, including Isaiah,
it. From this comes the dissonance in the various compositions, which are seen
paralleled in entire books and collection, that is, the dissonance between the Pentateuch and the historical books. Cf. also Th.L. Thompson, Origin Tradition of
Ancient Israel (JSOTSup, 55; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), p. 158: The narratives
of this genre all begin with a series of three episodes which together perform specific functions of the chain narrative. They state the theme and frequently give the
context of the later narrative. They set the mode of resolution for the plot-line, and
they take the first step in the plot-line of a greater story. It is usually the third of
these episodes which sets the plot of the chain narrative moving and is found to
echo through succeeding episodes of the larger narrative.'
9. In the historical books, Zion is only mentioned here (and in 2 Kgs 19.21, 31;
quoting Isaiah).
280
Jeremiah, Joel, Micah, Zephaniah, Zechariah, Amos and Obadiah10

imply such interpretations. This implicitly holds a strong possibility of
a mixture of mundane and clerical authority. It also can be concluded
that Zion refers to Jerusalem in these texts. If this contain any allusions
to 'the two houses of Israel' (cf. Isa. 8.14), this is based on rhetorical
parallelism, which needed two exodoi for Yahweh's works, similar to
Jeroboam's new cult, which had needed two centres in exchange for
those left in Shechem and Jerusalem.
The move towards Zion or Jerusalem is not restricted literarily to the
return from exile, which is given concrete expression. It also comprises
an eschatological salvation and the creation of the kingdom of glory in
which all people should be gathered (cf. Isa. 2.2-4, Mic. 4.1-3; Zech.
2.15), contrasting the rest of the books of Zechariah, Obadiah, Zephaniah and Joel, which place Zion in opposition to the nations. Jeremiah
forms another exception. It does not render the salvation complete until
all the apostates of the house of Israel have returned. Compare with Jer.
3.14-16, where the faithless children shall be brought home to Zion, the
ark of the covenant be forgotten and Jerusalem be called the throne of
Yahweh: 'In those days the house of Judah shall join the house of Israel
and together they shall come from the land of the north to the land that I
gave your fathers for a heritage' [v. 18]). This unification of the people
also forms the central message in Jer. 31.1-33.26, explicated in Jer.
31.6: 'For a day will come when the watchers [D'HIS]] will call at the
mount of Ephraim: "Arise, let us go up to Zion, to Yahweh, our God".'
The motif is the same as in Isaiah 2 and Micah 4, but the remarkable
features of the text is the combining of (D'H^D) Mt Ephraim and Zion.
The text expresses the same wish as we also find in the Chronicles'
story about Hezekiah's invitation to those in Ephraim and Manasseh.
Jeremiah's neutralization of the chronology and the levelling of the
fates of north and south in the exile caused by the fall of Jerusalem, and
the glory at the return, stands in the same tradition as what we find in
Samaritan literature and opposes the Deuteronomistic and 'Chronicler's' chronology, which reckon with separated falls and no return for
the tribes of the north.11
10. The other books of the Prophets, the remaining Old Testament literature,
with the exception of the texts mentioned plus Lamentations and Song of Songs, do
not use the term 'Zion'.
11. So also Ant. 11.133: 'But the Israelite nation as a whole remained in the
country [Babylon]. In this way it has come about that there are two tribes in Asia
281
The return from exile in Ezra and Nehemiah does not share explicitly
in the Old Testament Zion ideology.12 There are no mouths filled with
laughter and no shouts of joy at the wandering to Jerusalem. We might
either date this tradition to a later period or argue that Ezra and Nehemiah belong to a different tradition, as do half of the writings of the
Prophets. With this we can separate Ezra and Nehemiah from 1 Maccabees, which not only have knowledge of the tradition but also of the
fulfilment of its expectations in 1 Maccabees 5's stories about Judas's
and Simeon's return of the Jews from Gilead and the Galilee (cf. v. 54):
'So they went up to Mt Zion with gladness and joy, and offered burnt
offerings, because not one of them had fallen before they returned in
safety.' The Zion expectation is hereby given its first concrete fulfilment. This contrasts with the book of Sirach, which, with the Old
Testament, speaks about the wandering to Zion in futuristic terms (cf.
Sir. 36.13-16), and does not 'know' of any Zion tradition in its references to the temple and the high priest Simeon (Sir. 50.1-24).
We are once more placed in the national ideology of the Maccabaean
period. We can conclude that part of the literature mentioned expresses
a wish for the inclusion of the northern people in this ideology, while
the only account of its fulfilment does not include Ephraim. In the
Samaritan Chronicle Abu 'l-Fath, the conflict that this national ideology
might have created is placed prior to the return from the Babylonian
exile, where Zerubbabel and the Jewish leaders wrote to the Samaritan
high priest Abdal: 'You and your assembly must do as we tell you: that
is, we must go to Jerusalem and be all of us of one nation' (AF p. 70).
Samaritan and Jewish literature agree that the claim is advanced from
Jerusalem, not the contrary. Neither in the Masoretic literature nor in
Josephus's accounts of the discussion before Ptolemy has it been
explained theologically why the cult should become established in
Jerusalem. As demonstrated in the inauguration of Solomon's temple, it
is built before it is chosen. It seems reasonable therefore, to ask whether
the 'demand' that the Samaritans go to Jerusalem is anything more than
a pious wish. Does it also contain a political statement that might have
led to the temple destruction, schism, text revision, and so on? Both
Samaritan and Jewish literature agree that the temple was destroyed and
and Europe subject to the Romans, while until now there are ten tribes beyond the
Euphrates.' This text is not found in either Ezra or 1 Esdras, which is Josephus's
source.
12. The terminology is not used in these books.
282
that a text revision took place, with Ezra as the responsible editor. Both
traditions furthermore have a Simeon tradition that is tied to the temple
and whose reputation is sharply contrasted.
The Samaritan Chronicle places the temple destruction in the time of
a certain Jewish king named Simeon, appointed by an unknown king
before the arrival of Alexander the Great. It does not relate any destruction to the time of John Hyrcanus. This chronology is contradicted in
AF p. 102, which states that Alexander was received in the temple, and
in 2 Mace. 6.2 and Ant. 12.257-64, both of which refer to the temple at
Gerizim in the time of Antiochus IV. The Simeon mentioned in the
Samaritan tradition, therefore, cannot be the high priest Simeon II Just,
but must be understood to refer to the Hasmonaean Simeon, ruling from
about 142/143 BCE to 135 BCE. Neither the Samaritan Chronicle nor
Josephus bring any further information which could settle these matters.
Megillat Ta'anifs account of the Samaritan attempt to destroy the Jewish temple, however, does. The placement of this account in the time of
Alexander the Great is so incredible that it cannot be taken seriously.
Another probable dating in the time of Antiochus IIIbecause of the
assertion that it is Simeon the Just who is meantis contradicted by the
fact that no temple destruction took place at that time. Left is the Hasmonaean Simeon. The event was not unproblematic, and therefore it
had to be transferred to another context in a remote legendary past.
Josephus's reason for placing the event in the time of John Hyrcanus is
a consequence of his account of Hyrcanus's conquest of the region of
Samaria in War, with the subsequent expansion of the northern borders
that was initiated with the transfer of the Samaritan border areas Aphraim, Lydda and Ramathaim (cf. 1 Mace. 10.30, 38; 11.34; Ant. 13.54,
127, 145) in the time of Jonathan and the appointment of Simeon as
strategos over these regions (from the Ladder of Tyre to the borders of
Egypt; cf. 1. Mace. 11.59; Ant. 13.146). Josephus's revision of Demetrius's document makes sense. It is hereby expressed that it is Demetrius
who sanctions that the Jews should have only one temple. Simeon is
freed of any responsibility regarding the temple destruction, as this
would have fit badly the reputation he has been given. Hyrcanus's quarrel with the Pharisees certainly gives reason to put the blame of the
destruction on him.
Therefore it was not the Samaritans who revised their Pentateuch.
Why not? Because the Shechem traditions do not conflict with the
Samaritan tradition, which rather maintains its coherence with the past,
283
and because the Samaritans' return from exile departs from Haran.
Parts of this tradition conflict with some of the Jewish traditions and
their conceptions of the New Israel: as an Israel that should gather all
the tribes of Israel to Jerusalem. The question becomes rather how this
literature is common to both Jerusalem and Shechem, as well as why
Jerusalem never created its own origin story independent of the Shechem traditions we now have in the Bible.
The Pentateuch is hardly a new composition. It is part of a postBabylonian literary tradition. The inclusion of legal materials in the
course of the Persian perioddevelopments such as that of Darius's
possible establishment of 'the feast of unleavened bread' in Elephantine13 and that same Jewish colony's maintenance of a cult of offering
had developed a law code, connected secondarily to the origin and patriarchal traditions, as well as to a further legislation of the forms of
proverbs and sayings within the Moses tradition. This development
took place early in the Hellenistic period. It is to this development that
the occurrence of Moses traditions in the Hellenistic literature of this
time, such as Hecateus of Abdera, is due. This also clarifies the absence
of these traditions in papyri from Elephantine. The development of the
Pentateuch traditions independent of Jerusalem pleads for an origin
from the 'am ha'ares. It is noteworthy here that even Deuteronomy
'does not seem to reflect the point of view and ethos of the Jerusalem
priesthood'. 14 The Samaritan story about the return of the law scroll,
which had been placed in Ninive during the exile (in contrast to the
story of Ezra's activities and the Ezra traditions' rejection of a common
building of the temple in Jerusalem) supports this synthesis. The confession in Nehemiah 9 does not mention the Jacob tradition. It rather
inserts the tribe of Judah in what is presented as a pre-monarchic genealogy going back to Perez in the lists of Nehemiah 3, 7, 10, 11, 12. This
makes it possible to argue for the existence of a tradition prior to the
incorporation of all of the patriarchal traditions, a tradition whose historical origin is originally connected to the traditions about the monarchy. This becomes painfully clear in the nearly total absence of ancestral
13. The letter (pap. 21) sent to the Jewish representatives in Elephantine, advising how to celebrate the Pesach, as ordered by Darius and without any reference to
a Mosaic tradition, points to a new institution.
14. J. Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of
the Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1992), p. 215, who is arguing for a Babylonian
orientation.
284
stories in the historical corpora. In the books of Chronicles, the song of

the Levites of 1 Chronicles 16 and the independent genealogies of the
first chapters form an outstanding exception. The few allusions to the
God of the patriarchs and to the covenant are in the Elijah and Elishah
cycle in 1 and 2 Kings (1 Kgs 18.36; 2 Kgs 13.23). Likewise, the references to Jacob and the Exodus in 1 Sam. 12.8, and to Jacob's sons in
2 Kgs 17.34, implicitly confirm that traditions about the monarchy
developed independently from the Pentateuch or Hexateuch traditions.
Such considerations must lead to a revision of the variant claim of the
Ezra tradition, that Ezra brought the Law of Moses to Jerusalem. This
Law of Moses (ntOQTmn, given by Yahweh God of Israel (^tnGrTTftN)
(Ezra 7.6), which Ezra brought to Jerusalem, could well refer to the SP
that had been adopted in Jerusalem to establish identity and legitimacy
for the nationalistic movement of the Maccabees, as well as to legalize
the policy of conquest. Jonathan's mention of the holy books in 1 Mace.
12.9, and references to Nehemiah's and Judas's libraries in 2 Mace.
2.13-14, could well have such a background. The borrowed traditions
were not unproblematic to the priests in Jerusalem. It is surely little
wonder that the development and authorization of the oral Torah follows quickly the Jewish efforts to insist on the authority of such traditions, to claim ownership of them and to develop an identity beyond
them. The rabbinic tradition about Ezra's text revision not only is
reflective of the reinterpretation of the Torah, it marks the paradigmatic
shift from the Mosaic Yahwism of t?N""]2T~<':Q to a Judaism of new
covenanters, who now call themselves DmiT (Jews). Challenging the
role of Moses as the sole prophet, the insertion of Ezra in the tradition
as the receiver of the command to go to Israel from Mt Horeb (4 Ezra
2.33) and as the receiver of the (oral) Law (m. Ab. 1.1-5) and the ten
commandments (b. b. Kam. 82a) defines the move paradigmatically
within the replaced traditions' own claim for authority.
Given the various traditions, it seems now reasonable to conclude
that Samaritans and Jews never did form a single state, and that the only
historical effort to establish such a state destroyed its basis. The
Samaritans, no less than Judaeans, were willing to give up their own
traditions as well as their claims to religious and cultural centres. Paralleling proto-MT revisions, which sought to minimize the importance of
the Gerizim and Shechem traditions, Samaritans had to argue for the
primacy of these traditions. This 'revision' falls outside of the Penta-
285
teuch, 15 and probably also outside of the main parts of Joshua and
Judges. From this, it follows that the language of expulsion and dissidence must be silenced. This is a rationalistic afterthought aiming to
predate authority for an established Judaism to a time before the formation of the Hasmonaean state, and to demonstrate that this Judaism,
emanating from Jerusalem, was indeed the true Judaism, whose rejecters were schismatic 'from the cradle'. The temples outside of Jerusalem did not emerge as a result of this ideology (they were in existence
long before); they were demolished because of it. It is this reality that is
reflected in the stories about John Hyrcanus's 'Josianic reform', which
not only in 2 Kings 23 but also in Josephus's interpretation of events
leaves no room for competing Judaisms.
15. Cf. Chapter 3: the inconsistent way Yahweh chooses/has chosen in the SP
and Samaritan literature compared to a very consistent use in MT. The discussion
about the placement of Gerizim and Ebal (Deut. 11.30) voiced in m. Sot. 7.5 supports that this placement first later became a problem.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abel, R., La geographic de Palestine (2 vols.; Paris: J. Gabalda, 1933-38).
Ackroyd, P.R., Israel under Babylon and Persia (New Clarendon Bible, OT, 4; Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1970).
The Chronicler in his Age (JSOTSup, 110; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991).
Ahlstrom, G.W., The History of Ancient Palestine from the Palaeolithic Period to Alexander's Conquest (JSOTSup, 146; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993).
Albright, W.F., From the Stone Age to Christianity (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1946).
'New Light on Early Recensions of the Hebrew Bible', BASOR 140 (1955), pp. 27-33.
Albright, W.F., and C.S. Mann, 'Stephen's Samaritan Background', in J. Munck, The Acts
of the Apostles (AB, 31; Garden City: NY Doubleday, 1958), pp. 18-32.
Allegro, J.M., 'Further Messianic References in Qumran Literature', JBL 75 (1956),
pp. 174-76.
Alon, G., 'The Origin of the Samaritans in the Halakhic Tradition', in idem, Jews, Judaism
and the Classical World: Studies in Jewish History in the Times of the Second
Temple and Talmud (trans. Israel Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1977),
pp.354-73.
Alt, A., Die Landnahme der Israeliten in Paldstina (Leipzig: Reformationsprogram der
Universitat Leipzig, 1925).
'Die Rolle Samarias bei der Entstehung des Judentums' (1934), KS 2, pp. 316-37.
'Zur Geschichte der Grenze zwischen Judaa und Samaria' (1935), KS 2, pp. 346-62.
Altheim, F., and R. Stiehl, 'Erwagungen zur Samaritanerfrage', in idem, Die Araber in der
Alien Welt, IV (5 vols.; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1967).
Anderson, R.T., Studies in Samaritan Manuscripts and Artifacts: The Chamberlain-Warren Collection (Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1978).
'Samaritan Pentateuch: General Account', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 390-96.
The Elusive Samaritan Temple', BA 54.2 (1991), pp. 104-107.
Attridge, H.W., The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae ofFlavius Josephus (HDR, 7; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976).
'Josephus and his Works', in M. Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings of the Second Temple
Period (CRINT, 1; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984), pp. 185-232.
Austin, M.M., The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest: A Selection
of Ancient Sources in Translation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981).
Avigad, N., in E. Stern (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the
Holy Land (4 vols.; New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993), IV, pp. 1306-10.
Baillet, M., 'Review of Macdonald, Samaritan Chronicle no. II', RB 1 (1970), pp. 592-602.
Barstad, H., 'Die Basankiihe in Amos IV 1', VT25 (1975), pp. 286-307.
Bibliography
287
The Myth of the Empty Land: A Study of the History and Archaeology of Judah during
the 'Exilic' Period (Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1996).
Bartlett, J.R., 'Zadok and his Successors at Jerusalem', JTS NS 19 (1968), pp. 1-18.
Becking, B., The Fall of Samaria: An Historical and Archaeological Study (Leiden: E.J.
Brill, 1992).
Ben Hayyim, Z., The Book of Asatir, with Translations and Commentary', Tarbiz 14
(1943), pp. 104-125, 128, 174-90; 15 (1944), pp. 71-87 (Hebrew).
The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic amongst the Samaritans (5
vols.; Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1957-77) (Hebrew).
'Review of Purvis, Samaritan Pentateuch1, Bib 52 (1971), p. 255.
Bickerman, E.J., Der Gott der Makkabder: Untersuchung iiber Sinn und Ursprung der
makkabdischen Erhebung (Berlin: Schocken Books, 1937). ET The God of the
Maccabees: Studies on the Meaning and Origin of the Maccabaean Revolt (SJLA,
32; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1979).
'La charte seleucide de Jerusalem', REJ 100 (1935), pp. 4-34.
The Jews in the Greek Age (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988).
Bilde, P., Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome (JSOTSup, 2; Sheffield: JSOT
Press, 1988).
Blenkinsopp, J., 'Interpretation and the Tendency to Sectarianism: An Aspect of Second
Temple History', in E.P. Sanders (ed.), Jewish and Christian Self-definition (3 vols.;
London: SCM Press, 1981), II, pp. 1-26.
'Temple Society in Achemenid Judah', in P.R. Davies (ed.), Second Temple Studies
(JSOTSup, 117; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), pp. 22-53.
The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (New York:
Doubleday, 1992).
Blum, E., Die Komposition der Vdtergeschichte (WMANT, 57; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984).
Boccacini, G., Middle Judaism, Jewish Thought, 300 BCE to 200 CE (Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1991).
Boid, Ruahiridh (M.N. Saraf), 'Use, Authority and Exegesis of Mikra in the Samaritan Tradition', in M.J. Mulder (ed.), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of
the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (CRINT, 2.1; Assen:
Van Gorcum, 1988), pp. 595-99.
Bolin, Th.M., 'The Temple of Yahu at Elephantine and Persian Religious Policy', in D.V.
Edelman (ed.), The Triumph ofElohim (Kampen: Kok, 1995), pp. 127-44.
Bowman, J., Transcript of the Original Text of the Samaritan Chronicle Tolidah (Leeds:
University of Leeds, 1954).
'Contact between Samaritan Sects and Qumran?', VT1 (1957), pp. 184-89.
'The Fourth Gospel and the Samaritans', BJRL40 (1958), pp. 298-308.
'Is the Samaritan Calendar the Old Zadokite One?', PEQ 91 (1959), pp. 23-37.
'The Importance of Samaritan Researches', AnLeeds 1 (1959), pp. 43-54.
The Samaritan Problem: Studies in the Relationships of Samaritanism, Judaism, and
Early Christianity (Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series, 4; Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1975).
Samaritan Documents Relating to their History, Religion and Life (Pittsburgh: Pickwick
Press, 1977).
Brenton, Lancelot C.L., The Septuagint with Apocrypha, Greek and English (repr.; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980 [1851]).
288
Bruce, F.F., The Books and the Parchments: Some Chapters on the Transmission of the
Bible (London: Pickering & Inglish, 1953).
Bull, R.J., 'A Note on Theodotus' Description of Shechem', HTR 60 (1967), pp. 221-57.
Campbell, E.F., 'Jewish Shrines of the Hellenistic and Persian Periods', in P.M. Cross
(ed.), Symposia celebrating the Seventy-fifth Anniversary of the Founding of the
American Schools of Oriental Research (1900-1975) (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979), pp. 159-67.
Charles, R.H., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1913).
The Greek Versions of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1908; Hildesheim: G. Olms, 2nd edn, 1960).
Charlesworth, J.H., Graphic Concordance to the Dead Sea Scrolls (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr
[Paul Siebeck], 1991).
Charlesworth, J.H. (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (London: Darton, Longman
& Todd, 1985).
The Dead Sea Scrolls, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations (2
vols.; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1994-95).
Cody, A., A History of Old Testament Priesthood (AnBib, 35; Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute Press, 1969).
Cogan, M., 'For We, Like You, Worship your God: 3 Biblical Portrayals of Samaritan Origins', VT 38 (1988), pp. 268-92.
Coggins, R.J., The Old Testament and Samaritan Origins', ASTI6 (1968), pp. 35-48.
'Review of Purvis, Samaritan Pentateuch', JSS 14 (1969), pp. 273-75.
Samaritans and Jews: The Origins of Samaritanism Reconsidered (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1975).
The Samaritans and Acts', NTS 28 (1982), pp. 423-33.
Cohen, J.A., A Samaritan Chronicle: A Source-Critical Analysis of the Life and Times of
the Great Samaritan Reformer Baba Kabbah (SPB, 30; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1981).
Cohen, M., The Orthography of the Samaritan Pentateuch: Its Place in the History of
Orthography and its Relation with the MT Orthography', Beth Miqra 64 (1976),
pp. 50-70; 66 (1976), pp. 361-91 (Hebrew).
Cohen, S.J.D., Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian
(Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1969).
Collins, J.J., The Epic of Theodotus and the Hellenism of the Hasmoneans', HTR 73
(1980), pp. 91-104.
Cooke, G.A., The Book ofEzechiel (repr.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1967 [1936]).
Cowley, A.E., Samaritan Liturgy (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1909).
Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century BC (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923; repr.;
Osnabruck: O. Zeller, 1967).
Crane, O.T., The Samaritan Chronicle or the Book of Joshua (New York: Alden, 1890).
Cross, P.M., Jr, The Discovery of the Samaria Papyri', BA 26 (1963), pp. 101-21.
'Papyri of the Fourth Century BC from Daliyeh: A Preliminary Report on Their Discovery and Significance', in D.N. Freedman and J.C. Greenfield (eds.), New Directions in Biblical Archaeology (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1969), pp. 41-62.
'Papyri of the Fourth Century BC from Daliyeh', in idem (eds.), New Directions in Biblical Archaeology (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971), pp. 45-69.
'Notes on the Ammonite Inscription from tell Siran', BASOR 212 (1973), pp. 12-15.
Bibliography
289
The Contribution of the Qumran Discoveries to the Study of the Biblical Text', in P.M.
Cross and S. Talmon (eds.), Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1974), pp. 278-92.
'A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration', JBL 94 (1975), pp. 4-18.
Crown, A.D., The Date and Authenticity of the Samaritan Book of Joshua as Seen in its
Territorial Allotments', PEQ 96 (1964), pp. 79-100.
'A Critical Re-evaluation of the Samaritan Sepher Yehoshua' (unpublished PhD Thesis;
3 vols.; University of Sydney, 1966).
'New Light on the Inter-Relationships of Samaritan Chronicles from Some Manuscripts
in the John Rylands Library', BJRL 54 (1971-72), pp. 1-32; 55 (1972-73), pp. 281313.
A Bibliography of the Samaritans (ATLA Bibliography Series, 10; London: The Scarecrow Press, 1984).
The Samaritan Diaspora', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr
[Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 195-217.
'Redating the Schism between the Judeans and the Samaritans', JQR 82.1-2 (1991),
pp. 17-50.
The Abisha Scroll3000 years old? Does the Samaritan Community in Hablus Have a
Torah Scroll Written by Aaron's Great-Grandson?', BR1.5 (1991), pp. 12-21, 39-40.
Crown, A.D. (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989).
Crown, A.D., R. Pummer and A. Tal, A Companion to Samaritan Studies (Tubingen:
J.C.B. Mohr, 1993).
Cryer, F.H., and Th.L. Thompson (eds.), Qumran between the Old and New Testaments
(CIS, 6; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998).
Danby, H., The Mishnah, Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Explanatory Notes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991 [1933]).
Davies, G.I., Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions, Corpus and Concordance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).
Davies, P.R., In Search of Ancient Israel (JSOTSup, 148: Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1992).
'Scenes from the Early History of Judaism', in D.V. Edelman (ed.), The Triumph ofElohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms (Kampen: Kok, 1995), pp. 145-84.
Scribes and Schools (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1998).
Davies, P.R. (ed.), Second Temple Studies (JSOTSup, 117; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991).
Delcor, M., 'Hinweise auf das samaritanische Schisma im Alten Testament', ZAW 74
(1961), pp. 281-91.
'Vom Sichem der hellenistische Epoche zum Sychar des Neuen Testamentes', ZDPV 78
(1962), pp. 34-48.
Demsky, A., 'Pelekh in Nehemiah 3', 7E/33 (1983), pp. 242-44.
Dexinger, F., 'Das Garizimgebot im Dekalog der Samaritaner', in G. Braiilik (ed.), Studien
zum Pentateuch (Vienna: Akademische Druck, 1974), pp. 111-33.
'Limits of Tolerance in Judaism: The Samaritan Example', in E.P. Sanders (ed.), Judaism, Jewish and Christian Self-definition (3 vols.; London: SCM Press, 1981), III,
pp. 88-114.
Dexinger, F., and R. Pummer (eds.), Die Samaritaner (Wege der Forschung, 604; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1992).
Eben Shushan, A., Qonqordantziah khadashah (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1995 [Hebrew]).
Edelman, D.V. (ed.), The Fabric of History (JSOTSup, 127; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991).
290
The Triumph ofElohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms (Kampen: Kok, 1995).

Edersheim, A., Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (London: Longmans, 1883).
Egger, R., Josephus Flavius und die Samaritaner: Eine terminologische Untersuchung zur
Identitatserklarung der Samaritaner (NTOA, 4; Fribourg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1986).
Eissfeldt, O., Einleitung in das Alte Testament (1934; 3rd edn; Gottingen: J.C.B. Mohr
[Paul Siebeck], 3rd edn, 1964).
Eshel, E., The Prayer of Joseph: A Papyrus from Masada and the Samaritan Temple on
ARGARIZIN', Zion 56 (1991), pp. 125-36 (Hebrew with English summary).
Eskenazi, 'The Structure of Ezra-Nehemiah and the Integrity of the Book', JBL 107
(1988), pp. 641-56.
Feldman, L.H., 'Flavius Josephus Revisited: The Man, his Writings, and his Significance',
ANRW, II, 21.2 (1984), pp. 763-862.
Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993).
Feldman, L.H., and G. Hata, Josephus, Judaism and Christianity (Detroit: Wayne State
University Press, 1987).
Finkelstein, L., 'The Maxim of the Anshe Keneset Ha-gedolah', JBL 59 (1940), pp. 45569.
Fohrer, G., 'Die israelitischen Propheten in der samaritanischen Chronik IF, in M. Black
and G. Fohrer (eds.), In Memorandum P. Kahle (BZAW, 103; Berlin: W. de Gruyter,
1968), pp. 127-37.
Geschichte Israels: Von den Anfangen bis zu Gegenwart (Heidelberg: Quelle Mayer,
1977).
Fokkelman, J.P., Narrative Art in Genesis (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1975).
Narrative Art and Poetry in the Book of Samuel (2 vols.; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1981-86).
Ford, J. Massingberg, 'Can We Exclude Samaritan Influence from Qumran?', RQ 6 (1967),
pp. 109-29.
Possum, J., 'Sects and Movements', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen:
J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 293-389.
Frankel, Z., Vorstudien zu dem Septuaginta (Leipzig: n. pub., 1841).
Uber den Einfluss der paldstinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik
(Leipzig: n. pub., 1851).
Freed, E.D., 'Samaritan Influence in the Gospel of John', CBQ 30 (1968), pp. 580-87.
'Did John Write his Gospel Partly to Win Samaritan Converts', NT 12 (1970), pp. 24156.
Freedman, H., Midrash Kabbah, Genesis Translated (London: Soncino Press, 1951).
Freedmann, D.N., and K.A. Matthews, The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll (ASOR; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1985).
Freudenthal, J., Alexander Polyhistor und die von ihm erhaltenen Reste juddischer und
samaritdnischer Geschichtswerke (2 vols.; Hellenistische Studien; Breslau: Skutsch,
1875).
Gall, A.F. von, Der hebrdische Pentateuch der Samaritaner (Berlin: Alfred Topelmann,
1966 [1914-18]).
Garbini, G., History and Ideology in Ancient Israel (trans. John Bowden; London: SCM
Press, 1988 [1986]).
Gaster, M., 'Das Buch Josua in hebraische-samaritanischer Version', ZDMG 62 (1908),
pp. 209-79.
'On the Newly Discovered Samaritan Book of Joshua', JRAS (1908), pp. 795-809.
Bibliography
291
The Samaritans, their History, Doctrines and Literature (London: Oxford University
Press, 1925).
The Asatir, the Samaritan Book of the 'Secrets of Moses' Together with the Pitron or
Samaritan Commentary and the Samaritan Story of the Death of Moses (Royal
Asiatic Society, 26; London: n. pub., 1927).
The Samaritan Hebrew Sources of the Arabic Book of Joshua (n.p.: n. pub., 1930).
Samaritan Eschatology (London: n. pub., 1932).
Geffcken, J., Komposition u. Entstehungszeit d. Oracula Sibbyllina (Leipzig: n. pub., 1902).
Geiger, A., Urschrift und Ubersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhdngigkeit von der innern
Entwicklung des Judenthums (Breslau: Heinauer, 1857).
Gesenius, W., De Samaritanorum origine, indole et auctoritate (Halle: Springer Verlag,
1815).
Hebrdisches und aramdisches Worterbuch iiber das Alte Testament (Berlin: Springer
Verlag, 17th edn, 1962).
Giron Blanc, L.F. Pentateuco Hebreo-Samaritano-Genesis (Testos y estudios Cardenal
Cisneros, 15; Madrid, 1976).
Glaue, P., and A. Rahlfs, 'Fragmente einer griechischen Ubersetzung des Samaritanischen
Pentateuchs', NKGWPhil.-Hist. Klasse, Part 2 (1911), pp. 167-200.
Goldenberg, D., The Halakha in Josephus and in the Tannaitic Literature: A Comparative
Study', JQR 67 (1967-77), pp. 30-43.
'Flavius Josephus or Joseph ben Mattatiah', JQR 70 (1980), pp. 178-82.
Goldsmith, L., Der babylonischer Talmud (8 vols.; Berlin: Calvary, 1900).
Grabbe, L., Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian (2 vols.; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992).
Grabbe, L. (ed.), Leading Captivity Captive: 'The Exile' as History and Ideology
(JSOTSup, 278; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998).
Groh, D., 'Jews and Christians in Late Roman Palestine: Towards a New Chronology', BA
51.2 (1988), pp. 80-98.
Gunn, D.M., The Story of King David (JSOTSup, 6; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1976).
Guttmann, H., 'Die Darstellung der jiidischen Religion bei Flavius Josephus (Breslau:
Reinhardt Verlag, 1928).
Hanson, R.S., 'Paleo-Hebrew Scripts in the Hasmonean Age', BASOR 175 (1964), pp. 2642.
Hata, G., 'Is the Greek Version of Josephus' "Jewish War" a Translation or a Rewriting of
the First Version?', JQR 66 (1975-76), pp. 89-108.
Hayes, J.H., and J.M. Miller (eds.), Israelite and Judean History (London: SCM Press,
1977).
Hempel, J., 'Innermassoretische Bestatigungen des Samaritanus', ZAW 12 (1934), pp. 25475.
Hengel, M., Judaism and Hellenism (repr.; London: XPress Reprints, 1996 [1981]).
Hershon, P.I., The Pentateuch according to the Talmud: Genesis with a Talmudic Commentary (London: Samuel Baxter & Sons, 1883).
Hertz, J.H. (ed.), The Pentateuch and Haftorahs: Hebrew Text, English Translation with
Commentary (5 vols.; London: Humprey Milford, 1964), pp. 21-36.
Hoffmann, K., 'Die Ethik des jiidischen Geschichtsschreibers Flavius Josephus' (unpublished dissertation; Erlangen, 1920).
Hoglund, K.G., Achaemenid Imperial Administration in Syria-Palestine and the Missions
of Ezra andNehemia (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992).
292
Holscher, G., Die Quellen des Josephus fur die Zeit vom Ex.il bis zum jiidischen Kriege
(Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1904).
Geschichte der israelitischen und jiidischen Religion (Die Theologie im Anbriss, 7;
Giessen: Alfred Topelmann, 1922).
Hottinger, J.H., Exercitationes Antimorianae: De Pentateucho Samaritano, ejusque authentia etc. (Tiguri, 1644).
Huck, A., and H. Greven, Synopsis der drei ersten Evangelien (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr,
13th edn, 1981).
Hyldahl, N., and Th.L. Thompson (eds.), D0dehavsteksterne og Bibelen (Copenhagen:
Museum Tusculanum, 1996).
Irvin, D., Mytharion: The Comparison of Tales from the Old Testament and Ancient Near
East (AOAT, 32; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978).
Isser, S.J., The Dositheans: A Samaritan Sect in Late Antiquity (SJLA, 17; Leiden: E.J.
Brill, 1976).
Japhet, S., 'People and Land in the Restoration Period', in G. Strecker (ed.), Das Land
Israel in biblischer Zeit (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), pp. 103-25.
'Sheshbazzar and ZerubbabelAgainst the Background of the Historical and Religious
Tendencies of Ezra-Nehemiah', ZAW94 (1982), pp. 66-98 (1983), pp. 218-29.
Jastrow, M., A Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Babli, Yerushalmi and Midrashic
Literature (New York: Jastrow Publishers, 1967).
Jellenik, A., Beit ha Midrash: Sammlungen kleiner Midrashim und vermischter Abhandlungen aus der dltern jiidischen Literatur, III (6 vols.; Jerusalem: Bamberger &
Wahrmann, rev. edn, 1967).
Jost, I.M., Geschichte des Judentums und seiner Secten (3 vols.; Leipzig, 1857).
Juynboll, T.G.J., Chronicon samaritanum, arabice conscriptum, cui titulus est Liber Josue.
Ex unico codice Scaligeri nunc primum edidit, latine vertit, annotatione instruxit
(Leiden: Luchtmans, 1848).
Kahle, P., Textkritische und lexikalische Bemerkungen zum samaritanischen Pentateuchtargum (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1898).
'Zum hebraischen Buch Joshua', ZDMG 62 (1908), pp. 494-594.
'Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Pentateuchtextes', TSK 88 (1915), pp. 399-439.
'The Abisha Scroll of the Samaritans', in F. Hvidberg (ed.), Studia Orientalia loanni
Pedersen (Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard, 1953), pp. 188-93.
Kalimi, I., and J.D. Purvis, The Hiding of the Temple Vessels in Jewish and Samaritan
Literature', CBQ 56.4 (1994), pp. 679-85.
Kellermann, U., 'Erwagungen zum Ezragesetz', ZAW80 (1968), pp. 373-85.
'Erwagungen zum Problem der Ezradatierung', ZAWSO (1968), pp. 55-87.
Kennedy, J., The Note Line in the Hebrew Scriptures, Commonly called Paseq or Pesiq
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1903).
Kippenberg, H.G., Garizim und Synagoge: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur
samaritanischen Religion der aramdischen Periode (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1971).
Knauf, E.A., 'From History to Interpretation', in D.V. Edelman (ed.), The Fabric of History
(JSOTSup, 127; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), pp. 26-64.
Kohn, S., De Pentateucho Samaritano eiusque cum versionibus antiquis nexu (Leipzig: n.
pub., 1865).
Kuenen, A., 'Over de mannen der groote Synagoge'; repr. as 'Ober die Manner der grossen
Synagoge', in Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur biblischen Wissenschaft (Freiburg:
J.C.B. Mohr, 1894 [1876]), pp. 125-60.
Bibliography
293
Kutscher, E.Y., The Language and the Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (Leiden:
E.J. Brill, 1977).
Landau, Y.H., 'A Greek Inscription Found Near Hefzibah', 1EJ 16 (1966), pp. 54-70.
Lebram, J.H.C., 'Review of Purvis, Samaritan Pentateuch', BO 26 (1969), pp. 282-83.
Lemche, N.P., Early Israel: Anthropological and Historical Studies on the Israelite Society
before the Monarchy (VTSup, 37; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1985).
The Canaanites and their Land' (JSOTSup, 110; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991).
'Samfundsopfattelsen i GT og i D0dehavsteksterne', in N. Hyldahl and Th.L. Thompson
(eds.), D0dehavsteksterne og Bibelen (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 1996).
Levy, J., Worterbuch liber die Talmudim und die Midrashim (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1963).
Lichtenstein, H., 'Die Fastenrolle, eine Untersuchung zur jiidisch-hellenistischen
Geschichte', HUCA 8-9 (1931-32), pp. 257-342.
Lifshitz, B., and J. Schiby, 'Une synagogue samaritaine a Tessalonique', RB 82 (1975),
pp. 368-78.
Lincke, K., Samaria und seine Propheten (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1903).
Liver, J., 'The "Sons of Zadok, the Priests" in the Dead Sea Sect', RQ6 (1967), pp. 3-20.
Macchi, J.D., Les samaritains histoire d'une legende: Israel et la province de Samarie (Le
monde de la Bible, 30; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1994).
Macdonald, J., Memar Marqah, the Teaching ofMarqah (BZAW, 84; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1963).
The Theology of the Samaritans (NTL; London: SCM Press, 1964).
The Samaritan Chronicle No. II from Joshua to Nebuchadnezzar (BZAW, 107; Berlin:
W. de Gruyter, 1969).
Macuch, R., Grammatik des samaritanischen Hebrdisch (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1969).
Grammatik des samaritanischen Aramdisch (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1982).
Magen, I., 'Gerizim Mount', in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in
the Holy Land (4 vols.; New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993), II, pp. 484-92.
Martinez, F.G., The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992).
Mayes, A.D.H., Israel in the Period of the Judges (SET, 2.29; London: SCM Press, 1974).
Mazar, B., The Tobiads', IEJ 1 (1957), pp. 137-45, 229-38.
McCullough, W.S., The History and the Literature of the Palestinian Jews from Cyrus to
Herod 550-4 BC (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1975).
McLean, M.D., The Use and the Development of Paleo-Hebrew in the Hellenistic and
Roman Periods (PhD dissertation, Harvard University, 1982).
Meeks, W.A., The Prophet-King Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology
(NovTSup, 14; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1967).
Mendels, D., The Land of Israel as a Political Concept in Hasmonean Literature (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1987).
The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism (New York: Doubleday, 1992).
Meyers, E.M., Second Temple Studies in the Light of Recent Archaeology (1994).
Mikolasek, A., 'Les samaritains gardiens de la loi contre les prophetes', Comunio Viatorum
12(1969), pp. 139-48.
Miller, J.M., The Israelite Occupation of Canaan', in J.M. Hayes and J.H. Miller (eds.),
Israelite and Judean History (London: SCM Press, 1977), pp. 213-84.
Mischnajot, Die sechs Ordnungen der Misnah, Hebrdischer Text mit Punktation (trans, and
ed. E. Baneth et al.; Leipzig: J.C.B. Mohr, 1927).
294
Moehring, H.R., 'Review of Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as
a Historian (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1969), by S.J.D. Cohen', 7/531 (1980), pp. 240-42.
Montgomery, J.A., The Samaritans: The Earliest Jewish Sect: Their History, Theology and
Literature (Philadelphia: John C. Winston, 1907; repr.; New York: Ktav, 1968).
Moore, G.F., Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the Tennaim
(2 vols.; repr.; New York: Schocken Books, 1971 [1927]).
'Simeon, the Righteous', in G.A. Kohut (ed.), Jewish Studies in Memory of Israel Abrahams (New York: Jewish Institute of Religion, 1927), pp. 348-64.
Mor, M., 'The Samaritans and the Bar-Kokhbah Revolt', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 19-31.
Morgenstern, J., 'Dates of Ezra and Nehemiah', JSS1 (1962), pp. 1-11.
Morinus, J., Samaritanorum Pentateuchum (Paris, 1621).
Exervitationes Ecclesiasticae in utrumque Samaritanorum Pentateucheum (Paris, 1631).
Morinus, J. (ed.), The London Polyglott (1657).
The Paris Polyglott (1945).
Mowinckel, S., Studien zu dem Buck Ezra-Nehemia II: Die Nehemia-Denkschrift (Oslo:
SUNVAO, 1964).
Mulder, J. (ed.), Mikra, Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible
in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (CRINT, 2.1; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988).
Neubauer, A., Tolidah, Based on MS Or. 651 (Bodleian Library [Oxford] = A. Neubauer,
'Chronique samaritaine', JA 14 (1869), pp. 385-470.
Niehr, H., Der hochste Gott: Alttestamentliche JHWH-Glaube in Kontext syrisch-kanaandischer Religion des 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (BZAW, 190: Berlin: W. de Gruyter,
1990).
Nodet, E., 'Jesus et Jean Baptiste selon Josephe', RB 92 (1985), pp. 321-48.
Essai sur les origines dujudaisme: de Josue aux Pharisiens (Paris: Cerf, 1992); rev. ET:
In Search of the Origins of Judaism: From Joshua to the Mishnah (JSOTSup, 248;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997).
Noja, S., The Last Decade in Samaritan Studies', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans
(Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 802-14.
The Samareitikon', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul
Siebeck], 1989), pp. 408-12.
'Les etudes samaritaines. 10 studies Concerning Sam. Manuscripts and Religion all Published between 1985 and 1990', Hen 14.3 (1992), pp. 293-300.
Noth, M., History of Israel (ET; 2nd edn revised by P.R. Ackroyd: Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960 [1950]).
'Der Beitrag der Archaologie zur Geschichte Israels', in G.W. Anderson et al. (eds.),
Congress Volume Oxford 1959 (VTSup, 7; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1969), pp. 262-82.
Nutt, J.W., Fragments of a Samaritan Targum Edited from a Bodleian MS with an Introduction Containing a Sketch of Samaritan History, Dogma and Literature (London,
1874; repr.; Gutersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1980).
Oded, B., Mass Deportation and Deportees in the Neo-Assyrian Empire (Wiesbaden:
Reichert, 1979).
Pamment, M., 'Is There Convincing Evidence of Samaritan Influence in the Fourth Gospel?', ZNW73.3-4 (1982), pp. 211-30.
Paul, A., 'Flavius Josephe et les Esseniens', in D. Dimant and V. Rappaport (eds.), The
Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (1992), pp. 126-39.
Bibliography
295
Perez Castro, F., 'Das Kryptogramm des Sefer Abisha', Congress Volume 1959 (VTSup, 7;
Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1960), pp. 52-60.
'El Sefer Abisha', Sefarad 13 (1953), pp. 119-29.
Peter, H., Die geschichtliche Literatur iiber die romische Kaiserzeit bis Theodosius I und
ihre Quellen, I (2 vols.; Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1897).
Pfeiffer, R., Introduction to the Old Testament (New York: n. pub., 1941).
Philips, A., 'NebalahA Term for Serious Disorderly and Unruly Conduct', VT25 (1975),
pp. 237-41.
Pummer, R., The Samaritan Pentateuch and the New Testament', NTS 22 (1975), pp. 44143.
'Present State of Samaritan Studies I', JSS 21 (1976), pp. 39-61.
'Present State of Samaritan Studies II', JSS 22 (1977), pp. 27-47.
'The Book of Jubilees and the Samaritans', Eglise et Theologie 19 (1979), pp. 147-78.
'Genesis 34 in Jewish Writings of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods', HTR 75 (1982),
pp. 177-88.
'Agarizin: A Criterion for Samaritan Provenance', JSJ 18.1 (1987), pp. 18-25.
The Samaritans (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1987).
'Samaritan Material Remains', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B.
Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 135-77.
The SamaritansA Jewish Offshoot or a Pagan Cult?', BR 7.5 (1991).
Purvis, J.D., 'Ben Sira and the Foolish People of Shechem', JNES 24 (1965), pp. 88-94;
repr. in J.D. Purvis, The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin of the Samaritan Sect
(HSM, 2; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968), pp. 119-29.
The Fourth Gospel and the Samaritans', NT 17 (1975), pp. 161-98.
The Samaritan Problem: A Case Study in Jewish Sectarianism in the Roman Era', in B.
Halpern and J.D. Levenson (eds.), Traditions in Transformation (Festschrift P.M.
Cross; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981), pp. 323-50.
The Samaritans and Judaism', in R.A. Kraft and G.W.E. Nickelsburg (eds.), Early
Judaism and its Modern Interpreters (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), pp. 81-98.
Purvis, J.D., and I. Kalimi, The Hiding of the Temple Vessels in Jewish and Samaritan
Literature', CBQ 56.4 (1994), pp. 679-85.
Qimron, E., '4QMMT' (DJD, 10; Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Rahlfs, A., 'Bin weiteres Fragment der griechieschen Ubersetzung des Samaritanischen
Pentateuchs', NKGW Phil.-hist. Klasse, Part 2 (1911), pp. 263-66.
Rahlfs, A., and P. Glaue, 'Fragmente einer griechischen Ubersetzung des Samaritanischen
Pentateuchs', NKGW Phil.-Hist. Klasse, Part 2 (1911), pp. 167-200.
Rajak, T., 'Josephus and the "Archaeology of the Jews" ',JJS 33 (1982), pp. 465-77.
Josephus: The Historian and his Society (London: Gerald Duckworth, 1983).
Ramsey, G.W., The Quest for the Historical Israel (London: SCM Press, 1982).
'Zadok', ABD VI, pp. 1033-36.
Redford, D.B., Pharaonic King Lists, Annals, and Daybooks (Publication No. 4; Ontario:
SSEA, 1986).
Reicke, B., The New Testament Era (London: SCM Press, 1969).
Reinach, Th. (ed. and trans.), Oeuvres completes de Elavius Josephe traduites en franqais
sous la direction de Theodore Reinach (8 vols.; Paris, 1900-1932).
Rendtdorff, Das uberliefe rungs geschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch (BZAW, 174;
Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1977).
Rengstorf, K.H., A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1983).
296
Roberts, B.J., The Old Testament Texts and Versions (Cardiff: University of Wales Press,
1951).
'Review of J.D. Purvis, Samaritan Pentateuch', JTS 20 (1969), pp. 569-71.
Robertson, E., Catalogue of the Samaritan Manuscripts in the John Rylands Library,
Manchester (2 vols.; Manchester, 1938-62).
Rothschild, J.P., 'Samaritan Manuscripts', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen:
J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 771-94.
Rowley, H.H., The Chronological Order of Ezra and Nehemiah' (1948); repr. in H.H.
Rowley, The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament (London:
Lutterworth, 1952), pp. 129-60.
'Sanballat and the Samaritan Temple', BJRL 38 (1955-56), pp. 166-98; repr. in H.H.
Rowley, Men of God: Studies in Old Testament History and Prophecy (London:
Thomas Nelson, 1963), pp. 246-76.
The Samaritan Schism in Legend and History', in B.W. Anderson and W. Harrelson
(eds.), Israel's Prophetic Heritage (Festschrift J. Muilenburg; New York: Harper,
1962), pp. 208-22.
Sack, R.H., 'Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus in Folklore and History', Mesopotamia 17
(1982), pp. 72-77.
Sadaqa, A., and R. Sadaqa, Jewish and Samaritan Version of the Pentateuchwith Particular Stress on the Differences between Both Texts (Tel Aviv: n. pub., 1961-65).
Sanders, E.P., Paul and Palestinian Judaism (London: SCM Press, 1977).
Judaism, Practice and Belief: 63 BCE66 CE (London: SCM Press; Valley Forge, PA:
Trinity Press International, 1992).
Sanderson, I.E., An Exodus Scroll from Qumran: 4QpaleoExod and the Samaritan Tradition (HSM, 30; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986).
Sasoon, D.S., Ohel David: A Descriptive Catalogue of the Hebrew and Samaritan Manuscripts in the Sasoon Library (2 vols.; London: n. pub., 1932).
Scaliger, J., Opus de Emendatione Temporum (Leiden, 1583; 1598; Geneva, 1629).
Schalit, A., The Letter of Antiochus III to Xeukis Regarding the Establishment of Jewish
Military Colonies in Phrygia and Lydia', JQR 50 (1959-60), pp. 289-319 = 'Der
Brief des Antiochus III. an Zeukis iiber die Errichtung jiidischer Militarkolonien in
Phrygien und Lydien', in Zur Josephus-Vorschung (Wege der Vorschung, 84; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1973), pp. 337-66.
'Die Denkschrift der Samaritaner an Konig Antiochus Epifanes zu Beginne der grossen
Vervolgung der jiidischen Religion im Jahre 167 v.Chr.', ASTI8 (1972), pp. 131-83.
Schechter, S., Documents of Jewish Sectaries (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1910).
Schencke, H.M., 'JacobsbrunnenJosephusgrab-Sychar', ZDPV84 (1968), pp. 159-84.
Schiffman, L.H., Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication
Society, 1994).
Schmid, H.H., Der sogenannte Jahwist: Beobachtungen und Fragen zur Pentateuchforschung (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1976).
Schmoller, A., Handkonkordanz zum griechischen Neuen Testament (Stuttgart: Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft, 1973).
Schreckenberg, H., Die Flavius-Josephus-Tradition in Antike und Mittelalter (Leiden: E.J.
Brill, 1972).
Rezeptionsgeschichtliche und textkritische Untersuchungen zu Flavius Josephus (Leiden:
E.J. Brill, 1977).
Bibliography
297
Schiirer, E., Geschichte des judischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi (Leipzig: H.C.
Hinrichs, 1885); (trans, and ed. G. Vermes et al., History of the Jewish People in the
Age of Jesus Christ [3 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973-87]).
Shehadeh, H., The Arabic Translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch', in A.D. Cross (ed.),
The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 481-516.
Simon, M., St Stephen and the Hellenists in the Primitive Church (London: Longmans,
Green & Co., 1958).
Skehan, P.W., 'Exodus in the Samaritan Recension from Qumran', JBL 74 (1955), pp. 18287.
Skehan, P.W., and A.A. Di Leila, The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation, with Notes,
Introduction and Commentary (AB, 39; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987).
Smallwood, E.M., The Jews under Roman Rule from Pompey to Diocletian (Leiden: E.J.
Brill, 1976).
'Philo and Josephus as Historians of the Same Events', in L.H. Feldman and G. Hata
(eds.), Josephus, Judaism and Christianity (Detroit: Wayne State University Press,
1987), pp. 114-28.
Smend, R., Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach (Berlin: Georg Reimer Verlag, 1906).
Smith, M., Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1971).
'Review of Purvis Samaritan Pentateuch', ATR 53 (1971), pp. 127-29.
Smith, S., Babylonian Texts Relating to the Capture and Downfall of Babylon (London:
Methuen, 1924).
Soggin, J.A., 'The Davidic and Solomonic Kingdom', in J.H. Hayes and J.M. Miller (eds.),
Israelite and Judean History (London: SCM Press, 1977), pp. 332-80.
Spiro, A., 'Stephen's Samaritan Background', in J. Munck (ed.), The Acts of the Apostles
(rev. W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann; AB, 31; London: SCM Press, 1967), pp. 285-300.
Stenhouse, A.P., The Kitab al Tarikh of Abu'l-Fath (Sydney: Mandelbaum Trust, University of Sydney, 1985).
'Samaritan Chronicles', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr
[Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 218-65.
Stern, M., Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (3 vols.; Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974-84).
'Aspects of Jewish Society: The Priesthood and Other Classes', in S. Safrai, M. Stern et
al. (eds.), The Jewish People in the First Century (CRINT, 2; Assen: Van Gorcum,
1976), pp. 561-630.
'The Jews in Greek and Latin Literature', in S. Safrai, M. Stern et al. (eds.), The Jewish
People in the First Century (CRINT, 2; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1976), pp. 1101-59.
Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993).
Strack, H.L., Die Spriiche Jesus' des Sohnes Sirachs (Leipzig: George Bohme, 1903).
Strack, H.L., and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (6 vols.; Munich: n. pub., 1926-56).
Strack, H.L, and G. Stemberger, Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch (Munich: C.H. Beck,
1982).
Strange, J., The Book of Joshua, a Hasmonaean Manifesto?', in A. Lemaire and B. Otzen
(eds.), History and Tradition in Israel (SVT, 12; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995), pp. 136-41.
Tal, A., The Samaritan Targum of the Pentateuch: A Critical Edition (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv
298
'Samaritan Literature', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr
[Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 413-67.
Talmon, S., Textual Study of the Bible', in P.M. Cross and S. Talmon (eds.), Qumran and
the History of the Biblical Text (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974),
pp. 321-400.
The Emergence of Jewish Sectarianism in the Early Second Temple Period', in P.D.
Miller and S.D. Hanson McBride (eds.), Ancient Israelite Religion (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1987), pp. 587-616.
'Fragments of Scrolls from Masada', Erlsr 20 (1989) (Hebrew with English summary),
pp. 256-87.
Tappy, R.E., The Archaeology of Israelite Samaria. I. Early Iron Age through the Ninth
Century BCE (Atlanta, CA: Scholars Press, 1992).
Tcherikover, V.A., Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (New York: Atheneum, 1975).
Tcherikover, V.A., and A. Fuks (eds.), Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum (3 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957).
Thompson, Th.L., The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives (BZAW, 133; Berlin: W.
de Gruyter, 1974).
Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel (JSOTSup, 55; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987).
Text, Context and Referent in Israelite Historiography, in D.V. Edelman (ed.), The
Fabric of History (JSOTSup, 127; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), pp. 65-92.
Early History of the Israelite People (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994, 2nd edn).
The Intellectual Matrix of Early Biblical Narrative: Inclusive Monotheism in Persian
Period Palestine', in D.V. Edelman (ed.), The Triumph of Elohim (Kampen: Kok,
1995), pp. 107-26.
The Bible in History: How Writers Create a Past (London: Jonathan Cape, 1999) = The
Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel (New York: Basic Books,
1999).
Thompson, Th.L., and F.H. Cryer (eds.), Qumran between the Old and New Testaments
(CIS, 6; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998).
Thompson, Th.L., and N. Hyldahl (eds.), D0dehavsteksterne og Bibelen (Copenhagen:
Museum Tesculanum, 1996).
Tigay, J.H., You Shall Have No Other Gods: Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew
Inscriptions (HSM, 31; Atlanta, CA: Scholars Press, 1986).
Toorn, K. van der (ed.), Dictionary of Deities and Demons (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995).
Torrey, C.C., Ezra Studies (1910); repr. (Prolegomenon; W.F. Stinespring, Library of
Biblical Studies; New York: Ktav, 1970), pp. xi-xviii.
'Sanballat the Horonite', JBL 47 (1928), pp. 380-89.
The Chronicler's History of Israel: Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah Restored to its Original
Form (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1954).
Tov, E., 'Pap. Giessen 13, 19, 22, 26: A Revision of the LXXT,RB 78 (1971), pp. 355-83.
The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (Jerusalem Biblical Studies,
3; Jerusalem: Simor, 1981).
'A Modern Textual Outlook Based on the Qumran Scroll', HUCA 53 (1982), pp. 11-27.
'Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts from the Judean Desert', JJS 39 (1988), pp. 3-37.
'Protosamaritan Texts and the Samaritan Pentateuch', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 397-407.
Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1992).
Bibliography
299
Ulrich, E., The Paleo-Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts', in D. Dimant and L.H. Schiffman
(eds.), Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995), pp. 10329.
Unnik, W.C. van, Flavius Josephus als historischer Schriftsteller (Heidelberg: Quelle
Meyer, 1978).
Van Seters, J., Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1975).
Vermes, G., 'A Summary of the Law by Flavius Josephus', NovT24 (1982), pp. 289-303.
Vorlander, H., Die Entstehung des jehowistischen Geschichtswerkes (Europaische Hochschuleschriften, 23.109; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978).
Wacholder, B.Z., 'Historiography of Qumran: The Sons of Zadok and their Enemies', in
Th.L. Thompson and F.H. Cryer (eds.), Qumran between the Old and New Testaments (CIS, 6; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 347-77.
Waltke, B.K., Prolegomena to the Samaritan Pentateuch (HTR, 58; dissertation Harvard
The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Text of the Old Testament', in J.B. Payne (ed.), New
Perspectives on the Old Testament (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1970), pp. 212-39.
Walton, B. (ed.), Biblia Polyglotta (6 vols.; London, 1657). Prolegomenon XI: De Samaritanis et eorum Pentateucho eiusque versionibus. (The prolegomena have been frequently republished: Heidegger [Zurich, 1673]; Dathe [Leipzig, 1777]; Wrangham,
Cambridge [1828]).
Wedel, G., 'Halachic Literature', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B.
Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 484-80.
Weiser, A., The Old Testament, its Formation and Development (New York: n. pub., 1961).
Weiss, R., Studies in Text and Language of the Bible (Jerusalem: n. pub., 1981 [Hebrew]).
Whiston, W., The Complete Works of Flavius Josephus (Edinburgh, 1737; repr.; Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson, 1987).
Whybray, N., The Making of the Pentateuch (JSOTSup, 53; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987).
Widengreen, G., The Samaritan Schism and the Construction of the Samaritan Temple', in
J.H. Hayes and J.M. Miller (eds.), Israelite andJudean History (London: SCM Press,
1977), pp. 489-538.
Williamson, H.G.M., The Historical Value of Josephus' "Jewish Antiquities", XI.297301', 77328 (1977), pp. 49-66.
Willrich, H., Juden und Griechen vor der makkabaische Erhebung (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1895).
Wright, G.E., The Samaritans at Shechem', HTR 55 (1962), pp. 357-66.
Schechem: The Biography of a Biblical City (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965).
Wiirthwein, E., Der Text des Alien Testament (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1952);
ET E.F. Rhodes (trans.), The Text of the Old Testament (Leiden: SCM Press, 1980).
Yahuda, S., 'Uber die Unechtheit des samaritanischen Josuabuches', Sitzungsberichte der
Berliner Akademie des Wissenschaftes, 39 (1908), pp. 887-914.
Yellin, D., 'Das Buch Josua der Samaritaner' (Jerusalem: n. pub., 1902 [Hebrew]),
pp. 138-55.
Yellin, D., A.M. Lunca, 'A Book of Joshua or a Sepher Hayamim', Jerusalem Yearbook
7.7 (1908 reprint Hebrew), pp. 203.
Zeitlin, S. (ed.), The Second Book ofMacabees (New York: Harper, 1954).
Zimmerli, W., Ezechiel (BKAT; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2nd edn, 1969).
INDEXES
INDEX OF REFERENCES
OLD TESTAMENT
Genesis
1.1
1.2
1.27
2.2
3.12 MT
3.20 MT
6.19
7.2 MT
7.3
7.9
9
9.21
10.15
10.19
11. 26-1 2.4 MT
11.31
12.6-7
12.6
12.8
13.3
14.14MT
15.18-21
17.5
22.14
24.3
24.7
28.22
31.11-13
31.13
31.19
31.30-35
31.32
32.25-32
33
33.20
34-37
34
178
150
89
93
90
90
89
91
89
89
220
90
220
218
252
278
146, 149
56
90, 149
90
91
145
252
277
178
178
148
89
148
140
140
140
146
151,252
147
141
34 MT
34.2
34.14
34.22
35.2-4
35.5
35.6
35.8
35.9-15
35.11
35.14-15
35.14
35.15
35.19-20
35.21
35.23
35.24
41.45
41.50
42.16
44.22
46.20
47.21 MT
48.3-4
49.5-7
49.11
49.24-26
106, 138,
139,220,
265
143
141
139
151
146
140
149
146
146
146
147
147
147
146
147
147
147
231
231
89
89
231
91
146
140
90
146
Exodus
1.11 LXX
4.14
6.15
6.16-25
7.18
231
154
220
154
90
7.29
8.19
8.20
9.3
9.5
9.9-20
9.13
9.19
9.24
12.40 MT
14.12
15.13
16.35
19.24
22.4
22.26
24.1-14
24.1
24.10-11
24.14
28.1-2
29
32
32.1-6
32.2-6
32.10
32.17-18
32.22-24
32.25-29
32.27-29
32.29
32.35
34.3
34.30
90
90
89
89
90
163
89
90
89
93
89
277
220
153
90
90
153
153
153
153
153
157
157, 163
163
153
88
163
153
152
156
153
163
153
153
Leviticus
2.13
244
Index of References
7.24
8.36
10
10.1-5
10.16-20
16.21
19.17-18
19.23
21.20
23.15
26
26.32
26.34
26.35
26.43
109
153
154
153
153
138
250
112
248
108
24
150
150
150
150
Numbers
1.47-53
1.48-53
3.1-6
3.5-9
3.6-9
3.7-10
3.17-35
3.28
3.32
4.27-28
4.33
8.22
10.10
12.1-16
12.16
13.6
13.8
13.16
13.33
14.9
16
16.1-17.5
16.1-35
16.3
16.8-10
17
17.1-11
17.3
17.8
17.18
18
153
153
154
156
153
153
154
153
153, 154
153
153
153
88
153
88
244
87
87
88
157
24
153
153
154
154
154
154
154
154
163
157
153
18.1-3
18.1-2
153
18.2-7
153
154
18.3
153
18.6-7
18.6
153
18.20-24
163
132
19.1-11
88
20.1
21.12
88
21.20
88
24.17MT
91
163
25
25.1-15
156
25.7-8
165
154
26.57-61
89
27.9
89
27.10
27.11
89
88
27.23
32.29-32 MT 247
163
35.6
Deuteronomy
1.6-8
1.9-18
1.13
1.20-23
1.27-33
2.2-6
2.9
2.17-19
2.24-25
3.21-22
3.24-28
4.2
5.18
6.20-25
7.3
9.20
10.6
10.8
11.4
11.5-7
11.29-32
11.29
11.30
88
88
88
88
88
88
88
88
88
88
88
94, 258
92
130
250
88, 155
155
155, 163
92
92
240
92, 259
92, 107,
240, 285
301
12
12.2-3
12.4-9
12.4
12.5
12.5 MT
12.11
12.11 MT
12.12
12.14MT
12.19
12.26
12.32
13.1
14.21
14.28
15.19-20
15.20
17.8
17.9
18.1
18.5
18.6
18.16
18.18-22
21.5
24-29
24.8
25.5-10
27
27.1
27.2-8
27.2-3
27.2
27.4
27.8
27.9
27.12-14
27.12
31.9-13
32.6
32.21
33
33.8-11
33.21
34.10
277
237
237
236
237
92
237
92
163
92
163
237
94
94
109
163
259
277
159
155
155
155
159
90
89
155
85
155
114
22
90
90
92
23
27, 35, 56,
85,92
90
155
240
259
156
125, 142
125
156, 163
156
156
94, 125
302
Joshua
1-11
1-9
5.1
7.15
8.30
240
21
220
142
22, 240,
259
8.33-35 MT 241
107
8.33
9.27
241
241
10.9
241
10.15
241
10.43
11. 1-23 MT 241
13.7-14.5
240
13.14
163
1 3.29-32 MT 247
13.33
163
242
14
241
14.1 MT
240
14.1-27
240
15.1
241
17.4 MT
18-22
149
241
19.51 MT
241
20.7-8 MT
163
20.7
241
21.1 MT
240
22.1-6
24
46, 56,
242, 278
147
24.1
241
24.1 MT
24.14-24
147
24.21-24
193
147
24.23
241
24.25-26
23
24.26
22
24.29
147, 240
24.32
Judges
1.21
2.13
2.19
3.9-10
3.9-10 MT
3. 12-13 MT
134
222
242
240
243
242
242
242
242
147
222
222, 265
244, 254
222
222
147
147, 222,
244
222
9.7
9.18
147, 222
222
9.20
9.22
147
9.23
222
222
9.24
9.26
222
9.28
147
9.33-9.57
222
222
9.39
9.46-55
148
9.46-49
247
9.57
148, 222
222
10.6
11. 12-33 MT 242
12.15
251
17-21 MT
243
19-21
142, 149
19-21 MT
243
142
19.23
142
20.6
142
20.10
20.21
149
149
20.22-23
20.26-29
149
21.2-4
149
3.20-30 MT
4.2-3 MT
4.1 2-24 MT
8.30-31
8.33
9
9MT
9.2
9.3
9.5
9.6
/ Samuel
1^
4.21-22
7.1-2
7.4
7.6
10.17-27
10.27
11.1-11
149
149
149
222
245
246
246
246
11.12-15
11. 12-13 MT
12.10
21-22
22
25
28.4-25 MT
31
31 MT
31.10
246
246
222
248
265
142
248
248
248
222
2 Samuel
1
5.8
6.1-19
7
8.17
13.13
15.24-29
15.27
17.15
20.25
22.19
248
279
149
118
158
142
158
158
158
158
249
1 Kings
1.8
1.26
1.38-40
2.4
2.27
2.35
8
8.1
ll-2Kgs23
11.5
11.13-39
11.33
11.38
12
12 MT
12.1
12.15
12.16
12.17-19
12.20
12.24
12.25-29 MT
12.25
158
158
158
158
243
243
118
279
222
221
148
221
148
148, 254
244
244
148
148
148
244
148
250
148
Index of References
12.26-29
12.26-27
12.28-29
12.29
12.31
12.32
12.33
13.1
13.33
14.14-16
15.34
16.2
16.7 MT
16.19
16.26
16.30-32
16.31
18.36
22.53
2 Kings
3.3
3.4-10
3.13-14
3.26-27
4.1-6.7
5.1-8 MT
6.14-7.20
6.15-22
6.32 MT
7.1
7.2 MT
7.1 7-20 MT
8-23 MT
10.29
10.29 MT
13.2
13.11
13.23
14.24
14.25-27
15.9
15.18
15.24
15.28
17
148
148
148
148, 149
157, 158
149
148, 158
148
157, 158
148
221
221
255
221
221
221
221
284
221
221
255
255
255
256
256
256
256
256
256
256
256
256
221
251
221
221
284
221
257
221
221
221
221
14, 15,23,
24, 32, 33,
46-49, 70,
17 MT
17.5-6 MT
17.7-24
17.24-41
17.26-27
17.28
17.29
17.34-43
17.34-35
17.34
17.35
17.36-38
17.37
17.38
18.9-12 MT
18.22
19.21
19.31
23
23.4-20
23.4
23.8
23.9
23.13-20
23.13
23.14
23.15-18
23.16
23.20
23.21-23
23.22
24-25 MT
24.8-17
106, 194,
200, 201,
208,217
250
252
193
192
193
146, 149,
193
192
193
146
146, 284
193
193
193
193
252
237
279
279
14, 265,
285
149
146, 149
149
157, 232
221
149, 221
149
149
149
149
151
152
253
253
1 Chronicles
1-19
44
44
2
5.25
157
5.27-41
155
5.29-41
158, 165
5.30-31 MT 243
5.49
155
6.1-16
155, 158
303
6.1-15
6.1-2
6.18-24
6.21-24 MT
9.10-13
9.11
10.13-14 MT
11.5
12.25-39
12.26-28
12.32
12.34
16
17.39
18.16
22.8-10 MT
23.28-32
24
24.3-31
24.3-19
24.7
27.16-22
27.17
29.22
26
17
24
248
158
165
248
279
155
155
155
155
284
158
158
249
156
165
69
159
165
155
155
158
2 Chronicles
3^MT
3.1
5.2
5.13-6.2
6.35-38
7.1-2
7.12
7.12MT
7.16MT
11.13-17
11.13
12.1-8
13
13.1-18
13.9
13.11
25.7
28.1-27
28.7-8
28.7-8 MT
28.7
28.11-15
250
245
279
244
158
244
245
92
92
149
148
148
49
149
157
158
253
137,251
254
251
137
118
304
2 Chronicles (cont.)
28.15
118
29
138
29.1-32.33
137
29.1-32.33 MT 251
137
29.1
29.5-19
137
29.17
137
29.18
137
138
29.23
137
29.30-36
29.31
152
29.34
156, 269
30
14, 27,
193
254
30.1
30.16
156
30.17
269
30.18-23
108
30.18-20
151
30.22
156, 269
30.26
137, 152
138
31.1
156
31.2-19
31.10
158
137, 237
31.11
31.18-20
237
32.3-4
137
32.12
237
137
32.30
14
33.11
254
34.9
152
35.18
36.9-10
253
36.21
150
36.23
178
Ezra
1-6
1.2
1.7-11
3.1
3.3-4
4-6
4
4.1-6.22
4.1-24
4.1-2
66
176, 177
253
39
237
217
23
195
127, 195
24
4.1
4.2-9
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5-7
4.7
4.8-10
4.8
4.9-10
4.9
4.11-24
4.12-16
4.13
4.15-16
4.17
4.23-24
4.23
5-6
5.3-4
5.3
5.5
5.6-7
5.6
5.11-12
5.13-15
6.1-12
6.1
6.5
6.6-12
6.6-10
6.8
6.9-10
6.11-12
6.12
6.13
6.15
6.16-22
6.16
6.22
7-10
7.1-5
7.1-2
7.4-5
7.6
39, 195,
196
14
15, 40,
196, 260
111, 178
15, 157
198
195
195
31, 195
197
15
198
198
177
201
195
195
195
195, 197
197
31, 195,
197
197
195
195
177
253
65
195
253
199
177
200
177
199
195
195
195
177
155
177
273
158
17
243
178, 284
7.7
7.12-26
7.12
7.21
9.1
9.12
10
10.5
10.8
155
178
31, 178
178
155
72
27
155
178
Nehemiah
1.4
1.5
2.4
2.7
2.10
2.19
2.20
3
3.19
4.1 LXX
5.14
5.15
6.1 LXX
6.2
6.5 LXX
6.6
6. 14 LXX
7
7.1
8
8.4
8.7-9
8.7
8.13-15
8.13
9-10
9
10
10.1-28
10.1
10.2-28
10.11-12
10.31-40
10.39
11
11.10-11
12
178
178
178
31
278
278
178
283
16
278
32
31
278
278
278
16
278
283
155
273
72
72
155
72
155
155, 161
72, 283
72, 283
131
155
155
158
72
155
283
165
273, 283
305
Index of References
12.6
12.19
12.47
13
13.1-2
13.4
13.10
13.25
13.28
Psalms
2
24
27
37
44.2
46
48.2
48.9
48.12-13
48.14
62
66
68
68.14-23
68.15
68.16-17
68.19
68.25-36
78
87
100
101
122
136.26
137.7
Isaiah
2
2.1-2
2.2-4
7.5
7.6
7.8
7.9
165
165
155
11,17,27,
72, 129
72
16
72
72
16, 17, 28,
43,217
279
279
279
267
130
279
279
130
279
130
279
279
247
247
247
248
248
247
49
49
279
279
279
178
126
280
279
280
254
40
14, 15,24,
49
24
7.17
8.14
9.8
9.20-21
11.10-16
11.11-13
23.2
24.10
24.12
56-66
271
280
49
270
49
24
220
215
215
49
Jeremiah
3.14-16
3.18
4.23-27
5.18
7.12-15
21.19-22
23.5-6
26
28 MT
28.1-9
30-31
31.1-33.26
31.6
41.4-6
41.5
43.13
280
280
150
150
253
253
24
150
255
253
28
280
280
14
39,49
231
Lamentations
2.14
4.21
257
126
37.16-28
37.16-19
40-48
40.45
40.46
42.13-14
42.15-16
42.23
42.24
43.19
43.26
44.10-31
44.10
44.12
44.15
47.15
48.11
Hosea
3.4
4.15-17
5
5.5
5.14
5.15
6.10-11
8.5-6
11.8
12.1
12.8
120
24, 254
49
159
156
156
157
157
157
156
152
156
157
157
156, 159
240
157
15
253
49
253
270
270
253
250
253
253
220
Joel
3.5
279
Amos
4.1 MT
4.4 MT
5.15
5.27
7.12
9.14
247
247
247
119
257
250
Ezekiel
157
7.19
1 2.22-25 MT 257
257
13.1-23
13.1-3
257
257
13.10
157
20.5
59
23
25-37
127
126
25.3
25.12-14
126
30.17
231
34.17-31
120
37.12
277
49, 127
37.15-28
Obadiah
11-14
126
Jonah
1.9
178
306
Micah
1.1
1.5-9
3.8
3.12
4
4.1-3
4.1-2
6.16
279
49
257
279
280
280
279
49
Haggai
2.11-12
Zechariah
1-8
2.15
3.1-2
3.3
3.4
27
49
280
25
26
26
4.14
6.9-13
9.13
10.6
26,27
15
24
24
Malachi
1.2-5
126
SP Genesis
7.2
30.36
34
89
89,90
143
SP Numbers
27.8
89
AA*-E*
AC*
CA*-E*
FB*
FC
H
HA-B*
HA-D*
HA-K*
JD*
LE*-MO*
LK*-N*
ML*-N*
MP*Q*
NE*
NE*-H*
254
256
251
254
257
251
252
252
252
252
252
252
252
255
254
252
ST 2 Samuel
AA*
AB*
EL*-O*
249
249
250
2.25
3.45
198
15
SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH (SP)

SP Deuteronomy
11.30
92
12.21
92
12.26
92
15.20
92,259
SP Exodus
6.9
8.20
18.21
18.25
20.17b
20.21
89
89
88
88
89,92
89
SAMARITAN CHRONICLE (ST)

ST1 Kings
AB*
BA*
BE*-I*
250
250
250
245
EN*-S*
245
GC*
I-XI FD*
250
JA*
245
XII-XXII EA*-J*
250
BJ*
DA*
DF*
DL*-O*
GE*
HA*
HE*
IA*
IB*
JC*
JE*
JR*-V*
KA*
KD*-E*
MA*-F*
249
248
248
250
245
249
246
248
246
249
248
247
248
249
249
XII-XXII EL* 250

XII-XXII IA*-F*
251
XII-XXII JB* 254
XII-XXII JE*-G*
255
XII-XXII MB*Q*
254
ST2 Chronicles
ID*
251
ST1 Samuel
BA*-F*
BG*-CGG*
57" 2 Kings-2 Chronicles

A 24-G*
256
AA*
256
244
245
APOCRYPHA
1 Esdras
2.16-30
2.16
217
2.22-24
198
201
Index of References
4.45
4.50
5.63
5.66-67
5.68-69
6-7
6.3-4
6.3
6.6
6.29
7.32-33
8.1
8.2
18-24
27-34
127
15, 127
198
196
196
197
197
197
197
200
199
158
243
198
199
Tobit
6.18
7.13
8.15
10.11
178
178
178
178
Judith
5.8
5.16
6.19
7.8
7.18
8.6
9.1-6
9.2-4
9.2
11.7
178
141
178
126
126
128
139
142
142
178
Ben Sira
4.18
7
35
36.13-16
39.1-11
39.3
45.6
45.8-12
45.13
45.18-19
45.23-24
45.25
49.5
163
74
74
281
163
163
164
164
164
164
164
164
125
49.12
49.13
49.14
50
50.27
51
51.1-24
51.26
74
73
74
74, 132,
137
126
134, 137
137
163
126
49, 125,
126
124, 126,
129
74
164
281
141
1 Maccabees
1.1-9.22
1.16-20
1.21-64
1.29-64
1.51-61
2.1
2.26
2.41
2.42
2.54
2.65
2.66
3.8-10
3.10
3.51
4.42-43
5
5.23
5.54
5.65-68
7.5-25
7.5
7.12-18
7.12-16
7.13
7.14
7.21
9.1
186
207
207
209
165
134, 164
165
63
263
165
165
165
212
127, 168
165
165
281
67
281
126
168
274
275
168
263
275
274
168
50.1-24
50.1-2
50.3
50.23
50.24
50.25-26
50.25
307
9.17
9.54-57
9.54-56
10.21
10.25-46
10.25-45
10.30
10.38
14.29
14.35
14.36
14.37
14.41
14.43
14.47
15-16
16.3
16.24
170
168, 170
275
170
236
57, 192
282
236, 276,
282
200
282
282
275
69, 284
134
134
134
134
134
168
134
134
68
134, 136,
165, 276
165
135,276
134
134
165, 276
276
165
179
68
186
2 Maccabees
1.10
1.19-23
1.23
1.31
2.4-7
2.13-14
2.13
2.19-32
3.5
3.6
4.1-7
166
253
165
165
253
284
66
102
200
166
166
10.69
11.34
11.59
12.5-19
12.9
13-14
13.10
13.33
13.52
14.4-14
14.13
14.15
14.16-24
14.28-45
14.28
308
2 Maccabees (cont.)
4.1
166
166
4.7-9
167
4.9
4.10-15
166
167
4.23
167
4.25
4.34
231
4.45-50
167
5
275
5.1-26
207
5.8-10
231
5.9-10
5.9
5.11-20
5.22-23
5.23
5.24
6.1-11
6.1-2
6.1
6.2
275
167
185
18
168,212
168
209
49, 209,
212
36,67
209-11,
282
8.3
8.25-26
9
10.1-3
13.1-8
13.3-4
13.5
14.3-11
14.6
14.26
15.1-2
212
68
265
165
168
168
170
168
263
170
68
5.46
123
125
125
123
125
125
123
124
124
125
123
120
116,123
NEW TESTAMENT
Matthew
5.22
8.5
8.9-11
8.12-13
8.15-18
10.5-6
11.13-14
15.22-28
17.3-13
27.47
28.11-15
28.16-20
Mark
7-9
7.26
9.2-13
13
15.34-35
Luke
7.29-30
9.28-36
9.51-56
9.51-53
124
120
120
120
120
110, 116,
117, 120
123
117
123
124
117
117
269
220
123
269
124
123
123
117
9.52
10.13-15
10.30-37
17.11-19
17.15-16
John
1.19-28
3.14-15
117
55
117
117
117
117
4.22
4.23
123
123
123
57,115
120
55
116,123
121
122,125
122
125
122
122
122
122
4.39
122
4.52
4.53
125
125
3.23
4
4.1-42
4.3-4
4.5
4.9
4.12
4.14
4.19
4.20
4.21
6.1-15
6.14
6.30-51
6.58
8
8.5-11
8.48-59
8.48
9.17
9.24-34
10.16
11.54
Acts
1.8
5.39
7.2-53
7.16
7.43
7.53
8.1-25
8.1
8.5-29
9.31
15.3
118
120
118
22, 116
119
119
119
118
118
118
118
RABBINIC SOURCES
Mishnah
Ab.
1.1-5
1.1
284
95, 131,
136
1.2
1.6
130
136
'Abod. Zar.
1.5
112
Ber.
7.1
7.7
105
105
Index of References
Toh.
Dem.
3.4
6.1
104
104
Hor.
3.7
114
Meg.
1.6
5.8
104
Talmuds
b. 'Abod. Zar.
136
9a
110
15b
107
26b-27a
131
b. B. Bat.
Men.
13.10
232
15a
21b-22a
82a-b
73
73
73
309
75a-76a
75b
76a
105
105, 113
109
b. RoS HaS.
18b
128
b. Sab.
85b
73
128
108, 151,
176
105
b. Sanh.
102.1
222
123b
13b
21b
Nid.
4.1
4.2
7.4
105, 113
105, 114,
271
105, 109,
112-14
47b
109
b. Suk.
b. Gem.
15b
112
132
Qid.
lOa
109
39a
39b
53b-54a
105
105,218
71b
b. Hul.
4.3
114
Sebu.
8.10
8.11
105
105
$eg.
1.5
6.1-2
111
253
3b
6a
b. Kam.
105
38b
82a
284
b. Mak.
23b-24a
95
13.5-6
92, 107,
285
132
15a
17b
31b
5.8
20.3
3.9
b. Qid.
66a
75a
Ter.
104
109
1.5
4.1.75a
131
73
2.6
108
y. Sanh.
11.6
62
y. Ta'an.
66a
128
105
Ta 'an.
128
27a
128
b. Nid.
56b
2.8
Palestinian Talmud
y. Dem.
109
9
y. Or.
109b
166
35
128
128
253
162
y. Meg.
73
131
73
b. Men.
Suk.
73
y. Ket.
b. Meg.
So/.
7.5
20a
b. Yom.
b. Git.
Par.
3.5
b. Ber.
264
105, 113,
114
y. Yom.
43c
128
310
Tosefta
t. Pes.
2
t. Sank.
4.7
t. Sot.
8.6-8
Midrashim
Deut. R.
3

Gen. R.
81
141
Midr. Teh.
105.2
73
108
73
Other Rabbinic Writings

PesherHabahkuk
7.4
269
8.9-10
269
S. '01. R.
30
136
Pirke Abot
1.1
1.2
Song R.
4.19
73
57a
112
11.87
11.88
197
196, 198,
217
197,199
198
199
199
199
200
200
200
200
73
219,280
43, 73,
186
43, 200
186
186
196
60
128, 200,
221
186
173
217, 278
202
202
46
202
132
130
131
128
Gem. b. Nid.
141
JOSEPHUS
Ant.
1.5-17
1.5
1.10
1.15
1.94
1.108
1.159
1.240
1.337-42
1.341
1.342
2.347
3.181-82
4.196-301
4.197
5.80
5.136
5.318
5.342
5.361-62
6.82
6.242
6.254-61
6.262-68
6.262
6.268
6.378
7.420-22
7.423-25
7.431
189
189
94
190, 191
189
189
189
189
139, 142
143
141
190
183
189
190
240
243
243
248
243
247
249
249
248
248
249
248
230
230
230
8.11-12
8.214
9.60
9.68
9.208
9.265
9.277-91
9.277-21
9.279
9.288
9.290
9.291
10.34
10.37-38
10.47-50
10.183
10.184-85
10.184
10.218
11.1-158
11.1-119
11.16
11.19
11.20
11.22
11.84-85
11.84
11.85
243
190
256
256
190
193
14,23
192
193
194,217
194, 217,
218
194
255
193
256
219
194
23, 48,
150,217
190
186
23, 195
200
198,216,
217
216
198
196
196
195
11.89
11.97
11.104
11.105
11.114-15
11.114
11.118-19
11.118
11.119
11.121-58
11.133
11.159-83
11.174
11.184-296
11.197-303
11.290
11.293-97
11.297-347
11.297-47
11.298-99
11.302
11.303
11.310-11
11.312
11.317-19
11.317
Index of References
11.322-24
11.326-39
11.326
11.331
11.333
11.336
11.337
11.338-39
11.338
11.339
11.340-47
11.340-41
11.340
11.341
11.342
11.343-44
11.343
11.345
11.346-47
12.3
12.5-7
12.7
12.8-10
12.10
12.13
12.115-28
12.129-53
12.133-46
12.138-44
12.141
12.154-236
12.154-56
12.156
12.157-58
12.158-59
12.160-227
12.168
12.224-25
12.224
12.225-26
12.226-27
12.228
12.237-64
12.237-41
12.237-40
203
132
203
203
204
206
204
204
218
67
218
205, 220
70
195, 208,
218
205
205, 209
218
228
206,211
180
179
180,213,
228
56
58,213,
271
94
207
133
234
65, 165
234
186
129
235
132
133
129
129
132
133
133
67
129
19, 207
207
231
12.240-41
12.242-44
12.247
12.248-56
12.249
12.252
12.255
12.257-64
12.257
12.258-59
12.259
12.260-61
12.260
12.261
12.262-63
12.265
12.285-86
12.287
12.292
12.296-97
12.337-434
12.353
12.385
12.387-88
12.387
12.388
12.414
12.43-44
12.45
13
13.1-61
13.8.2
13.54
13.60
13.62-74
13.62-73
13.66-67
13.66
13.68
13.69
13.70-71
13.74-79
13.74
209
207
207
209
207
209
207, 209
127,218,
282
195, 208,
218
208
70, 210
209
208
210,212
211
212
212
200
58
58
186
126
170
213
167, 170,
228, 275
170,213
170
132
132
180
186
179
57, 192,
236, 282
213
213
213,228
229
237
214
214
229
19,213,
276
214,217
311
13.77
13.78
13.80-170
13.127
13.145
13.146
13.167
13.174-214
13.202
13.229
13.244
13.254-78
13.255-56
13.256
13.257-58
13.257
13.275-76
13.275
13.278
13.285
13.288-300
13.289-90
13.292
13.296-97
13.297
13.299
13.318-19
13.372-83
13.400-406
14
14.18
14.87-88
14.266
14.323
14.403
15.292
16.174-78
17.20
17.319
17.342
17.69
18.14-15
18.16-17
18.16
18.30
18.85-89
18.85-86
216
214,215
186
282
282
282
69
186
134
186
179
215
215
50, 60,
217
106
216
223
222
263
228
19, 264
69
269
269
263, 271
265
106
265
265, 267
180
190
235
190
190
106
222
190
222, 225
222
222, 225
222, 225
58, 269
263
69, 268
225
222
253
312
Ant. (cont.)
18.85
18.167
19.30
20.118-38
20.118-36
20.118
20.119
20.122
20.125-27
20.127
20.129
20.130-33
20.135
20.226
20.229
20.234
20.235-37
20.235
20.236
20.237
20.238
20.247
20.258-59
20.267
34.9-12
34.22-23
34.30
34.396
225
222
222
55
222, 223
223, 225
223
223
224
224
224
224
224
170
243
133
231
275
228
275
169
169
186
186
140
140
140
263
Apion
1.1
1.50
1.53-54
1.183-204
1.205-11
226
185
190
174
179
1.216
1.250
1.260-87
2.8-32
2.52-113
2.112-14
2.190-219
2.193
184
138
232
232
232
191
179
183
57, 192
174
Life
11
12
191
363
183
183
58, 269
185
War
1-10
1-4
1.5
1.6
1.9-12
1.31-32
1.31
1.33
1.63
1.64-65
1.67-69
1.67
1.88-98
1.166
1.190
1.562
1.592
2.111
187, 189
189
189
184
186
170
228
228
216,218,
226
223
264
265
265
235
228
225
225
225
2.142
2.166
2.232-44
2.232-33
2.232
2.233
2.235-36
2.237
2.239
2.240
2.241
2.242-44
2.245-46
2.576-79
2.582-84
3
3.307-15
3.401
5
5.20
6-10
6
6.268
6.288-315
6.435-42
7.420-32
7.422-32
7.423-25
7.423
7.427
7.431
7.433-36
11-13
269
263
223
55
223
223
223
224
223
224
224
224
224
191
191
189
225
206
185
186
189
185
185
185
185
230
216
228
230
213,228
213
229, 230
216
187
12.15
12.22-27
14.24-25
18.13
30
30.1-6
30.3-4
30.6
30.7-12
277
278
140
111
139, 163
139
139
141
139
7.421
OTHER ANCIENT SOURCES

Pseudepigrapha
2 Baruch
253
6.7-9
3 Maccabees
2.1-24
4 Baruch
3.10-11
4 Ezra
2.33
284
Joseph and Aseneth

2.23
139
132
253
Jubilees
8.19
12.12
111
111
Index of References
30.12
30.17
30.18-19
30.23
31.2
32.16-24
32.18
32.23
49.18
139
141
141
141
140
277
277
277
277
Letter ofAristeas
12.11-118
186
Pseudo-Philo
8
139
Sibylline Oracles
5.501
230
5.507
230
Testament of Joseph
2.6
56
Testament of Judah
4.1
142
21.1-2
142
Testament ofLevi
5.2
135
7
124, 139
7.2
141
8.1
8.4
8.5-6
8.8-9
8.10
8.12
9.3-9
9.3
9.5-6
9.11
161
161
161
161
162
161
161
162
161
162
IQSa
1.27-2.1
2.2-3
2.11-17
162
162
162
IQSb
3.22
162
IQpHab
7.4
8.9-10
169
169
4Q163
3-4
5.5
267
270
267
4Q167
2
270
4-6.1
2.18
267
270
270
4Q266
3
4.6-7
270
270
161
161
161
161
161
162
161
161
161
4Q267
3.4.6-7
258
4QDeut"
5.5
91
4QLevc
5.12
91
1QS
1-2
2.18-22
5
5.2
5.6
5.7-10
5.9
5.21
6.8
4QpNah
frag. 3-4
col. 3.7
136
4QpaleoExod'n
22.26
91
31.13
91
11QT
19-20
24.1-16
4Q171
Qumran
1QM
3.14
5.1
313
270
270
CD
4.1 159
5.2-5
7.11-12
7.18
12.23
271
270
258
162
Baraita
Masseket Kutim
1
110
2
111
5
112
6
105, 113
11
112
12
107
13
110
15
109
16
109, 111
109
20
21
109
22
110, 111
23
110, 111,
232
111
2317
24
108
25
109
27
105, 114,
232
28
107, 115
Other Rabbinic Writings
Philo
Omn. Prob. Lib.
75-91
269
314
Spec. Leg.
1.156
156
Vit. Cont.
1-90
1
28-31
75-80
269
269
269
269
88
269
Christian Authors
Eusebius
Hist. Eccl.
3.1-9
185
185
3.5
3.7
185
185
7.3-8.9
Praep. Ev.
7.1-20
8.6.1-9
9.39.1-5
11.1-18
1.56
2.15
120
120
Papyri
Aramaic Papyri
124
173
C. Tryph.
120
120
Elephantine papyri
21
172, 174,
176, 283
30
43
31-33
172
31
32, 172,
173, 175
32
172
33
173
Classical Authors
Curtius Rufus
4.8
233
4.9-11
233
Diodorus Siculus
17.49-51
176
Bibliotheca Historica
34-35
179
Eupolemus
Frg. 4
269
269
253
269
138
Irenaeus
Haeresis
1.23
120
Justin
Apol.
1.25
120
Strabo
Geographica
16
16.2.2
16.2.22
16.2.34-46
17
17.1.19.22
17.1.19.40
17.1.27-30
Tacitus
Annales
12.54
Samaria papyri
5
43
8
43
14
43
253
pap. P. Graec. Vindob.

29810
191
180
181
220, 229
180
180
229
229
229
Others
Assyrian Annals
11-17
15
20-23
15
67
15
94
15
95
15
Kitab al-Tarikh
18
258
224
5am. Hymn 16
lines 81-85
95
INDEX OF AUTHORS
Abel, R. 220
Ackroyd, P.R. 34,51
Adams, A.W. 78
Adler, E.N. 103, 128
Ahlstrom, G.W. 176, 178, 201, 235
Albright, W.F. 36, 37, 79, 118, 123
Allegro, J.M. 136
Alon, G. 210
Alt, A. 30-32,46
Altheim, F. 23
Anderson, R.T. 84
Asad Hadanfi, A.-S. ben 103
Attridge, H.W. 183-86, 189-91
Avigad, N. 233
Baillet,M. 98
Baneth, E. 104
Barstad, H. 15
Bartlett, J.R. 159
Ben-Hayyim, Z. 38,91,96-98
Berger, J. 7
Bickerman, E.J. 51,60,65,210,219,
220, 234
Bilde, P. 184-86, 188-91
Black, M. 254
Blenkinsopp, J. 176,283
Blum,E. 53
Boccacini, G. 54
Bold, R. 95
Bolin, T.M. 177
Bowman, J. 60, 99, 123
Box, G.H. 126, 127
Brenton, L.C.L. 152
Bruce, P.P. 78
Campbell, E.F. 233
Castro, P. 83
Charles, R.H. 74, 163

Charlesworth, J.H. 136,160
Cody, A. 159
Coggins, R.J. 38, 44, 48-51, 60, 119, 121,
126, 129, 245, 255, 262
Cohen, M. 91
Cohen, S.J.D. 188, 189
Collins, J.J. 138, 139
Cooke, G.A. 157
Cowley, A.E. 17, 34, 35, 97, 173
Crane, O.T. 100
Cross, P.M., Jr 37, 38, 42-45, 78, 79, 81
Crown, A.D. 22, 52-60, 62, 76, 82, 84,
86,87,94,97, 100, 101, 103, 116,
227, 234, 240
Cryer, F.H. 82, 160
Danby, H. 104
Davies, P.R. 176,268
Davis, E. 73
Delcor, M. 157,219
Dexinger, F. 55, 58
Di Leila, A.A., 74, 127
Dimant, D. 83
Doudna, G. 268
Edelman, D.V. 177, 178
Egger,R. 210,218-20,225
Eisfeldt, O. 78
Eshel, E. 92
Eskenazi, T.C. 42, 127
Path, A. 94,98, 101-103, 128
Feldman,L.H. 53, 184, 189
Finkelstein, L. 136
Fohrer,G. 53,254
Fokkelmann, J.P. 53
316
Possum, J. 116
Frankel, Z. 78
Freed, E.D. 122, 123, 125
Freedman, D.N. 37,54
Freudenthal, J. 138
Fuks, A. 220
Gall, A.F. von 84, 88
Galling, K. 173
Garbini, G. 273,274,276
Gaster, M. 22-30, 37, 61, 83, 95, 97, 100102, 240, 246
Geffcken,J. 230
Geiger, A. 78
Gesenius, W. 77,78,87,217
Ginsberg, H.L. 173
Giron Blanc, L.F. 84,85
Glaue, P. 85
Golb, N. 82
Goldenberg, R. 113, 189
Grabbe, L. 15, 16, 54, 164, 167, 187, 188,
201
Grayson, A.K. 194
Greenfield, J.C. 37
Groh, D. 55
Gunn, D.M. 53
Halkin, A.S. 95
Halligan, J.M. 176
Hanson, P.D. 160
Hanson, R.S. 82
Harun, J. ben 99
Hata, G. 184
Hayes, J.H. 43,53
Hempel, J. 84
Hengel,M. 166, 176,210,230
Hershon, P.I. 221
Hertz, J.H. 109
Holscher, G. 16, 33, 34, 36
Hottinger, J.H. 101
Hvidberg,F. 83
Irvin, D. 278
Ismael, J. ben 99
Jastrow,M. 217,218
Jellinek, A. 73
Jeremias, J. 113
Juynboll, T.G.J. 100

Kahle, P. 78, 79, 83, 86, 100
Kalimi, I. 253
Kellermann, U. 42
Kennedy, J. 100
Kenyon, F.G. 78
Kindler, A. 82
Kippenberg, H.G. 33, 46-48, 85, 98, 143,
169, 173,210,219
Klein, R.W. 43
Kohn, S. 78
Kohut, G.A. 128
Kraft, R. A. 51
Kuenen, A. 131
Kutscher, E.Y. 81
Landau, Y.H. 65,188
Lebram, J.H.C. 38
Lemaire, A. 240
Lemche,N.P. 7,53,220
Levy, T. 217
Lichtenstein, H. 128, 130
Lifshitz, B. 85
Lightfoots, J. 121
Lincke, K. 13
Liver, J. 162, 169
Loewenstamm, A. 86, 96
Lowy, S. 102
Macdonald, J. 23, 28, 61, 86, 96-99, 101,
123, 239, 240, 242, 246, 255, 258
Macuch, R. 91
Magen, I. 233-35,262
Mann,C.S. 118, 123
Marcus, R. 50, 128,201,223
Martinez, F.G. 271
Matthews, K.A. 54
Mayer, L.A. 52
Mayes, A.D.H. 53
Mazar, B. 42
McBride, S.D. 160
McLean, M.D. 81
Meeks, W.A. 123
Mendels, D. 54, 59, 60, 277
Mikolasek, A. 23
Miller, J.M. 43, 53, 160
Moehring, H.R. 188
Index of Authors
Montgomery, J.A. 11, 14-23, 25, 30, 46,
48,52,60, 102, 104-107, 111, 112,
114, 116, 120, 121,124,125,141,
176,210
Moore, G.F. 16, 35, 128, 132
Morgenstern, J. 42
Morinus, J. 76, 101
Mowinckel, S. 43
Mulder, M.J. 95
Munck, J. 118
Neubauer, A. 99
Nickelsburg, G.W.E. 51
Niehr, H. 175, 178
Nodet, E. 7, 23, 58, 61-72, 75, 130, 131,
159,163,164,180,227
Noja, S. 52,85
Noth, M. 34,44
Nutt, J.W. 78, 102, 104
Oded, B. 15
Oesterley, W.O.E. 126, 127
Otzen, B. 240
Payne, J.B. 77
Pfeiffer, R. 34,78
Philips, A. 142
Phinehas, T. ben 98
Pritchard, J.B. 15
Pummer, R. 37, 47, 82, 85, 91, 98, 210,
219,234,235
Purvis, J.D. 37, 47, 51, 55, 59, 82, 87, 98,
127-29, 253
Qimron, E. 169
Rahlfs, A. 85
Rajak,T. 184, 188, 189
Ramsey, G.W. 53, 159
Redford, D.B. 232
Reicke, B. 50
Rendtorff, R. 53
Rengstorf, K.H. 208,216
Roberts, B.J. 38,78
Robertson, E. 84
Rothschild, J.P. 76
Rowley, H.H. 16, 33-36, 42, 43, 72
Ruetschi, R. 16
317
Sadaqa, A. 84
Sadaqa, R. 84
Safrai, S. 162, 174
Sanders, E.P. 55, 113
Sanderson, I.E. 54, 81
Sassoon, D.S. 84
Sayce, A.H. 16
Scalinger, J.J. 76, 100, 101
Schecter, S. 160
Schencke, H.M. 121
Schiby, J. 85
Schiffman, L.H. 83,268
Schmid, H.H. 53
Schiirer, E. 14, 54, 113, 128, 131, 138,
159, 167, 191,219,228,229,231
Seligsohn, M. 103
Sellin, E. 17
Shehadeh, H. 86
Simon, M. 118
Skehan, P. 81
Skehan, P.W. 74
Smallwood, E.M. 183, 190
Smend, R. 67, 127
Smith, M. 38-42,45,230
Soggin, J.A. 53
Spiro, A. 123
Stenhouse, P. 55, 94, 97, 100-102, 239,
258, 260, 262
Stern, E. 233
Stern, M. 162, 165, 171, 174, 179, 182
Stiehl, R. 23
Stinespring, W.F. 33
Stone, M. 184
Strack, H.L. 125, 163
Strange, J. 240
Tal,A. 86,96,97
Talmon, S. 79, 80, 92, 160
Tcherikover, V. 129, 219, 220, 230
Thackeray, H.StJ. 183,189,191
Thompson, T.L. 7, 15, 53, 82, 160, 178,
252, 279
Tigay,J.H. 172
Toorn, K. van der 172, 178, 250
Torrey, C.C. 33
Tov, E. 7,80-83, 85,87-93
Ulrich, E. 83,93
318
Unnik, W.C. van 189

VanSeters, J. 53
Vermes, G. 54, 128, 189
Vigouroux, F. 16
Vilmar.E. 102
Vorlander.H. 53
Wacholder, B.Z. 160
Waltke.B. 41,77, 84
Walton, B. 77
Warrington, J. 50
Wedel,G. 103
Weiser, A. 78
Weiss, R. 93
Wellhausen, J. 15,20,157
Whiston, W. 186, 191, 214, 215
Whybray, N. 53
Widengreen, G. 43
Williamson, H.G.M. 43
Willrich, H. 16
Wright, G.E. 49,233
Wiirthwein, E. 78
Yahuda, S. 100
Yellin, D. 100
Ypsilon, C.D.E. 119
Zeitlin, S. 128, 129, 210
Zimmerli, W. 157

Ingrid Hjelm The Samaritans and Early Judaism A Literary Analysis JSOT Supplement Series 2000 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ingrid Hjelm The Samaritans and Early Judaism A Literary Analysis JSOT Supplement Series 2000 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

COPENHAGEN INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR

Sheffield Academic Press

This page intentionally left blank

The Samaritans and

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

Copyright 2000 Sheffield Academic Press

Typeset by Sheffield Academic Press

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

THE TWO-EPISODE PARADIGM:

The Samaritans and Early Judaism

SAMARITANS IN JEWISH, CHRISTIAN AND HELLENISTIC

SAMARITANS IN THE WRITINGS OF JOSEPHUS

FROM LITERARY TO HISTORICAL REALITY

F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker

The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen

The Samaritans and Early Judaism

THE TWO-EPISODE PARADIGM: SAMARITAN RESEARCH

The Samaritans and Early Judaism

of Montgomery's judgment of Samaritanism's dependency on Judaism

5. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 47.

1. The Two-Episode Paradigm

The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Horonite Sanballat 'without doubt belonging to the heathen colonisators

1. The Two-Episode Paradigm

The Samaritans and Early Judaism

1. The Two-Episode Paradigm

followed by the conquest of Samaria in 107 BCE by the sons of John

The Samaritans and Early Judaism

pre-exilic remnant of 'old Israelite blood' who had developed into a

1. The Two-Episode Paradigm

The Samaritans and Early Judaism

1. The Two-Episode Paradigm

weight to the pro-Judaic perspective underlying Montgomery's work.

The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Disagreements in the priestly families between the older and younger

1. The Two-Episode Paradigm

their leader Zerubbabel to participate in the rebuilding. Since it was not

The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Jehoshua that Gerizim/Shechem was the place chosen by God), Gaster

1. The Two-Episode Paradigm

According to Samaritan tradition, Ezra not only transcribed the text, he

The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Jeremiah 30-31, which seem more appropriate to his argument about

1. The Two-Episode Paradigm

case was for Gaster quite as impossible. Agreements in interpretation of

The Samaritans and Early Judaism

1. The Two-Episode Paradigm

The Samaritans and Early Judaism

1. The Two-Episode Paradigm

The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Polyhistor, 'who normally is considered to be reliable'.65 Concluding

1. The Two-Episode Paradigm

68. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, p. xvii.

The Samaritans and Early Judaism

1. The Two-Episode Paradigm

political circumstances, the reform of Ezra, and so on, W.F. Albright

The Samaritans and Early Judaism

however, operated within the two-episode paradigm. His studies on the

1. The Two-Episode Paradigm

This conclusion Morton Smith based on an assertion of the existence

The Samaritans and Early Judaism